The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 11/27/2018 i • 'I City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD., TIGARD CITY COUNCIL&LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: November 27,2018-6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less.Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.Please call 503-718-2419, (voice) or 503-684-2772 (MD-Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request,the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible.Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-718-2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (1'DD-Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: htto://www.tieard-or.eov/city hall/council meetine.oho CABLE VIEWERS:The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m.The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. Senior Living and Care Definitions Levels of Care: Independent Living: Continuing Care: Level 0: Fully Independent Generally any housing Continuing Care Retirement Level 1: Applicant residents arrangement designed exclusively Facilities combine all levels of care who need "assistance" with for seniors, aged 55 and over. — Independent Living (ILF), routine care and must be in Housing varies from apartment or Residential Care (RCF), Assisted stable medical condition. boarding house style living to Living (ALF), and usually Memory Level 2: Applicant residents freestanding homes. The housing Care (MCC) and/or Skilled Nursing who need "assistance" and who is friendlier to older adults, more Care (SNF) in a single setting. may be "dependent" in up to 3 compact, with easier navigation, Applicant residents enter at their areas of their care needs. and assistance in yard point of current need with the Level 3: Operated by a nurse maintenance if there is a yard. understanding that they will move or caregiver with more than Additional support services can be toward greater levels of care being 3-years of experience providing employed. Other commonly used provided as needed. This care to applicant residents who terms: retirement communities, additional care can be provided "by are "dependent" in four or more retirement homes, senior housing, them" (privately/independently areas of their care needs. May senior apartments, Independent paid), or "for them" (Medicaid or need to be "secured" for safety. Living Facilities (ILF's), etc. Insurance paid). Assisted Living Residential Care Facility: Memory Care: Facilities: Usually defined as a private or A Memory Care Community (MCC) They provide apartments for semi-private room with on-duty is an additional OHS endorsement individuals who do not need staff 24-hours/day. Services to an RCF or ALF Licensed Facility. 24-hour supervision but may generally provided are medication While limited by DHS to only the need support with activities of management, group or individual ground floor, its purpose is to daily living. Facilities are meal preparation, housekeeping, provide services for people who licensed to provide room and laundry and linen services, and can no longer live independently or board, with staff on duty 24- assistance with errands, plus within standard RCF or ALF hours/day, organized activities, assistance with eating, dressing, options due to severe Alzheimer's intermittent nursing services, bathing, grooming, toileting, Disease or other debilitating medication management, plus transferring, and mobility. The Memory Care issue which makes assistance with dressing and facility may be secured 24- them a wanderer, eloper, or flight personal hygiene. A licensed hours/day to accommodate risk. They can be any "Level of nurse is available. Most residents who are at risk of Care" and may include multiple provide apartment kitchens wandering, and those vulnerable "Complex Care" needs. Residents and/or group meal preparation to wandering criminals. Payment are typically detained in a 24/7 fully options, linen service, and can be by Private Pay, Medicaid, staffed and "secured" space as general housekeeping needs. or Insurance. required by DHS Agencies. Rehabilitation Care: Adult Day Care: Nursing Facilities: Short or Medium-Term This is a facility-based (i.e. out-of- A Nursing Facility provides Transitional Care in a normal-residence) program 24-hour nursing care and a wide residential living, co-housing designed to provide socialization, range of personal care. Some style and social atmosphere. rehabilitation, personal care, and nursing facilities may provide Usually accompanied 24/7 by nutrition services to impaired "skilled" care after an injury or semi-skilled "Nurse Practioners" adults and seniors. They are also hospital stay. Services may and caregivers. Skilled Nursing established, many times, to offer include rehabilitation, such as is available during daytime respite to full-time caregivers who physical, occupational, speech, and hours and "on-call" when need a short break from their care respiratory therapies. Medicare needed during other hours. giving responsibilities. Usually pays for skilled nursing facility care Meal preparation, linen service they are accompanied by specific for a limited period of time when and housekeeping are included. limitations and fees. you meet certain conditions. e> u v`' �„ - f ` r ,.:1,'"0 c',-'";',f•-'� fill' ... - '.`,',., ' ', .,.' .'", ,', '-.:'' _ * eller ' -,„...,,,- •-- 0 -, :,-„,-- . ..,i,..,,„.„,„...,„, , ••.-..-,,-- --:11,-. . . / g ,, "op.,,,-• - ' a _ �i . . tet s.. --....:: , ,., ...,,,..,,:‘,..,;...,..,:,-,,..,:.:,_:,_,..-...•-•.:,.-.....-,:,..-_,•,,,,---_,--,,,,..•-.1--,---,-----,--•-•-,'-------,------;•---:•''-:-: Y " :- ' h if 1' a�zheinier'SQS association + _ THE BRAINS BEHIND SAVING YOURS yx Millions of Americans have Alzheimer's or other Prevalence of Alzheimer's and Other Dementias dementias.As the size and proportion of the U.S. in the United States population age 65 and older continue to increase, the number of Americans with Alzheimer's or other An estimated 5.7 million Americans of all ages are living dementias will grow.This number will escalate rapidly with Alzheimer's dementia in 2018.This number includes in coming years,as the population of Americans age an estimated 5.5 million people age 65 and olderAi 3O and 65 and older is projected to grow from 53 million in approximately 200,000 individuals under age 65 who have younger-onset Alzheimer's,though there is greater 2018 to 88 million by 2050.'444'5 The baby boom generation has already begun to reach age 65 am-! uncertainty about the younger-onset estimate."' beyond.'the age range of greatest risk of Alzhem. >; • One in 10 people(10 percent)age 65 and older has in fact,the oldest members of the baby boom Alzheimer's dementia.A2.3o.145 generation turned age 72 in 2018. • The percentage of people with Alzheimer's dementia increases with age:3 percent of people age 65-74, This section reports on the number and proportion of people with Alzheimer's dementia to describe the 17 percent of people age 75-84.and 32 percent of magnitude of the burden of Alzheimer's on the Peop a age 85 and older have Alzheimer's dementia.30 • Of people who have Alzheimer's dementia.81 percent community and health care system.The prevalence 1).A330 of Alzheimer's dementia refers to the number and are age 75 or older(Figure proportion of people in a population who have The estimated number of people age 65 and older with Alzheimer's dementia at a given point in time.Incidence Alzheimer's dementia comes from a study using the latest refers to the number of new cases per year.Estimates data from the 2010 U.S.Census and the Chicago Health from selected studies on the number and proportion and Aging Project(CHAP),a population-based study of of people with Alzheimer's or other dementias vary chronic health conditions of older people.3° depending on how each study was conducted.Data from several studies are used in this section. National estimates of the prevalence of all dementias are not available from CHAP,but they are available from other population-based studies including the Aging, Demographics,and Memory Study(ADAMS).a nationally representative sample of older adults.A4.148-149 Based on • estimates from ADAMS.14 percent of people age 71 and older in the United States have dementia.148 Prevalence studies such as CHAP and ADAMS are designed so that everyone in the study is tested for dementia. I FIGURE 1 Ages of People with Alzheimer's Dementia in the United States,2018 85+years,37% •75-84 years,44% 11101 65-74 years,16% <65 years,4% Created from data from Hebert et alA3.3o Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding. Prevalence 17 FIGURE 4 Projected Number of People Age 65 and Older(Total and by Age) in the U.S.Population with Alzheimer's Dementia,2010 to 2050 Millions of people Ages 65-74 Ages 75-84 • Ages 85+ with Alzheimer's 13.8 14 11.6 12 10 8.4 5.8 6 4.7 4 2 c 0 Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Created from data from Hebert et a1.A11.3° Growth of the Oldest-Old Population The number of Americans surviving into their 80s,90s and beyond is expected to grow dramatically due to medical advances,as well as social and environmental conditions.229 Longer life expectancies and aging baby boomers will lead to an increase in the number and percentage of Americans who will be 85 and older,the oldest-old.Between 2012 and 2050.the oldest-old are expected to comprise an increasing proportion of the U.S.population age 65 and older—from 14 percent in 2012 to 22 percent in 2050.229 This will result in an additional 12 million oldest-old people—individuals at the highest risk for developing Alzheimer's dementia229 • In 2018,about 2.1 million people who have Alzheimer's dementia are age 85 or older,accounting for 37 percent of all people with Alzheimer's dementia 3° • When the first wave of baby boomers reaches age 85 (in 2031),it is projected that more than 3 million people age 85 and older will have Alzheimer's dementia.3O • By 2050,7 million people age 85 and older are projected to have Alzheimer's dementia,accounting for half(51 percent)of all people 65 and older with Alzheimer's dementia.3O Prevalence 23 FIGURE 2 Projected Increases Between 2018 and 2025 in Alzheimer's Dementia Prevalence by State 13.6%-20.2% 20.3%-26.8% ■ 26.9%-33.5% II 33.6%-40.1% • 40.2%-46.7% se WA MT !Q ./ V / on M! ` l o ,' '-'f:,'':),',;', .,.., ...'-',.,,, ' --------,----,,:\ r.-- ! IA E i^ !Qzy nCA�\ - K6 MO 111114rity Aligillic ' ` � O •O AR a ) . . SC T1 t " GA81®°b '' `.# MS TX LA r _..,_( 411, Change from 2018 to 2025 for Washington.D.C.:1.1% Created from data provided to the Alzheimer's Association by Weuve et aLA7209 Researchers are now questioning whether the risk It is unknown why the APOE gene could convey different of Alzheimer's could actually be higher for women at risk for women,but some evidence suggests that it may any given age due to biological or genetic variations be due to an interaction between the APOE-e4 genotype or differences in life experiences.176 A number of and the sex hormone estrogen.18o-181 Finally,because low studies have shown that the APOE-e4 genotype education is a risk factor for dementia,88-89.95.1743-82-183 (see the Overview.page 11).the best known genetic it is possible that lower educational attainment in women risk factor for Alzheimer's dementia,may have a stronger than in men born in the first half of the 20th century association with Alzheimer's dementia in women than could account for a higher risk of Alzheimer's and other in men.177-178 However,a recent meta-analysis,which dementias in women.184 combined data from a number of independent studies. found no difference between men and women in the Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Prevalence of association between APOE genotype and Alzheimer's Alzheimer's and Other Dementias dementia except for a slightly elevated risk for women Although there are more non-Hispanic whites living with the APOE-e3/e4 genotype compared with men with Alzheimer's and other dementias than any other with the same genotype between ages 65 and 75.179 racial or ethnic group in the United States,older African- 20 Alzheimer's Association.2018 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures.Alzheimers Dement 2018:14(3):367-429. 'TABLE 4 Projections of Total Numbers of Americans Age 65 and Older with Alzheimer's Dementia by State Projected Number with Percentage Projected Number with Percentage Alzheimer's(in thousands) Increase Alzheimer's(in thousands) Increase State 2018 2025 2018-2025 State 2018 2025 2018-2025 Alabama 92 110 19.6 Montana 20 27 35.0 Alaska 7.5 11 46.7 Nebraska 34 40 17.6 Arizona 140 200 42.9 Nevada 45 64 42.2 Arkansas 56 67 19.6 New Hampshire 24 32 33.3 California 650 840 29.2 New Jersey 180 210 16.7 Colorado 71 92 29.6 New Mexico 39 53 35.9 Connecticut 77 91 18.2 New York 400 460 15.0 Delaware 18 23 27.8 North Carolina 170 210 23.5 District of Columbia 8.9 9 1.1 North Dakota 14 16 14.3 Florida 540 720 33.3 Ohio 220 250 13.6 Georgia 140 190 35.7 Oklahoma 64 76 18.8 Hawaii 28 35 25.0 Oregon 65 84 29.2 Idaho 25 33 32.0 Pennsylvania 280 320 14.3 Illinois 220 260 18.2 Rhode Island 23 27 17.4 Indiana 110 130 18.2 South Carolina 89 120 34.8 Iowa 64 73 14.1 South Dakota 17 20 17.6 Kansas 53 62 17.0 Tennessee 120 140 16.7 Kentucky 71 86 21.1 Texas 380 490 28.9 Louisiana 87 110 26.4 Utah 31 42 35.5 Maine 28 35 25.0 Vermont 13 17 30.8 Maryland 110 130 18.2 Virginia 140 190 35.7 Massachusetts 130 150 15.4 Washington 110 140 27.3 Michigan 180 220 22.2 West Virginia 38 44 15.8 Minnesota 94 120 27.7 Wisconsin 110 130 18.2 Mississippi 54 65 20.4 Wyoming 9.7 13 34.0 Missouri 110 130 18.2 Created from data provided to the Alzheimer's Association by Weuve et al."7209 Prevalence 19 ur ef-'4 '4' 0 Baby Boomer 'Retirement' Facts The Boomer Market • 76.4 million baby boomers • Leading-edge boomers turn 62 in 2008 • Another babyboomer turns 60 every eight seconds • In 2006,-35 million Americans were 65+ • By 2030, 70 million Americans will be 65+, and will comprise 20-25% of the US population Boomer Finances • Average annual household earnings of boomers = $53,000 • Average boomer predicted to retire with $500,000-$1,000,000 in assets • Mature consumers possess $7 trillion in wealth — 70% of the total wealth in the United States • 66% of all US stockholders and 60% of annuity owners are boomers • 66% of boomers are not confident in selecting a mutual fund • Retirement savings for boomers dropped from 58% in 2001 to 41% in 2002 • 23% of retirees see finances as their biggest challenge • By 2040, Social Security benefits will need to be reduced by 37% if no changes are made to the system Employment After Retirement • 83% of baby boomers intend to keep working after retirement • By 2010, 33% of labor force will be 'mature' workers (age 45+) • In 2004, only 5% of retiree income came from employment • 56% of working 'retirees' want to work in a new profession • 44% of retirees worked for pay at some point after retirement • 89% returned to work to stay active, not because of financial need • 14% of those currently working say they'll never retire • 28% of current working retirees will continue working as long as their health permits • Turbulent transition often accompanies retirees who leave work • By 2010, it's estimated that US corporations will experience a 10 million shortage in talent (76.4 million boomers replaced by 66.4 million replacement workers) • 1990's saw a 14% decrease in younger workers due to the lower birth rate • Workforce has increased only 1.5-2.0% over the past 20 years • 45% of US companies have special positions for mature workers • 50% of US companies are willing to negotiate special arrangements for older workers WhatsNextfnYourLife.com Baby Boomer'Retirement' Facts 1 of 2 Expectations for Life after Retirement • Only 22 % of those 55+ see retirement as a 'winding down' or an extended vacation • Those surveyed shortly before retirement give their reason for retirement as 'to do other things' • 67% of boomers surveyed say their happiness and satisfaction in retirement will come from family, friends, and fitness • 39% of retirees find 'relations with family and friends' is most important to them compared to 19% reporting 'physical health' and 8% 'personal finances' as being most important to them • Most powerful predictor of life satisfaction after retirement was extent of person's social network, not health or wealth _• Retirees who are socially, economically and civically engaged will live longer • Better educated and more affluent boomers are inclined to view retirement as a time to find new challenges • When 50-75 year-olds were surveyed, 70% saw retirement as a time to stay active and 'begin a new chapter'while 28% saw it as a time to take it easy • Greater sense of mastery (ability to influence events), led to greater productivity in aging • First two years after leaving a job is typically a period of marital strife s. Boomer Life Expectancy • Average baby boomer will live to be 83 • Today, a 65-year-old man has one in four chances to live to 92 • 65-year-old woman has one in four chances to live to 94 • Married couples that are 65, have one in four chance of at least one spouse living to 97 • Boomers will have 30+ years of retirement • When Social Security was established in 1935, retirement age was established to be 65 but life expectancy was only 61 Boomer Relocation • 59% of baby boomers plan to relocate • 21% of the boomers plan to relocate to Florida • 18% plan to relocate to Arizona • 26 % plan to stay in their current home immediately after retirement, and then move • 24% plan to move to their new location prior to retirement • 75 % of boomers want to live in communities offering age diversity Sources: 1. Bureau of Labor Statistics 10. HSBC survey 2. Corporate Executive Board 11. University of Michigan study 3. Social Security Administration 12. Hart study 4. Merrill Lynch survey 13. MacArthur Foundation study 5. Hudson Institute 14. Civic Ventures study 6. Cornell Retirement and Well-Being study 15. Cornell University Employment and Family 7. US Department of Census Careers Institute 8. Federal Reserve Board 16. Mercer Study 9. Del Webb survey 17. AARP Life Stage Survey WhatsNextlnYourLife.com Baby Boomer`Retirement' Facts 2 of 2 SIX COMPELLING REASONS WHY FINANCING THE VENUS HEIGHTS PROJECT IS A WISE INVESTMENT CHOICE ! 2015 ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE FACTS AND FIGURES ' (;;S1; ''',, . 1%I SENIORS dies with Alzheimer's or 3 another dementia. - ,. d kis ... , .,..., , _...._ ,,,,, ..._ ,.. . . ,. ., Alzheimer's It's the only cause of death disease is the 6TH LEADING in the top 10 in America that CAUSE OF DEATH ALMOST TWO THIRDS CANNOT BE PREVENTED, IN THE UNITED of Americans with Alzheimer's CURED OR SLOWED. STATES. disease are women. EVERY 67 SECONDS so neone in the United States aevelops the disease 0 Only More than 0 of people with of people with the SSS ALZHEIMER'S four most common disease or their types of CANCER caregivers report have been BEING TOLD OF TOLD OF THEIR By 2050, these costs THEIR DIAGNOSIS. DIAGNOSIS. could rise as high as $1.1 TRILLION. in 2015, Alzheimer's and other dementias will cost the nation$226 BILLION. .mss alzheimer's 95 association* THE BRAINS BEHIND SAVINGYOURS'' Current SW Portland Market Demographic Supply & Demand Study Current 3rd Party Market Analysis Supply& Demand Study Excerpt: (Entire 104-page study available) (The bewo,* a c €eutheiii.a4 i €Es• sst; i tc ca,e ;: iv 'ZOiRoot' 'sveop esti site next page :1 4) Map Facility Name ALF RCF MCC Current Status I.D. Occup. Occup. Occup. 1 Elite Care at Fanno Creek 24 Full+Waiting List 2a Farmington Square (Tualatin)—SNF 18 Full+Waiting List 2b Farmington Square (Tualatin) -->--> 46 Full+Waiting List 3 Elderly Care Home 15 Full 4 Cedar Crest Alzheimer Care --> --> 56 Full+Waiting List 5 Emeritus at Oswego Springs-Brookdale 82 Full-1 6a The Springs at Carman Oaks 17 Full-1 6b Footsteps at Carman Oaks -->--> 16 Full+Waiting List 7a Emeritus at River Valley- Brookdale 90 Full+Waiting List 7b Emeritus at River Valley- Brookdale -->--> 24 Full+Waiting List 8 Woodland Heights 48 Full-1 9 Greenridge Estates at Mountain Park 79 Full-4 10 Markham House Retirement Community 63 Full+Waiting List 11 Oswego Place 72 Full-2 12a Avamere at Sherwood 55 Full+Waiting List 12b Avamere at Sherwood -->--> 24 Full+Waiting List 13 The Pearl at Kruse Way/Oswego Grove-Avamere -->--> 31 Full+Waiting List 14 The Stafford -Avamere 16 Full+Waiting List 15a Marquis Care at Autumn Hills 39 Full+Waiting List 15b Marquis Care at Autumn Hills - Friendship House --> --> 22 Full-2 16 Marquis Care at Wilsonville 50 Full-5 (SNF) 17 Willamette View Memory Care Community 22 Full 18 Avamere Rehabilitation of King City—SNF/No MCC 88 Full-2 (No MCC) 19 Legacy Hopewell House—Transitional ($865/d) 11 Full-8 (Very Costly) 20 I Bonaventure of Tigard 59 I Full-1 20 Bonaventure of Tigard Memory Care I , --> --> I 23 ( Full-1 C-4b Venus Heights Residential Care(2nd&3rd Floors) 45-75 Now Available! C-4b Venus Heights Secured Memory Care Community --> --> 20- 45 Now Available! Basically Totals (prior to Venus Heights) 559 267 264 "Na vacancy" Note: This is not an offer to buy or sell securities, and risk has been mitigated wherever possible. Copyright 2018 by Robert Ruedy & Progressive Development, LLC,All Rights Reserved Current SW Portland Market Demographic Supply & Demand Study asrsr es•<ss # xy+.t#" t__` 4 t1`2T:[t • orridor 1 ;, ... 5 ,01 __,:.‘.Ptf'and' r Mill1 5 . - 1 9 ......s,. ?.32-P 4 , 4 Sunset , (:1 Aloha `i . WOON t ; of ..,. r P I t�F,, '' Beaverton T. —s "rj Raleigh , , _ a , Y 1D a$" !ie3' FEl.lsdate tD - tel'. ,. �6.'vc,,. y i 1 14tik ,:. / nom'°. , , .0 ... - -- '(1 );,Atit R 'I rw.' e + i Washington �y sl F - 1 Square est a e ;rtlan art ,...i. • a`"8 :„:„.. a k d, , , ..„..., r .i MurraytSchotis nar$ S��„,,,.,' 3 e : I 1 ' ' ,4,t.---------- os,..-„ go 0 y vc-nus t- ; GLak . z _ --^,,Jr-----C. "s.''''',,,, F1 t11 . Tualatin/it s.' y_ . che,wood .. .#,r t r , ....4.4 T a _. ,. 9 , it C - . w - .._..teFr'. __ , amu ` C r ° ,-. Southwest Corridor Existing Conditions 2 / ,,a Ccllrctton T.aiis Light;a.. Comm,.r {rnt:ra{:Ey Main iSreees ,ea �— 8lur Ljnr •• H:hwa _ U:6an Growth g fl i,ghr Axl �� S'.,eettar ..–. ttoundary M+a Pro lnr Aegronr Center Comdol, 3 3e1 '., I..X riot d,„q, t".""h r ;.-..... ®''. lindeitonstrucithe town Centel b t 4rsehah ,A al �, ..a AaA sa MVO,2.2oa1 16 The "Venus Heights// Development Local Market Study Demographics Map Copyright 2014 by Progressive Development LLC,All Rights Reserved SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR /- a_?. go/g* Carol Krager (DAT . OF MF.F.TING' From: MB <mbrewin72@wesleyan.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:28 PM To: John Cook; #Councilmail Subject: Zoning changes should NOT be made to allow cottage clusters, courtyard units, or quads in R3.5, R4.5, and R7. And the Parking Credit is FAULTY. Importance: High Note for City Recorder: Please include this addendum to my already submitted public testimony for the public hearing tonight, Nov. 27. 2018 (RE zoning code changes to Chapter 18). I will try and attend the hearing, and council should have my original letter and this one accessible on their screens. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Brewin Subject: 1. Zoning changes should NOT be made to allow cottage clusters, courtyard units, or quads in R3.5, R4.5, and R7. This will harm established residential neighborhoods— property values, quality of life, street parking congestion, environment, and negatively impact local resources. 2. And the proposed Parking Credit is flawed and should be rejected, as written. Dear Mayor and City Councilors: 1. On page 179 (of 933), the proposed changes to Chapter 18 are very significant, and could seriously harm the nature and quality of longstanding residential neighborhoods, negatively impacting street parking, lowering property values, and a host of environmental impact concerns. Current Code prohibits such housing in R3.5, R4.5, and R7. Zoning changes should NOT be made to residential zones R3.5, R4.5, and R7, which would change the longstanding single family detached home nature of these residential neighborhoods. Cottage Clusters should NOT be allowed in R3.5, R4.5, and R7 Courtyard Units should NOT be allowed in R3.5, R4.5, and R7 Quad Units should NOT be allowed in R3.5, R 4.5, and R7 Increasing density in pre-existing already developed residential zoned neighborhoods is a Mistake! Environmentally: Increasing Density will lead to the following: • Parking Congestion • Strain limited public potable Water Resources • Strain public schools,thereby increasing Taxes to support the schools • Remove tree canopy 1 • Create more carbon emissions • Create more Air Pollution • Create more Noise Pollution 2. The proposed Parking Credit should be REJECTED. It is faulty. How could someone accurately calculate whether a unit is < 2500 feet from transit? As the crow flies? That would be ridiculous. Or, by using the public streets? Example: On paper, my house is approx. 2500 ft [or 1/2 mile] from a bus stop (in a straight line), but about 3/4 mile+ to actually walk there, using the public sidewalk and streets! This parking waiver should therefore clearly be REJECTed. It's nebulous and subjective, and Not easily accurately calculated. Thank you for your attention to these Zoning, residential, property equity, and environmental concerns. Sincerely, Michael Brewin SW Morgen Ct, Tigard P.S. Please also NOTE: Regarding ADU abuses, it is easily verified (via internet) that numerous people in Tigard are already running prohibited nightly lodging rentals from their homes or ADUs. This problem will seriously increase with weakened zoning changes. If you go to vrbo.com (vacation rental by owner) and other lodging websites and type in "Tigard, OR", there are dozens of examples of bnb's and overnight lodging in Tigard being conducted from residential homes—all illegally. • 1 ADU allowed per residential property • Owner occupancy requirement • Limit of 2 occupants per ADU • No Parking Waiver; must provide 1 additional parking space for ADU Please NOTE: 1) Every City in our area has a stated limit of 1 (ONE) ADU per single family detached residential property!! No city near Tigard on the westside allows 2 ADUs. Allowing 2 ADUs would be EXTREME and unprecedented; it would turn single family detached home properties into potential Triplexes,thereby sabotaging and undermining residential zoning and building restrictions, and directly harming affected nearby property owners. 2)Also, removing the current'owner occupancy requirement'would essentially negate the falsely stated purpose[or pretense] of allowing people to stay in their homes at all stages of life. Not requiring the property owner to live in the primary or accessory dwelling would result in properties being converted to duplexes [and triplexes] by mercenary absentee landlords—thereby exposing as a blatant lie the very smokescreen cover excuse and alleged basis used to make these harmful code changes. 2 3)There needs to be a set limit of occupants per ADU—i.e. 2 [TWO]. Otherwise,you are more than doubling the human density for a property, perhaps even multiplying the density so it harmfully impacts neighbors, and street parking. With no set limit, persons will cram 10+people into an ADU! Some years ago,a small apartment at Bonita Villa was found to have 20-25 occupants [including fugitives from the law]. Accessory Dwelling Units—Comparison — Local Cities Number allowed: 1 ADU! ONE ADU allowed! (NOT 2 !) Lake Oswego: 1 Sherwood: 1 Tualatin: 1 Wilsonville: 1 Beaverton: 1 Portland: 1 Hillsborc: 1 Owner Occupancy Required of primary unit or ADU:YES Tigard:Ye=(Current) Lake Oswe : Yes Sherwood:Yes (+NO rental of owner occupied unit). YES! Size: Tigard: (keep Current code) may not exceed 50%of primary unit, up to max f R00 sq ft. Sherwood: not to exceed 40%of primary residence: Tualatin: not to exceed 50%of primary unit, up to max 800 sq ft. Beaverton: not to exceed 50%of primary unit (incl garage), up to max 800 sq ft. Wilsonville: maximum is 600 sq ft. Lake Oswe : not to exceed 800 sq ft. Hillsboro:detached ADU not to exceed 750 sq ft.; or 450 sq ft max. if 5 ft from rear/side property line; ADU height Not to exceed 10 ft. Number of ADU Occupants Permitted: needs clear limit! Lake Oswego: No more than two persons. 2 Tigard: Limited by state building code [sq ft] (Current) Hillsboro: Not to be occupied by more than 3 persons. Sherwood: Not to exceed household number, calc. by sq ft [other code section] Home Occupation Type II Prohibited on properties with ADUs: Portlan, : NOT allowed (no customers, no employees) Parking: Must have additional off-street parking space[s]:Y Tigard:Yes. 1 off-street parking space shag be provided for the ADU. This space shall be paved or covered (Current!) Lake Oswego:Yes Sherwood:Yes Hillsboro:Yes, Must have at least 1 additional off-street parking space. Tualatin:Yes, Must have 1 paved additional parking space, and NOT within 5 ft of a side or rear property line. 3 NO ADU front entrance, at ground level: Tigard: No ADU entrance located on front of primary unit, unless such door already exists. (keep Current) Tualatin: No ADU entrance permitted with street frontage, unless such door already exists. Hillsboro: NO ground floor entrance permitted on front of primary dwelling; NO front ground entrance permitted for detached ADU. Sherwoor:ADU entrance must be "unobtrusive" from front view of primary unit. Fees: SDC[System Development Charges for an ADU]YES!! Beaverton:Yes Permits Required for ADU: = Revenue+Oversight All Cities:Yes Garage Conversions Prohibited: Tigard: NO Garage conversion[s], unless it is rebuilt as part of the primary structure. (Current) Tualatin: NO Garage conversions! City can impose conditions to protect neighbors: YES!! Lake Oswego re height modifications, landscaping, buffering and orientation of the ADU to protect privacy of the neighbors. ADU Living Unit Separation from Primary Unit:YES! Beaverton:Yes NO selling ADU as separate unit: YES! ualaun: ADU NOT to be sold, or as condo. Sherwood:ADU NOT to be partitioned or divided off from the parent parcel. 4 Current Tigard Code: updated 12/17 P. Chapter 18.410 ACCESSORY DWELLING Sections: 18.410.010 Purpose 18.410.020 Approval Process 18.410.030 Approval Standards 18.410.010 Purpose A. This chapter provides clear and objective standards for the in detached single-family residences to achieve the followin, 1 . Increase energy efficiency in large or older homes; 2. Increase the number of affordable housing units; 3. Increase residential densities with minimal impact ( neighborhoods; 4. Allow small households to retain large houses as resider 5. Permit young households to achieve home ownership; 6. Provide needed space for elderly family members, teena 22 §2) 18.410.020 Approval Process Applications for accessory dwelling units shall be processed th 5 3. The number of residents permitted to inhabit the access building code; 4. Either the primary or accessory dwelling unit shall be or 5. A primary residence in which an accessory dwelling I. home occupation; 6. In addition to the number of parking spaces required i Chapter 18.310, Off-Street Parking and Loading, 1 accessory dwelling unit. This parking space shall be pay 7. The front door of the accessory dwelling unit shall n primary unit unless the door is already existing; 8. There shall be compliance with all development standar 22 §2) 6 Page 275 of 933 — + Automatic Zoom i igard (ROHR( ,(. i ED Proposed ('utle 18220410.030 Approval ProcessStandards Applications for accessory dwelling units are processed through a Type I Section 18110.050. 18220.040 Standards Owner Occupancy: The property owner, which shall include the A. Number of units.occupy either the principal unit or the ADU as their permanent months out of the year, and at no time receive rent for the owr 1. A maximum of ' accessory dwelling units.c e allowed per single deti j. 2. A maximum of 1 detached accessory dwelling unit is allowed per seeend c-essorf -�dweilin st b—e- elaed-to4he mit, _s 3. The number of occupants is limited to no more than two persons in the accessed unit 1. The maximum size of a detached accessory dwelling unit is 800 squG 2. The square footage of attached accessory dwelling unit may not Qea the primary unit. C. Height. • 1. The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit is 25 fee Furthermore, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall NOT exceed the heir 2. A structure containing an attached accessory dwelling unit may height_for a single detached house in the base zone. D. Setbacks. Accessory dwelling units must meet the setback standards for the base zone, with the exception that a detached accessory dwelling 11 feet_from the rearproperty line if the accessory dwelling unit is less than E. Entrances. Only--one-attached accessory dwelling unit mai have an e facade. T -entraa a-ta- a-second-attuc a -d -itnit-;rte _peariotline. 111 .1E)( must be conipletelseparate from the ) tin ii te.jiti)pt liaNe uji i'-ctnnnluiuealint dooms or opyli F. Parking. 1. In addition to the number of parking spaces required for the prima' street parking space must be provided for each accessory dwelling u+ a-right-e way-that-in dudes-transit-service ape-,exern f rr$-the-a i H. The reviewing authority may impose conditions regarding height modifications, landscaping, buffering and orientation of the accessory dwelling unit to protect privacy of the neighbors. H. Accessory dwelling units in accessory structures. -Accessory dwelling units otar-be added accessary structures such as garages. subject to the maximum sauare footage and hei2 restrictions for each_ as measured using the method provided in Section 18.40.130. A-,----Loeationr-A-s-provdd--in-the-use-and-housing-types tables in Chapter 1-&1-10,--ResidentiaZonesai Chapter 18.120, C.: -.-- • -•:, -; - - , : -4,;- ; - ; - •-... ..-'- :.-- ;- ---' - - ; ; limited-uses-in--all-ba R.- -Standards. The approval-authority shall approve an application for an accessory dwelling unit whi 1. An accessory dwelling unit may be created within-or as an addition to a detached single-fami ; - '-:, '; .- - :. -,;-- - ; .-'- - - ; : - , -;.; ; ' '; -" •- - :,-- - - - ;„ '- : ; : - ;.-. - ;- ;. ' rebuilt as part of the primary structure; 2. An accessory dwelling unit may not exceed 50 percent of the size of the primary unit, up to maximum of 800 square feet; 3. The number of residents permitted to inhabit the accessory dwelling unit is regulated by the sta building code; homeoccupation; J. • ;.; : ' ";: .1 • - - . - ;- ; ;:. ' • : ::-- -; . ' - : ; -- ; -.`",;.- -- •;- - --, ; - T. ; '; ..-; ' : . ' •„ •, . . .- • . ': : ' ; ;: ; ", '.:. . " ;: — ' : ;- : -; ; ' ; ; aecessolydweiling unit. Thisparking-space-shall-he-paved oreovered; 7-,----Thefront---deor--ofthe accessory 2 7- .•: - • . •.: • = : - 2 -: '.-= = • n• -- . = • -facade- of to] lar-imaiyimit-ualess-the door is already-existing I. The property owner must pay System Development Charges for an accessory dwelling unit. 1 An accessory dwelling unit shall NOT be sold separately from the primary unit, or as a condo. 9 Current Tigard Code: Table 18.110.2 Housing Types Housing Types R-1 R-2 R-33 R-4.5 ! R-7 R-12 Single-Family Units, Detached P P P P p ! P Single-Family Units, Attached N N N R[1] ; R[2]JC i P : Accessory Dwelling Units [3] R R R R R R Duplexes N N C C P P : Multifamily Units N N N N N P Manufactured Homes P P P P P P Mobile Home Parks N N C C P P P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Prohibit [1] Attached single-family units permitted only as part of an approved planned development [2] Permitted by right if no more than 5 units in a grouping; permitted as a conditional use units per grouping. [3] Permitted subject to requirements in Chapter 18.410, Accessory Dwelling Units. (Ord. 1' Proposed Tigard Code: 10 D. All allowed housing types may be built on site or brought to the site as a munufacti houses are prohibited in all zones. Table 18.1103 Housing Types Housincz Tiles R®1 R2 Raj R-4.5 RR-7 R-1. Detached Dwellings Accessory Dwelling Units (18220) Y Y Y ' Y Y Y Cottage Clusters (18.2401 N N Y Y Y y Mobile Home Parks (18.2601 N N Lill WI Y Y Single Detached Houses (18.2901 V Y Y Y Y Y Attached Dwellings — — — —Accessory Dwelling Units (18.220) Y Y Y Y Y V Apartments (18.230) N N N N N Y Courtyard Units (18.2591 N N Y Y Y Y wads 118.270,E® N N � ' Y Rowhouses 18.280 N N N N .1_,L13 Y Y=Yes,Allowed L=Limited,see footnotes N_Not Prohibit4 111 Allowed only through a conditional use application. Residential Zones 18.110-6 Cc 11 City of Tigard -- Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL&LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: November 27,2018-6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM •STUDY SESSION •EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session for the performance evaluation of public officials,under ORS 192.660(2) (i).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. 6:30 p.m. estimated time 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Tigard High School Student Envoy C. Update from Police Chief McAlpine D. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce E. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Town Center Development Agency)These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: •October 16,2018 •October 23,2018 •Consent Agenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council/City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. RECEIVE TVF&R STATE OF THE DISTRICT REPORT 7:40 p.m. estimated time 5. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD-CONSIDER LIBRARY BOILER CONTRACT AWARD 7:55 p.m. estimated time 6. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD-CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR UTILITY BILLING/COURT OFFICE REMODEL 8:00 p.m. estimated time 7. T.FGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING:CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR PHASE II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 8:05 p.m. estimated time 8. NON AGENDA I LEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to evaluate public officials under ORS 192.660(2) (i).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 maldng any final decision. 8:50 p.m. estimated time 10. ADJOURNMENT 9:35 p.m. estimated time City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda TIGARD November 27, 2018 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 6:30 p.m. estimated time EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council will enter into an Executive Session to evaluate public officials under ORS 192.660 (2) (i). 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. Administrative Items Attachments for Agenda Item 7—Legislative Public Hearing on Phase II CDC Amendments: Testimony from Rob Ruedy and Michael Brewin came in today and it,plus a new Attachment C have been added to your electronic packet packets. Any additional testimony is attached to this sheet but will not be added to the electronic packet until after the meeting so you'll need to refer to your paper copies. Please note that Attachment C contains the amendments staff would like you to refer to in a motion to approve Ordinance No. 23,as spelled out on the green sheet. Council Meeting Calendar November 6* Tuesday Council Bus. Meeting 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall—Cancelled,Election Day 12 Monday Veterans Day Holiday, City Hall Closed,Library Open 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 20* Tuesday Council Workshop/Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 22 Thursday Thanksgiving Holiday,City Hall and Library Closed 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall December 4* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 11* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 18* Tuesday Council Workshop/Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 25 Tuesday Christmas Holiday, City Hall and Library Closed—Meeting Cancelled January 1 Tuesday New Years Holiday, City Hall and Library Closed—No Meeting 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15* Tuesday Council Workshop/Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 21 Monday Martin Luther King Holiday, City Hall Closed,Library Open 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (*). SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 1 FOR11-_ ___01 e (DATE OF MEETING) - Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard Le i,, ,:-, ,,, 1L7For October 7- „. 2018 Population Estimate 53,697 (Adopted Budget FY 2018-19) Small numbers cause large percentage increases and decreases. Crime Sna.shot Selected Group A Offenses Oct 2017 Oct 2018 % Chg 2017 YTD 2018 YTD %Chg Person Crime 43 46 6.98% 344 422' 22.67% Assault 36 38 5.56% 260 345• 32.69% Robbery 2 2 0.00% 31 28 -9.68% Property Crime 188 182 -3.19% 1836 2050• 11.66% Burglary-Residential 3 5 66.67% 66 73• 10.61% Burglary-Business 5 7 40.00% 36 46• 27.78% Burglary-Other 4 4 0.00% 38 29 -23.68% UUMV 10 12 20.00% 79 138 74.68% Theft 95 87 -8.42% 990 1020 3.03% Vandalism 26 16 -38.46% 220 236 7.27% Societal Crimes 31 36 16.13% 419 545 30.07% DLIII 10 6 -40.00% 84 127• 51.19% Drug Offense 5 15 200.00% 138 122 -11.59% Disorderly Conduct 7 5 -28.57% 60 105 75.00% Calls for Service Oct 2017 Oct 2018 %Chg 2017 YTD 2018 YTD %Chg Dispatched Calls 1755 1839 4.79% 17485 18581 6.27% Self Initiated Calls 1792 1685 -5.97% 16336 17465• 6.91% Response Time ------ Priority 1 &2 6.37 5.85 -8.16% 6.3 6.27 -0.48% Priority 3 10.5 10.03 -4.48% 10.72 9.9 -7.65% Priority 4+ 11.48 9.28 -19.16% 10.53 9.95 -5.51% Community Concerns *Photo enforcement program questions *Gentle Woods, 1st Hearing,Business w/no lincense http://www.tigard-or.gov/police/photo traffic enforcement.php Community Outreach and Events Upcoming Events *Coffee-with-a-Cop (10/3) *Just Compassion Coalition meeting(11/1) *Chief meeting-organizations of faith(10/8) *Hindu Temple Diwali/Annakut celebration(11/10) *Chat with the Chief-River Terrace(10/17) *Public Safety Testing recruitment event(11/10) *MET Building Bridges event(10/18) *Landlord Forums(monthly) *Drug Take Back event(10/27) *Halloween on Main Street(10/31) *Person Crime-Assault,Homicide,Robbery,Kidnap,Forcible/Non-Forcible Sex Offense *Property Crimes-Arson,Bribery,Res Burglary,Bus Burglary,Oth Burglary,Forgery,Vandalism,Embezzle,Fraud,Theft,UUMV,Bad Check *Societal Crimes-Drug Offense,Prostitution,Weapons,Curfew,DisCon,DUD,Family Offense,Liqour Laws,Peeping Tom,Trespass *The data is National Incident Based Reporting System(NIBRS)compliant and not Uniform Crime Report(UCR)compliant and cannot be compared to any report using that standard. 1 - Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard ' For October 1140 ' 2018 Population Estimate 53,697 (Adopted Budget FY 2018-19) n Emslo e- S. a . . Department Staffing Information Actual Budget %Budget Sworn 67.0 68.0 99% Non-Sworn 14.0 16.5 85% Total Number of Personnel 81.0 84.5 96% Patrol Officer Staffing 33 I Personnel Unavailable for Work Patrol All Other Overall #of Recruits in Pre-Academy - - - #of Recruits in Academy - - - #of Recruits in FTEP - - - #of Personnel on Extended Sick Leave 1 - 1 #of Personnel on Military Leave - - - #of Personnel on Light Duty 1 - 1 #of Personnel on Administrative Leave - - - Total Personnel Unavailable to Work during some Period during the Month 2 0 2 Total Officers Available to work PATROL some period during the Month 31 Operational Effectiveness Snapshot ; Budget Information is based on the yr ..:.,.%,, . FY 2017-2018 Budget 1.1 z:Ulh-1`) Budget Percent YTD Status Percent YTD Status Department Budget Actual Budgeted Actual Budgeted Administrative 29% 33%• -4% 30% 33%. -3% Operations 29% 33%• -4% 30% 33%i -3% Services 33% 33%i -1% 33% 33%• 0% Total Department Budget 30% 33%40 -3% 32% 33%tj -2% Budget Information is based on the best available data. FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-19 Percent YTD Budget Percent YTD Budget Status Status Department Overtime Actual Budgeted Actual Budgeted Administrative 31% 33%• -2% 10% 33%• -23% Operations 21% 33%• -12% 24% 33%• -9% Services 31% 33%i -2% 20% 33%• -13% Total Overtime 24% 33%ill -10% 22% 33%0 -11% 2 Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard For October 2018 Population Estimate 53,697 (Adopted Budget FY 2018-19) PUBLIC DEMAND SELF INITIATED AVERAGE AVERAGE CTC T OCT SEPT SEPT AUGUST AUGUST JULY JULY "UNE JUNE MAY ,.:.._ 3 MAY 1793 APR APR APR MAR AT- MAR SER Se l'" FEB 1%7; "AN'EAS IANIR 94! DEC- DEC NOV i r NOV r to OCT I�F!".'97. SEPT I ,s. 2300 Response i es - 5 ' •• ! ierillik 1 PRIORITY 1 AND 2PRIORITY 3 ti 43....................b.37 1(, t0 32 ,, /� � //,/ ICf Qi V 5 33 N ....„......... tut: PRIORITY 4. Priority 1= — ° <«'" Priority 3= Imminent threat to life Urgent call where crime 7h ,,,b prevention is needed moi` LO 73 +'., `�10.23'— I 9.28 I Priority 2 = Immediate threat to life,occuring now Priority 4+ = Cold crimes or public assistance /uta /Ilii, !' l? /‘/IM 3 Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard For October 2018 Population Estimate 53,697 (Adopted Budget FY 2018-19) alls or ervlce - I y 'A on MI OCTOBER AM— SELF INITIATED CALLS 1W5 , \\.- Track. ', 12014 I 2015 1 20161 2017 I 2018 The tracked counts of these have all Overdose 0 2 7 11 23 increased. Each involves multiple POH 123 113 101 115 146 officers,evidence processing,and trips to hospitals in some cases. Suicide 4 4 4 7 7 Att. Suicide 21 50 25 54 50 DHS Refer 310 404 353 466 471 DHS referrals and cases of allegations of Vulnerable Adult 35 15 24 38 41 abuse to an elderly or mentally challenged victim end up in the caseload Dom Viol 104 88 62 105 135 of Detectives and SROs. DV DV No crime 0 34 78 111 105 / ORC Theft 63 31 52 42 47 Domestic Violence reports have / Graffiti 182 128 62 48 93 doubled in 5 years . MIIMMIIIIIIIIai BHI - Transient 1 Total Calls Logged: 190 # of Calls -BHI 75 # of Calls Transient 115 # of Calls Dispatched 116 # of Calls Self Initiated 55 Total Time Spent 98:23:00 (hr:min:sec) 4 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR rr _ ? 7 WIX (DATE OF MEETING) *\\ wERSH 1,,,, Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard v -- I- :,„ OLIC \ = For October 2018 uc Feu .; f' "K Selected GroupA Offenses Oct 2017 Oct 2018 % Chg2017 YTD 2018 YTD % �1�` `�,` Chg I *.i t ,�, Person Crime 43 46$ 6.98% 344 422$ 22.67% Assault 36 38$ 5.56% 260 345$ 32.69% Robbery 2 2$ 0.00% 31 28$ -9.68% Property Crime ' 188 182$ -3.19% 1836 2050• 11.66% Burglary- Residentia 3 5 8 66.67% 66 73 8 10.61% Burglary- Business 5 7• 40.00% 36 46$ 27.78% Burglary- Other 4 4 8 0.00% 38 29 8 -23.68% UUMV 10 12 8 20.00% 79 138 8 74.68% Theft 95 87$ -8.42% 990 1020$ 3.03% Vandalism 26 16 8 -38.46% 220 236$ 7.27% Societal Crimes 31 36• 16.13% 419 545• 30.07% DUII 10 6 8 -40.00% 84 127$ 51.19% Drug Offense 5 15$ 200.00% 138 122$ -11.59% Disorderly Conduct 7 5 8 -28.57% 60 105$ 75.00% Calls for Service Oct 2017 Oct 2018 % Chg 2017 YTD 2018 YTD % Chg Dispatched Calls 1755 1839$ 4.79% 17485 18581 $ 6.27% Self Initiated Calls 1792 1685. -5.97% 16336 17465$ 6.91% Response Time Priority 1 &2 6.37 5.85 a -8.16% 6.3 6.27$ -0.48% Priority 3 10.5 10.03 111 -4.48% 10.72- 9.9 a -7.65% Priority 4 + 11.48 9.28$ -19.16% 10.531 9.95 a -5.51% SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR (DATE OF MEETING) Tigard High School Update: November 27, 2018 • Recent o We hosted our annual Veterans Breakfast and school-wide assembly to recognize those veterans. • This year, we hosted about 75 veterans. o We organized our Open Table event with free food, a cultural fashion show, and trivia to recognize the wide variety of cultures at our school. o Fall Sports Wrap-Up • Once again, our football team lost in the playoffs to a private school. • Same with our men's soccer team. • All around, it was a successful season for our programs. o Fall Sports Awards • 40 fall sports participants earned some award/distinction for their performance in the season. • One of the highest honors went to Sajjad Al Rikabi, who won Three Rivers League Men's Soccer Player of the Year. o Our theater department wrapped up all of their hard work with a successful week of performances for their show, The Miracle Worker. • Coming Up o Sparrow Assembly o Winter Choir Shows - December 18th + December 20th at 7pm • At the concert, we will be fundraising for students of Paradise High School in the California town devastated by the Camp Fire. o Winter sports season has begun. The games and meets will start in the next few weeks. o 24 days until Winter Break. Council Update Nov 2018 F�PLEMENTA P FIKET City p FOR ' a Chamber Update (DATE OF MEETING) Leadership Tigard Human Needs Day was held on November 13th,tours included Good Neighbor Center,St. Anthony Severe Weather Shelter, St.Vincent De Paul Food Bank,Just Compassion EWC Day Center and presentations from Washington County, Project Homeless Connect, Community Partners for Affordable Housing and Luke-Dorf. Impactful day for the Leadership class. Decembers class will focus on the local business and economy. Education,Advocacy, &Building a Strong Local Economy • 11/28/18—1:15 p.m.—Gov't Affairs and Public Policy Committee Meeting,welcoming new Chair Tom Markgraf,with TriMet • This morning, 11/27/18.—Invest in U—Setting and Achieving Your Goals presented by Nathan Cook Coaching • 6 businesses joined the chamber in September Networking/Visibility Good Morning Tigard (GMT),Thursday A.M. Networking 7:30 a.m.—Weekly • 11/29/18—Hosted by Archers Afield at their location • 12/6/18—Hosted by HomeStreet Bank at their location • 12/13/18—Hosted by ServPro of Tigard/Tualatin at their location 12/4/18 6-8 p.m. -Holiday Happy Hour hosted by Tigard Chamber Ambassadors @the Broadway Rose, come welcome in the season, open to anyone.Attendance fee will be donated to Breast Friends! Affinity Groups—Meet Monthly, Health &Wellness group and a B2B group Details at http://business.tigardchamber.org/events/calendar/follow us on Twitter @tigardchamber Tigard Farmers Market Update • Dec 1st—Live Wreath making class 2 p.m. class still has availability—Sign up at tigardfarmersmarket.org. TDA Downtown Updates Trick or Treat Main Street was a great success. At least as many trick or treaters as last year if not more! Join us, Downtown Tigard Tree Lighting, December 7th,2018,6:45 p.m. Rite Aid Parking Lot to view the Tree. Bring the kids and then meet and greet Santa at Iron Warrior Fitness at the after party. Find us on Facebook at exploredowntowntigard and at www.exploredowntowntigard.com. Follow us on Twitter @Tigarddowntown and on Instagram at downtowntigard 17( T1 ARSIP KnETteS Leadership Tigard 'At g< Building Leaders Growing Ccmmonihy _,..JENDA ITEM NO. 2E - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: November 27, 2018 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. AR written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS &PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Prink) _ CONTACTED j Name: ; ' �1 C. y\G 't V�v ( l �; please spellyour name as it sounds,if it will /� ! i t L I Also, i ;� f v 1� , help the presiding officer pronounce: ! Address \k/ �� y � 6/1 �/ ri �; City q } I ill 1) 0 I PC State j Zip ... Phone No. (A,y- 7 Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\2018\citizen communication 180206.doc AIS-3688 3.A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/27/2018 Length(in minutes):Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Carol Krager,Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval: •October 16,2018 •October 23,2018 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS,POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments October 16,2018 Meeting Minutes October 23,2018 Meeting Minutes 1114 City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD October 16, 2018 1. BUSINESS/WORKSHOP MEETING A. At 6:33 p.m. Mayor Cook called to order the City Council and Town Center Development Agency. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll. Present Absent Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson V Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse V C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items— None 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication— None B. Tigard High School Envoy—THS Envoy John Freudenthal gave an update on THS activities and events. Homecoming Week was a success. Their first open mic night had a great turnout. School clubs are hosting a Halloween event on October 27th where children can come to the high school and trick or treat through classrooms converted with Halloween themes. C. Citizen Communication—No one signed up to speak. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council&Town Center Development Agency) — A. RECEIVE AND FILE: 1. Council Calendar 2. Council Tentative Agenda for Future Meeting Topics TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 of 12 B. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • August 14, 2018 • September 4, 2018 • September 11, 2018 • September 18, 2018 • September 25, 2018 C. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION WAIVING SIGN PERMIT FEES FOR JUST COMPASSION OF EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY Resolution No. 18-44—A RESOLUTION WAIVING $218 IN NEW SIGN PERMIT FEES FOR JUST COMPASSION OF EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY Council President Snider moved for approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Mayor Cook noted that for this item on the agenda Council would be convening as the Town Center Development Agency. 4. JOINT TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD/TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING Redevelopment Manager Farrelly introduced this agenda item. Town Center Advisory Commission Members introduced themselves-Tom Murphy, Carine Arendes,Tim Myshak, Faez Soud,Lucas Brook, Chair Kate Rogers, Ryan Ruggiero, Gloria Pinzon, and Chris Haedinger were present. Mr. Farrelly said the TCAC is a dedicated group of volunteers whose charge is to make urban renewal recommendations to the Board of the Town Center Development Agency,budget and implementation measures. They are working this year on both the downtown urban renewal plan and the new Tigard Triangle urban renewal area. The City Center urban renewal plan is entering its twelfth year and maturing while the Triangle area is getting its first TIF allocation this fall. The 'i"IAC members gave their 2018 Goals Update and their plan for the 4th Quarter. Their presentation included a PowerPoint. Chair Rogers said TCAC members will discuss their accomplishments so far and what is ahead in the 4th quarter. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 12 TCAC Member Brooks said the Triangle is a very different area of opportunity and the TCAC wanted to understand it as they seek to provide the TCDA insight. They got a briefing from staff on what has been done so far and what the plan is going forward. They also discussed equitable urban renewal with staff and recently took a tour of the area. It was very helpful to see the Triangle is all its forms, from professional office building setting, to commercial and scattered residential. It helped them to understand the complexity of developing this area. They will continue working to increase their understanding of this space. TCAC Member Arendes spoke of accomplishments related to the SW Corridor. They planned to participate in planning and education activities associated with the SW Corridor and this took a variety of forms and included activities as a group and individually. The TCAC asked for and received project briefings from TriMet and Metro at two TCAC meetings and a joint meeting held with the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee. They attended open houses and participated in the Metro SW Corridor Community Advisory Committee for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Discovery and Recommendations Process (CAC). She and Commissioner Myshak served as the appointee and alternate to the CAC for meetings starting in 2017 and continuing through August of 2018. Members of the TCAC participated in various ways in the SW Corridor equitable housing project activities in order to make an informed recommendation to Metro's CAC and to make sure specific areas within the Triangle and downtown urban renewal would receive attention from Metro and TriMet staff and other members of the CAC. As a committee, the TCAC submitted a letter during the SW Corridor DEIS public comment period supporting alignment options that avoided impacts to low-income housing identified in the federal process as environmental justice populations, although they realize that more must be done to preserve housing affordability. The TCAC advocated for a through route rather than a branched alternative,which would have served Tigard's downtown on only half of its trips. They also strongly advocated for at least two stops in the Triangle and preservation of existing commercial development in the Triangle that already meets the vision for the area.All of these ideas were incorporated into the project staffs proposed alignment; however, that alignment contained a few surprises with the Park and Ride on SW 68th and the station east of Hall Boulevard, coupled with a maintenance facility in the same vicinity. She said it is important for the city at large as well as the urban renewal areas that TCAC continues to stay at the table and negotiates safe,walkable development around parking garages, the maintenance yard,proposed station locations, and make sure those designs are compatible for the vision of mixed use and denser housing options in those areas. One major concern is the possibility of closing Hall Boulevard hundreds of times a day for a rail crossing. The TCAC believes that any Hall Boulevard station needs to be carefully designed to ensure connectivity with the downtown area and safety for all users while avoiding serious traffic impacts. TCAC Member Arendes said a member participated in the SW Corridor housing work by serving on a Metro advisory group and some attended public meetings held at St. Anthony's Church. It is clear that work is already being done on missing middle housing, development code changes and project prioritization in the Triangle. TCAC Chair Rogers said in the 2nd and 3'quarters, the TCAC talked a lot about walkability and connectivity,working to make sure that light rail station placement in Tigard takes advantage of the opportunity to activate the area around stations and they are developed to be walkable and TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 12 connected to the Downtown and the Triangle. One thing that became obvious to them on their Triangle tour is that walkability is an issue. There is really no main street. They discussed how great it would be to create main street blocks in the Triangle with mixed-use housing and bottom floors with restaurants, cafes and businesses. This will help create some walkability like in the downtown. TCAC Chair Rogers said a lot of discussion was held on equitable businesses and how a self- supporting fund could be created that would encourage and incubate equitable businesses,whether using grants,leased property income, or a combination, to help create such a local business. It would also be good to tie affordable housing to affordable small business space with the goal that the small business would outgrow that space so another person or family could take over the responsibility and grow another business. TCAC Member Murphy focused on future projects, specifically the Red Rock Creek Commons, affordable housing that will be completed in 2020. In 2017 the TCDA approved a commitment to provide between$100,000 and $200,000 in seed money for affordable housing. A slide was shown of a rendering for the approximately nine-tenths-acre parcel that is close to Pacific Highway. There will be 48 one-bedroom units, all below market rate. There are 24 Section 8 vouchers already assigned so people with very low incomes will be able to rent an apartment. The nexus between chronic mental illness and homelessness is well recognized so eight units will be set aside for persons with severe mental illness. Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) has partnered with Luke Dorf to provide supportive services for those residents and was recently awarded$600,000 from the Oregon Health Authority to help with those costs. The TCDA Board's promise to provide financial support was contingent on CPAH securing other funding. To date using that seed money, CPAH has lined up approximately$12.5 million of funding for Red Rock Commons. That is leverage. This board's commitment to providing the first dollars was the fulcrum that allowed CPAH to do the heavy lifting required to bring in those other commitments. Mr. Murphy said the significance of the city's support far exceeds the purchasing power of$200,000 because it convinced other funders at the federal and state levels and the private sector that this was a worthwhile project. There is still a funding gap but this project will get built. CPAH is planning the groundbreaking in spring or summer of 2019 and completion in early 2020. It will not solve the affordable housing problem but it will help. He said that commitment to affordable housing is in the DNA of Tigard's city government,both in council and staff, and commitment to Red Rock Creek Commons is further proof of that commitment. Chair Rogers gave council a preview of the remainder of their year's activities which include the TCAC Year End Report and Recommendations for the TCDA. They are also doing a deep dive into the Triangle, looking at demographics, existing and potential regulations and codes and development of a vision for the Tigard Triangle. A review of the city project plan will be done in November. Part 2 of the deep dive is scheduled for December as well as receiving a briefing on affordable housing, particularly the senior center site. They will also work on budget priorities and prepare the financial impact statement draft. TCDA Director Woodard asked if there had been any discussion on the station related to plaza build-out to activate that space. He suggested ideas including flash mobs, concerts, food carts or rental space. TCAC Member Arendes replied that there were some discussions on using the public works yard to locate a plaza or using other locations for synergy with the station.She acknowledged concern about TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 4 of 12 crossing Hall Boulevard,whether by pedestrian or vehicle and said until which side of Hall Boulevard is selected,it was hard to decide. TCDA Director Woodard asked the TCAC to keep opportunities in mind to make public space sustainable so maintenance is covered. TCAC Chair Rogers said they have also looked at best design principles for urban stations and activating them as much as possible. Chair Cook said over the next 12 months the stations will be designed and it could be a goal of the TCAC to look at activation,walkability and connectivity for these stations. TCDA Chair Cook asked for the briefing received on the SW Corridor Equitable Housing Strategy and the IGA recently signed with TriMet regarding remnant parcels for affordable housing. TCAC Member Arendes said that is one important strategy and another is making sure development code changes ensure there can be different kinds of housing options in downtown Tigard. Actions to consider are getting up to speed on the Network Oregon Housing Acquisition Fund and building a relationship with the Community Land Trust. The Affordable Housing Task Force being formulated now and supported by city staff should result in additional ideas. TCAC Member Pinzon said she was excited about conservation of existing affordable housing and said it can make a bigger impact at less expense. She said citizens depend on council to make those policy changes. Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly said an affordable housing strategy was presented to Council for their acknowledgement in July and staff will bring different policies forward for consideration in the future. TCDA Chair Cook referred to TCAC Member Murphy's comments on the Red Rock Creek Commons seed money and said we need to let citizens know of other things the City has done to encourage affordable housing. There is a property tax exemption program for qualified affordable housing projects and six in Tigard receive it. Tigard was the first city in Washington County to do this. Tigard also became the first city to remove system development charges for qualified affordable housing. There are charges on the county side that the City cannot control and he has started a county-wide discussion. He commended Tigard for being in the forefront on supporting affordable housing. He thanked the TCAC for their work and commitment. TCDA Chair Cook noted that for this item on the agenda Council would reconvene as the City Council. 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND FEMA FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS A. Mayor Cook opened the public hearing. B. Mayor Cook announced that anyone could offer testimony and there was a sign-up sheet at the front of the room. C Associate Planner Lindor gave the staff report on proposed amendments to the maps related to the FEMA floodplain that became effective October 19 and associated city regulations for floodplains. She noted that information on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is in the staff report and she can answer any questions Council has. Tigard went through an update in 2016 and amended floodplain maps. Since then there have been areas within Washington County identified for special study. All of those areas are outside of the City of Tigard but because this effort is county-wide,Tigard must adopt TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 5 of 12 the new maps. There was also a review of Tigard's ordinance to make sure it is in compliance with NFIP requirements. Changes from FEMA mostly related to definitions, manufactured homes and the process for notifying FEMA of new technical information. The City was notified in May that it had until October 19 to adopt these. The ordinance being considered is an emergency ordinance to meet that deadline so Tigard can participate in the NFIP. D. Public Testimony—There was none. E. Response to testimony by staff. None because there was no testimony. F. Mayor Cook closed the Public Hearing. G. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 18-21 Councilor Woodard found a grammatical correction in Exhibit A, 18.510.9 R-4. He suggested striking the word"an." Mayor Cook commented that since there is so much flooding going on, the flood insurance industry is changing definitions of what can be construed as being flooded. It also changed the definition of fencing and actions (putting accessory buildings) in the floodplain. He said it seemed to him that the flood insurance agency is changing what they will cover. Associate Planner Lindor said her impression is that FEMA is trying to discourage people from building in the floodplain and in the last round of FEMA changes there were things exempt from land use review if they were in the floodplain but now anything built in a floodplain has to go through review. Mayor Cook said something could have been built at a time when the floodplain map was different. It met the requirements at the time of building but if the maps change, they will not be covered. Mayor Cook said it is frustrating for citizens when the rules change. Council President Snider verified that if we choose not to participate it is a problem because our residents could not get flood insurance. He moved to adopt Ordinance No. 18-21. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. City Attorney Rihala said the change Councilor Woodard suggested earlier is appropriate and asked that it be placed in a motion. Councilor Woodard moved for an amendment to the motion to approve the ordinance with a correction to Exhibit A, 18.510.9.R.4 to remove the word, "an" before the hyphen on the first line. Councilor Anderson seconded his motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 18-21 —AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) TO ADOPT NEW FEMA FIRM MAPS AND UPDATED FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. PROPOSED TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES INCLUDE UPDATED AND NEW DEFINITIONS RELATEDTO FLOODPLAINS BE PLACED WITHIN CHAPTER 18.30 (DEFINITIONS) AND CHAPTER 18.510 (SENSITIVE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 6 of 12 LANDS);AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.510 (SENSITIVE LANDS),PROVIDE UPDATED REGULATION RELATING TO MANUFACTIRED HOMES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTFIYING FEMA OF NEW TECHNICAL DATA AND DECLARING ANEMERGENCY, as amended. City Recorder Krager conducted a roll call vote. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Ordinance No. 18-21 was adopted unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR FIRST QUARTER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL A. Mayor Cook opened the public hearing. B. Mayor Cook announced the hearing procedures and said there was a sign-up sheet at the front of the room and anyone may offer testimony. C Senior Management Analyst Kang gave the staff report and a brief description of the requests. Community Development has four requests: inspections systems ongoing maintenance, server replacement, annual licensing for electronic plan review software and a .50 FTE building code enforcement officer. In the Finance Department, there is a Metropolitan Area Communications Commission grant of$74,900 to be recognized. This will implement the next general security to the virtualized environment and reduce the chance of cyberattacks. For Police the request is for the photo red light program. The photo red light contract cost is $4,250 per approach per intersection for a total of eight approaches at three intersections. The total annualized cost is $204,000. Based on the projected workload the Police Department wants to hire one police officer and based on an evaluation after the first year of the program will determine if one FTE is sufficient. This will be funded in the future with increased revenue from the program. Related to photo red light Central Services has an increase in municipal court staff and judicial support hours. The Facilities Division will need to move and remodel the court office to accommodate additional staff in a secure area with limited access. The Police Department has a carryover for the Mark43 records management system that was approved in May and required a 50 percent down payment at contract execution. The balance is due in December. This is a carryforward of previously identified funds for FY 18 in order to support the down payment expenditure being recognized in FY 19. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 7 of 12 Public Works has three FTE requests. The first is 1 FTE for a management analyst to support the new water system, complete the water system analysis and work with the water utility team on asset management and general water utility analytical support. The second FTE is 1 FTE for the Utility Apprenticeship Program which will create a pathway to qualified candidates and give the opportunity to apprentice with the department to learn skills and abilities in order to meet minimum requirements of the journeyman-level utility worker classification. Successful candidates will be eligible for future job openings. Their last FTE is for 1 FTE for a lead worker for the Green Team. Public Works has two other FTE requests. One is for a carry-forward of community engagement support, approved as part of the FY 18 3`d Quarter Supplemental and the other is recognition of an emergency response services grant. Senior Management Analyst Kang said most of the Capital Improvement Program requests are carry forwards of prior year appropriations. They include the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan, Oak Savanna Restoration at Dirksen Nature Park, Upper Boones Ferry Road/Durham Adaptive Signal, Fanno Creek Remeander, Dirksen Nature Park Nature Play area, City of Tigard/TTSD Park Development, Fanno Creek Trail Connection,Water Master Plan and Tigard Street Heritage Trail. The GIS centralization will create efficiencies and consistency within the GIS division. No additional funding is necessary. D. Public Testimony—No one testified. E. Response to testimony by staff. None F. Mayor Cook closed the Public Hearing. G. Council Discussion and Consideration: Resolution No. 18-45 Mayor Cook asked about the Green Team's work. City Engineer Faha said when road projects are done the City takes over maintenance requirements for the planter areas. They also maintain water quality facilities and Water Division sites. She said we require stormwater retention in developments and those retention facilities serving more than one property are required to become public facilities. They clear sediment and clean out trash. The water quality facilities must be kept at levels required by Clean Water Services. In response to a question from Councilor Woodard on the Green Team, Utilities Manager Goodrich said the team is made up of a supervisor and four staff. They use seasonal help during the summer to work on vegetative growth. It has always been a small team and analysis shows their workload is increasing. Councilor Woodard asked about the utility apprentice program and asked if the city had done this previously. Mr. Goodrich said it is difficult to compete in today's job market and we need employees experienced in utility work. This program is a synergistic development to see if there are ways to retain employees and at the same time develop staff to see the value in working for the city. We want to help them obtain the required Commercial Driver's License and other licenses so they are more prepared for openings when they TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 8 of 12 occur. The funding would come from the specific divisions within the department that are doing the training. If this grows, staff may come back to council to discuss expanding the program. Councilor Woodard said apprenticeship programs are phenomenal and he commended Public Works for getting this started. Council President Snider asked a technical question about the IVR server,noting that servers can fail in different ways and why wasn't staff just replacing the part that is failing. IT Manager Nolop replied that the server is on an old operating system that the new software vendor cannot support. Building Services Supervisor Howse said that calls the Building Division rely upon are being dropped. Utility Billing also uses it for outbound notifications and it is the main inspection request line. Council President Snider asked if staff has been monitoring the fail rate and Ms. Howse said they have been for the past six months. Councilor Woodard commented that the photo red light enforcement program looks like a good program and asked what is included in the monthly cost. Mayor Cook said it is related to the equipment, the vendor monitoring and giving the city a written report. The vendor pre-reviews the citations then they come to the police department for review. Councilor Woodard asked about service maintenance fees and Police Chief McAlpine said if a system fails,it falls on the vendor to repair it. The contract is for five years. Council President Snider moved to approve Resolution No. 18-45 and Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. Resolution No. 18-45—A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FY 2019 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL INCLUDING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO PUBLIC WORKS,POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION,AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ 7. Mayor Cook announced that Agenda Item No. 7 is a Town Center Development Agency Item. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR THE FY 2019 FIRST QUARTER TCDA BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL A. Chair Cook opened the Public Hearing. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 9 of 12 B. Chair Cook announced the hearing procedures and said there is a sign-up sheet at the front of the room. No one signed up to speak. C. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance and Senior Management Analyst Kang gave the staff report. The first quarter TCDA has one request. Several grants were awarded in FY 2018 but projects were not completed that fiscal year,leaving urban renewal improvement program opportunity funds unspent. This will increase the TCDA budget by $121,000 with no impact on reserves or future expenditures. D. Chair Cook called for public testimony. No one signed up to speak. E. No staff response was required as there was no testimony. F. Chair Cook closed the public hearing. G. Discussion and Consideration: TCDA Resolution No. 18-05 Director Woodard moved to approve TCDA Resolution No. 18-05. Director Anderson seconded the motion. There was no discussion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. TCDA Resolution No. 18-05—A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FY 2019 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL INCLUDING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (TCDA) URBAN DEVELOPMENT Chair Cook conducted a vote of the TCDA and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Director Snider ✓ Director Woodard ✓ Director Anderson ✓ Chair Cook ✓ Director Goodhouse ✓ Chair Cook announced that the City Council would reconvene for the following items. 8. CONSIDER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 12-16 TO EXPAND THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPAND RESPONSIBILITIES Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance presented this item. This resolution will temporarily expand both the membership and duties of the Audit Committee. They currently work with the City's independent financial auditors, helps them set the scope, reviews the audit and makes presentations of findings to City Council. They provide transparency and independence to the audit process. This resolution will, for a two-year period, expand the audit committee membership for two at-large members to serve a two-year term. In addition to the existing duties, the committee will review performance audit findings, review performance metrics suggested by our performance auditors and review staff reports on progress and measurement of those metrics. The committee will TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 10 of 12 then make a report to Council on or before December of 2020 on recommendations for any future performance audit activity. Mr. LaFrance said this will provide management and maintenance of the findings of performance audits done in the next two years and there will be some oversight by independent residents of Tigard. Council President Snider noted that preference is already given to those with CPA experience in the prior Audit Committee resolution and asked why the committee should be further be loaded with CPA experience for the performance audits. He said the current committee is filled with CPAs or those who at least are accounts. He suggested adding professionals with experience with performance audits or giving preference to people who have expertise in some of our larger funds such as police or library. He said someone who has run a library elsewhere or someone who has been an executive leader at another police department would be good at this. Mr. LaFrance responded that staff was attempting to get someone with a broad perspective or experience,and if we get someone who is very specialized in one area, they would not be as aware of other areas. CPAs are familiar with audits,both financial and performance. Mayor Cook followed up as a CPA and said CPAs understand performance audits and fund accounting better than non-CPAs,but not every CPA does performance audits. He said we could take the word CPA out or add the word"and." Councilor Woodard suggested adding the word,benchmarking. He said when looking for benchmarks against other city operations the committee may find ways to combine contracts,which is standard in the corporate world. He asked that"benchmarking" be added as a qualifier. City Manager Wine said benchmarking is included in the RFP for firms to do the performance audits. Councilor Goodhouse suggested adding"other related experience" will open the field. Council President Snider moved to approve Resolution 18-46 with edits to section 1.B.a - "Expand its membership to include two at-large residents that will serve for a single two-year term ending December 31, 2020. Preference will be given to residents who have professional experience with performance audits,benchmarking and/or have extensive expertise in one or more departments similar to the City of Tigard departmental operations." Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Mayor Cook said he was surprised that we are only going for two years on this. City Manager Wine said Council's proposal was to embark upon performance audits that would be complete within a year. Councilor Woodard suggested adding a statement to the resolution that there would be a follow-up discussion on whether it continues. City Manager Wine said making recommendations for a future performance audit is included in Section 1 of the resolution. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. Resolution No. 18-46—A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 12-16 AND EXPANDING THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO INCLUDE PERFORMANCE AUDIT THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020, as amended Yes No Council President Snider ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 11 of 12 Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION None 11. ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 p.m. Councilor Goodhouse moved for adjournment and Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passes unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Carol A. Krager, City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook, Mayor Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 12 of 12 ,� City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD October 16, 2018 1. BUSINESS/WORKSHOP MEETING A. At 6:33 p.m. Mayor Cook called to order the City Council and Town Center Development Agency. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll. Present Absent Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items— None 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication— None B. Tigard High School Envoy—THS Envoy John Freudenthal gave an update on THS activities and events. Homecoming Week was a success.Their first open mic night had a great turnout. School clubs are hosting a Halloween event on October 27`h where children can come to the high school and trick or treat through classrooms converted with Halloween themes. C. Citizen Communication—No one signed up to speak. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council&Town Center Development Agency) — A. RECEIVE AND FILE: 1. Council Calendar 2. Council Tentative Agenda for Future Meeting Topics TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 of 12 B. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINU TES • August 14,2018 • September 4,2018 • September 11,2018 • September 18,2018 • September 25, 2018 C. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION WAIVING SIGN PERMIT FEES FOR JUST COMPASSION OF EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY Resolution No. 18-44—A RESOLUTION WAIVING$218 IN NEW SIGN PERMIT FEES FOR JUST COMPASSION OF EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY Council President Snider moved for approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Mayor Cook noted that for this item on the agenda Council would be convening as the Town Center Development Agency. 4. JOINT TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD/TOWN CEN 1'ER ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING Redevelopment Manager Farrelly introduced this agenda item. Town Center Advisory Commission Members introduced themselves-Tom Murphy,Cathie Arendes,Tim Myshak, Faez Soud,Lucas Brook, Chair Kate Rogers,Ryan Ruggiero, Gloria Pinzon,and Chris Haedinger were present. Mr. Farrelly said the TCAC is a dedicated group of volunteers whose charge is to make urban renewal recommendations to the Board of the Town Center Development Agency,budget and implementation measures.They are working this year on both the downtown urban renewal plan and the new Tigard Triangle urban renewal area. The City Center urban renewal plan is entering its twelfth year and maturing while the Triangle area is getting its first TIF allocation this fall. The TTAC members gave their 2018 Goals Update and their plan for the 4th Quarter. Their presentation included a PowerPoint. Chair Rogers said TCAC members will discuss their accomplishments so far and what is ahead in the 4th quarter. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 12 TCAC Member Brooks said the Triangle is a very different area of opportunity and the TCAC wanted to understand it as they seek to provide the TCDA insight. They got a briefing from staff on what has been done so far and what the plan is going forward. They also discussed equitable urban renewal with staff and recently took a tour of the area. It was very helpful to see the Triangle is all its forms, from professional office building setting, to commercial and scattered residential. It helped them to understand the complexity of developing this area. They will continue working to increase their understanding of this space. TCAC Member Arendes spoke of accomplishments related to the SW Corridor. They planned to participate in planning and education activities associated with the SW Corridor and this took a variety of forms and included activities as a group and individually. The TCAC asked for and received project briefings from TriMet and Metro at two TCAC meetings and a joint meeting held with the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee. They attended open houses and participated in the Metro SW Corridor Community Advisory Committee for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Discovery and Recommendations Process (CAC). She and Commissioner Myshak served as the appointee and alternate to the CAC for meetings starting in 2017 and continuing through August of 2018. Members of the TCAC participated in various ways in the SW Corridor equitable housing project activities in order to make an informed recommendation to Metro's CAC and to make sure specific areas within the Triangle and downtown urban renewal would receive attention from Metro and TriMet staff and other members of the CAC. As a committee, the TCAC submitted a letter during the SW Corridor DEIS public comment period supporting alignment options that avoided impacts to low-income housing identified in the federal process as environmental justice populations, although they realize that more must be done to preserve housing affordability.The TCAC advocated for a through route rather than a branched alternative,which would have served Tigard's downtown on only half of its trips. They also strongly advocated for at least two stops in the Triangle and preservation of existing commercial development in the Triangle that already meets the vision for the area.All of these ideas were incorporated into the project staff's proposed alignment;however, that alignment contained a few surprises with the Park and Ride on SW 68`h and the station east of Hall Boulevard, coupled with a maintenance facility in the same vicinity. She said it is important for the city at large as well as the urban renewal areas that TCAC continues to stay at the table and negotiates safe,walkable development around parking garages, the maintenance yard,proposed station locations,and make sure those designs are compatible for the vision of mixed use and denser housing options in those areas. One major concern is the possibility of closing Hall Boulevard hundreds of times a day for a rail crossing. The TCAC believes that any Hall Boulevard station needs to be carefully designed to ensure connectivity with the downtown area and safety for all users while avoiding serious traffic impacts. TCAC Member Arendes said a member participated in the SW Corridor housing work by serving on a Metro advisory group and some attended public meetings held at St.Anthony's Church. It is clear that work is already being done on missing middle housing,development code changes and project prioritization in the Triangle. TCAC Chair Rogers said in the 2nd and 3rd quarters,the TCAC talked a lot about walkability and connectivity,working to make sure that light rail station placement in Tigard takes advantage of the opportunity to activate the area around stations and they are developed to be walkable and TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 12 connected to the Downtown and the Triangle. One thing that became obvious to them on their Triangle tour is that walkability is an issue. There is really no main street. They discussed how great it would be to create main street blocks in the Triangle with mixed-use housing and bottom floors with restaurants, cafes and businesses. This will help create some walkability like in the downtown. TCAC Chair Rogers said a lot of discussion was held on equitable businesses and how a self- supporting fund could be created that would encourage and incubate equitable businesses,whether using grants,leased property income, or a combination, to help create such a local business. It would also be good to tie affordable housing to affordable small business space with the goal that the small business would outgrow that space so another person or family could take over the responsibility and grow another business. TCAC Member Murphy focused on future projects, specifically the Red Rock Creek Commons, affordable housing that will be completed in 2020. In 2017 the TCDA approved a commitment to provide between$100,000 and $200,000 in seed money for affordable housing.A slide was shown of a rendering for the approximately nine-tenths-acre parcel that is close to Pacific Highway. There will be 48 one-bedroom units,all below market rate. There are 24 Section 8 vouchers already assigned so people with very low incomes will be able to rent an apartment. The nexus between chronic mental illness and homelessness is well recognized so eight units will be set aside for persons with severe mental illness. Community Partners for Affordable Housing(CPAH) has partnered with Luke Dorf to provide supportive services for those residents and was recently awarded$600,000 from the Oregon Health Authority to help with those costs.The TCDA Board's promise to provide financial support was contingent on CPAH securing other funding. To date using that seed money, CPAH has lined up approximately$12.5 million of funding for Red Rock Commons. That is leverage. This board's commitment to providing the first dollars was the fulcrum that allowed CPAH to do the heavy lifting required to bring in those other commitments. Mr. Murphy said the significance of the city's support far exceeds the purchasing power of$200,000 because it convinced other funders at the federal and state levels and the private sector that this was a worthwhile project. There is still a funding gap but this project will get built. CPAH is planning the groundbreaking in spring or summer of 2019 and completion in early 2020. It will not solve the affordable housing problem but it will help. He said that commitment to affordable housing is in the DNA of Tigard's city government,both in council and staff, and commitment to Red Rock Creek Commons is further proof of that commitment. Chair Rogers gave council a preview of the remainder of their year's activities which include the TCAC Year End Report and Recommendations for the TCDA. They are also doing a deep dive into the Triangle,looking at demographics, existing and potential regulations and codes and development of a vision for the Tigard Triangle. A review of the city project plan will be done in November. Part 2 of the deep dive is scheduled for December as well as receiving a briefing on affordable housing, particularly the senior center site. They will also work on budget priorities and prepare the financial impact statement draft. TCDA Director Woodard asked if there had been any discussion on the station related to plaza build-out to activate that space. He suggested ideas including flash mobs, concerts, food carts or rental space. TCAC Member Arendes replied that there were some discussions on using the public works yard to locate a plaza or using other locations for synergy with the station. She acknowledged concern about TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 4 of 12 crossing Hall Boulevard,whether by pedestrian or vehicle and said until which side of Hall Boulevard is selected,it was hard to decide. TCDA Director Woodard asked the TCAC to keep opportunities in mind to make public space sustainable so maintenance is covered. TCAC Chair Rogers said they have also looked at best design principles for urban stations and activating them as much as possible. Chair Cook said over the next 12 months the stations will be designed and it could be a goal of the TCAC to look at activation,walkability and connectivity for these stations. TCDA Chair Cook asked for the briefing received on the SW Corridor Equitable Housing Strategy and the IGA recently signed with TriMet regarding remnant parcels for affordable housing.TCAC Member Arendes said that is one important strategy and another is making sure development code changes ensure there can be different kinds of housing options in downtown Tigard.Actions to consider are getting up to speed on the Network Oregon Housing Acquisition Fund and building a relationship with the Community Land Trust. The Affordable Housing Task Force being formulated now and supported by city staff should result in additional ideas. TCAC Member Pinzon said she was excited about conservation of existing affordable housing and said it can make a bigger impact at less expense. She said citizens depend on council to make those policy changes. Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly said an affordable housing strategy was presented to Council for their acknowledgement in July and staff will bring different policies forward for consideration in the future. TCDA Chair Cook referred to TCAC Member Murphy's comments on the Red Rock Creek Commons seed money and said we need to let citizens know of other things the City has done to encourage affordable housing. There is a property tax exemption program for qualified affordable housing projects and six in Tigard receive it. Tigard was the first city in Washington County to do this. Tigard also became the first city to remove system development charges for qualified affordable housing. There are charges on the county side that the City cannot control and he has started a county-wide discussion. He commended Tigard for being in the forefront on supporting affordable housing. He thanked the TCAC for their work and commitment. TCDA Chair Cook noted that for this item on the agenda Council would reconvene as the City Council. 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND FEMA FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS A. Mayor Cook opened the public hearing. B. Mayor Cook announced that anyone could offer testimony and there was a sign-up sheet at the front of the room. C Associate Planner Lindor gave the staff report on proposed amendments to the maps related to the FEMA floodplain that became effective October 19 and associated city regulations for floodplains. She noted that information on the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)is in the staff report and she can answer any questions Council has. Tigard went through an update in 2016 and amended floodplain maps. Since then there have been areas within Washington County identified for special study.All of those areas are outside of the City of Tigard but because this effort is county-wide,Tigard must adopt TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 12 the new maps. There was also a review of Tigard's ordinance to make sure it is in compliance with NFIP requirements. Changes from FEMA mostly related to definitions, manufactured homes and the process for notifying FEMA of new technical information. The City was notified in May that it had until October 19 to adopt these. The ordinance being considered is an emergency ordinance to meet that deadline so Tigard can participate in the NFIP. D. Public Testimony—There was none. E. Response to testimony by staff. None because there was no testimony. F. Mayor Cook closed the Public Hearing. G. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 18-21 Councilor Woodard found a grammatical correction in Exhibit A, 18.510.9 R-4. He suggested striking the word"an." Mayor Cook commented that since there is so much flooding going on, the flood insurance industry is changing definitions of what can be construed as being flooded. It also changed the definition of fencing and actions (putting accessory buildings)in the floodplain. He said it seemed to him that the flood insurance agency is changing what they will cover.Associate Planner Lindor said her impression is that FEMA is trying to discourage people from building in the floodplain and in the last round of FEMA changes there were things exempt from land use review if they were in the floodplain but now anything built in a floodplain has to go through review. Mayor Cook said something could have been built at a time when the floodplain map was different. It met the requirements at the time of building but if the maps change, they will not be covered. Mayor Cook said it is frustrating for citizens when the rules change. Council President Snider verified that if we choose not to participate it is a problem because our residents could not get flood insurance. He moved to adopt Ordinance No. 18-21. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. City Attorney Rihala said the change Councilor Woodard suggested earlier is appropriate and asked that it be placed in a motion. Councilor Woodard moved for an amendment to the motion to approve the ordinance with a correction to Exhibit A, 18.510.9.R.4 to remove the word, "an"before the hyphen on the first line. Councilor Anderson seconded his motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 18-21 —AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE(TITLE 18)TO ADOPT NEW FEMA FIRM MAPS AND UPDA 1'ED FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. PROPOSED TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES INCLUDE UPDA IED AND NEW DEFINITIONS RELA I EDTO FLOODPLAINS BE PLACED WITHIN CHAPTER 18.30 (DEFINITIONS) AND CHAPTER 18.510 (SENSITIVE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 12 LANDS);AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.510 (SENSITIVE LANDS),PROVIDE UPDA 1'ED REGULATION RELATING TO MANUFACTIRED HOMES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTFIYING FEMA OF NEW TECHNICAL DATA AND DECLARING ANEMERGENCY, as amended. City Recorder Krager conducted a roll call vote. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Ordinance No. 18-21 was adopted unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR FIRST QUARTER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL A. Mayor Cook opened the public hearing. B. Mayor Cook announced the hearing procedures and said there was a sign-up sheet at the front of the room and anyone may offer testimony. C Senior Management Analyst Kang gave the staff report and a brief description of the requests. Community Development has four requests: inspections systems ongoing maintenance, server replacement, annual licensing for electronic plan review software and a .50 FTE building code enforcement officer. In the Finance Department, there is a Metropolitan Area Communications Commission grant of$74,900 to be recognized. This will implement the next general security to the virtualized environment and reduce the chance of cyberattacks. For Police the request is for the photo red light program. The photo red light contract cost is $4,250 per approach per intersection for a total of eight approaches at three intersections. The total annualized cost is$204,000. Based on the projected workload the Police Department wants to hire one police officer and based on an evaluation after the first year of the program will determine if one FTE is sufficient. This will be funded in the future with increased revenue from the program. Related to photo red light Central Services has an increase in municipal court staff and judicial support hours. The Facilities Division will need to move and remodel the court office to accommodate additional staff in a secure area with limited access. The Police Department has a carryover for the Mark43 records management system that was approved in May and required a 50 percent down payment at contract execution.The balance is due in December.This is a carryforward of previously identified funds for FY 18 in order to support the down payment expenditure being recognized in FY 19. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 7 of 12 Public Works has three FIB requests. The first is 1 FTE for a management analyst to support the new water system, complete the water system analysis and work with the water utility team on asset management and general water utility analytical support. The second Fi E is 1 FTE for the Utility Apprenticeship Program which will create a pathway to qualified candidates and give the opportunity to apprentice with the department to learn skills and abilities in order to meet minimum requirements of the journeyman-level utility worker classification. Successful candidates will be eligible for future job openings.Their last FTE is for 1 FTE for a lead worker for the Green Team. Public Works has two other FTE requests. One is for a carry-forward of community engagement support,approved as part of the FY 18 3`d Quarter Supplemental and the other is recognition of an emergency response services grant. Senior Management Analyst Kang said most of the Capital Improvement Program requests are carry forwards of prior year appropriations.They include the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan, Oak Savanna Restoration at Dirksen Nature Park,Upper Boones Ferry Road/Durham Adaptive Signal,Fanno Creek Remeander,Dirksen Nature Park Nature Play area, City of Tigard/TTSD Park Development, Fanno Creek Trail Connection,Water Master Plan and Tigard Street Heritage Trail. The GIS centralization will create efficiencies and consistency within the GIS division. No additional funding is necessary. D. Public Testimony—No one testified. E. Response to testimony by staff. None F. Mayor Cook closed the Public Hearing. G. Council Discussion and Consideration: Resolution No. 18-45 Mayor Cook asked about the Green Team's work. City Engineer Faha said when road projects are done the City takes over maintenance requirements for the planter areas. They also maintain water quality facilities and Water Division sites. She said we require stormwater retention in developments and those retention facilities serving more than one property are required to become public facilities.They clear sediment and clean out trash. The water quality facilities must be kept at levels required by Clean Water Services. In response to a question from Councilor Woodard on the Green Team,Utilities Manager Goodrich said the team is made up of a supervisor and four staff. They use seasonal help during the summer to work on vegetative growth. It has always been a small team and analysis shows their workload is increasing. Councilor Woodard asked about the utility apprentice program and asked if the city had done this previously. Mr. Goodrich said it is difficult to compete in today's job market and we need employees experienced in utility work. This program is a synergistic development to see if there are ways to retain employees and at the same time develop staff to see the value in working for the city.We want to help them obtain the required Commercial Driver's License and other licenses so they are more prepared for openings when they TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 8 of 12 occur. The funding would come from the specific divisions within the department that are doing the training. If this grows, staff may come back to council to discuss expanding the program. Councilor Woodard said apprenticeship programs are phenomenal and he commended Public Works for getting this started. Council President Snider asked a technical question about the IVR server,noting that servers can fail in different ways and why wasn't staff just replacing the part that is failing. IT Manager Nolop replied that the server is on an old operating system that the new software vendor cannot support. Building Services Supervisor Howse said that calls the Building Division rely upon are being dropped. Utility Billing also uses it for outbound notifications and it is the main inspection request line. Council President Snider asked if staff has been monitoring the fail rate and Ms. Howse said they have been for the past six months. Councilor Woodard commented that the photo red light enforcement program looks like a good program and asked what is included in the monthly cost. Mayor Cook said it is related to the equipment, the vendor monitoring and giving the city a written report. The vendor pre-reviews the citations then they come to the police department for review. Councilor Woodard asked about service maintenance fees and Police Chief McAlpine said if a system fails,it falls on the vendor to repair it. The contract is for five years. Council President Snider moved to approve Resolution No. 18-45 and Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. Resolution No. 18-45—A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FY 2019 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL INCLUDING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO PUBLIC WORKS,POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION,AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider V Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse V 7. Mayor Cook announced that Agenda Item No. 7 is a Town Center Development Agency Item. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR THE FY 2019 FIRST QUAR I'ER TCDA BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL A. Chair Cook opened the Public Hearing. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 9 of 12 B. Chair Cook announced the hearing procedures and said there is a sign-up sheet at the front of the room. No one signed up to speak. C. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance and Senior Management Analyst Kang gave the staff report. The first quarter TCDA has one request. Several grants were awarded in FY 2018 but projects were not completed that fiscal year,leaving urban renewal improvement program opportunity funds unspent.This will increase the TCDA budget by $121,000 with no impact on reserves or future expenditures. D. Chair Cook called for public testimony. No one signed up to speak. E. No staff response was required as there was no testimony. F. Chair Cook closed the public hearing. G. Discussion and Consideration:TCDA Resolution No. 18-05 Director Woodard moved to approve TCDA Resolution No. 18-05. Director Anderson seconded the motion. There was no discussion. City Recorder Krager read the number and tide of the resolution. TCDA Resolution No. 18-05—A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FY 2019 FIRST QUAR I ER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL INCLUDING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY(TCDA) URBAN DEVELOPMENT Chair Cook conducted a vote of the TCDA and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Director Snider ✓ Director Woodard V Director Anderson V Chair Cook V Director Goodhouse V Chair Cook announced that the City Council would reconvene for the following items. 8. CONSIDER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 12-16 TO EXPAND THE AUDIT COMMI 1TEE MEMBERSHIPAND RESPONSIBILITIES Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance presented this item. This resolution will temporarily expand both the membership and duties of the Audit Committee.They currently work with the City's independent financial auditors,helps them set the scope,reviews the audit and makes presentations of findings to City Council. They provide transparency and independence to the audit process. This resolution will, for a two-year period,expand the audit committee membership for two at-large members to serve a two-year term. In addition to the existing duties,the committee will review performance audit findings,review performance metrics suggested by our performance auditors and review staff reports on progress and measurement of those metrics.The committee will TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 10 of 12 then make a report to Council on or before December of 2020 on recommendations for any future performance audit activity. Mr. LaFrance said this will provide management and maintenance of the findings of performance audits done in the next two years and there will be some oversight by independent residents of Tigard. Council President Snider noted that preference is already given to those with CPA experience in the prior Audit Committee resolution and asked why the committee should be further be loaded with CPA experience for the performance audits. He said the current committee is filled with CPAs or those who at least are accounts. He suggested adding professionals with experience with performance audits or giving preference to people who have expertise in some of our larger funds such as police or library. He said someone who has run a library elsewhere or someone who has been an executive leader at another police department would be good at this. Mr.LaFrance responded that staff was attempting to get someone with a broad perspective or experience,and if we get someone who is very specialized in one area,they would not be as aware of other areas. CPAs are familiar with audits,both financial and performance. Mayor Cook followed up as a CPA and said CPAs understand performance audits and fund accounting better than non-CPAs,but not every CPA does performance audits. He said we could take the word CPA out or add the word"and." Councilor Woodard suggested adding the word,benchmarking. He said when looking for benchmarks against other city operations the committee may find ways to combine contracts,which is standard in the corporate world. He asked that"benchmarking" be added as a qualifier. City Manager Wine said benchmarking is included in the RFP for firms to do the performance audits. Councilor Goodhouse suggested adding"other related experience" will open the field. Council President Snider moved to approve Resolution 18-46 with edits to section 1.B.a - "Expand its membership to include two at-large residents that will serve for a single two-year term ending December 31,2020. Preference will be given to residents who have professional experience with performance audits,benchmarking and/or have extensive expertise in one or more departments similar to the City of Tigard departmental operations." Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Mayor Cook said he was surprised that we are only going for two years on this. City Manager Wine said Council's proposal was to embark upon performance audits that would be complete within a year. Councilor Woodard suggested adding a statement to the resolution that there would be a follow-up discussion on whether it continues. City Manager Wine said making recommendations for a future performance audit is included in Section 1 of the resolution. City Recorder Krager read the number and tide of the resolution. Resolution No. 18-46—A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 12-16 AND EXPANDING THE AUDIT COMMI FILE MEMBERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO INCLUDE PERFORMANCE AUDIT THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2020, as amended Yes No Council President Snider ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 11 of 12 Councilor Woodnrd V Councilor Anderson V Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse V Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. 9. NON AGENDA I[EMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION None 11. ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 p.m. Councilor Goodhouse moved for adjournment and Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passes unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider V Councilor Woodard V Councilor Anderson V Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse V Carol A. Krager, City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook,Mayor Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— October 16, 2018 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 12 of 12 AIS-3633 4. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/27/2018 Length(in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: RECEIVE TVF&R STA 1'E OF THE DISTRICT REPORT Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting -Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall the City Council receive a State of the District presentation from Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue Chief Frentress? STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUEST Council will receive the update. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY TVF&R gives their State of the District report to cities annually. Chief Frentress will be available for questions after the presentation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS,POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TVF&R last presented their State of the District report on September 12,2017. Attachments PowerPoint r11111V11111h Tualatin Valle Fire Rescues' STATE OF THE DISTRICT 20 I 8 Ch fit '.�y ,.,;� R b fl( F e tress 1 £ �, '+F- «e M.r ,,,. ., ..., , - i '.`.`, ,,yi? :a ,>=- .mss- 04"0-t$. 'G ��3 "`xa'ns/vt ' ��.. k�;. .....• .. J ` <U�pot Election Results Newberg and NRFPD Annexation to TVF&R County Boundary Percent of Yes Votes __. <71 ---1--J3 . `1 L. <69% <68% r ___65% t <_61% _.. a <_50% t / i___-- —r /,,,,,,, U )1) L.---- s\"\ 4 1 Newberg and surrounding 5 cell— rural area joined TVF&R .,..,::_,.„...,..,. .,. . on July 1. Siv,„„v, , . . ...,tate of the District:Tigard,November 2018 '`lits, City of Tigard t Year to Date Incident Snapshot through 3C j 1/1/18 - 9/30/18 Fire& Valley Total Incidents 4,409 t EMS FIRE HAZARD SERVICE GOOD FALSE NATURAL OTHER INTENT ALARM CONDITION a Beaverton * A f,�, s3 ,416 Dispatched As 3,664 381 28 336 0 0 0 0 831 B.G:'_ O.t:: . 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% , 1 Situation Found - 2.990 123 110 221 744 218 0 3 i# 67-8% 2.8 2.5% 5.0% 16.9% 4.9% 0.0% 0.07% ;* 'L t incident Sub-Categories 4. ircir- 41 lilli ...b. ill (lie A AO I illP Oil Structure Cooking Vehicle Fires Vegetation Other Fires Critical MVC with MVC • Fires Fires Fires Patients" Injury Unknown Sherwood Injury 18 9 17 60 19 733 211 107 Structure Fire Types *Critical Patients cardiac arrest,chest pain.stroke. 0 Residential Commercial seizure,breathing problem,drowning,respiratory wry 14 4 distress respiratory arrest,or trauma system entry. Wirt—=motor vehicle crash. WAS Oil vilk Hour of Day Day of Week A 1ga6,129 Top Station Responses ` c:n 241 248 260 296 260 96 250 261 12%. 41102 5,067 5.070 5,401 Station 51 59% 211 220 221 Zia F., Station 35 18% 179 1;4 113 I.I1IIdiIiIHhiIiiiIH ' 2$9G(ncrse(nom 2D13M2017 11111M1111_111_-1111_ Station 66 3% 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 0E 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Depending on incident severity,units from multiple stations may respond to a single Data Fitters:no test,information,interfacility transports.or mobile health care incidents. State of the District: Tigard, November 2018 incident. Incident data gathered geospatially based on city boundary kons made try Freepik from www.ftatiron.com 1 p ‘r, , y ti i �Ii i I,c-1,11 A�> •s L.J. ,,,,I•i,"! ‘4 \ `I . IL-1-' \ 4'-,..*'..''''''., li M' - 4;-- ..,„. Iif, h < i . . .... .il. -,.. Z7 ��;�� i s (/� CD Qy r—f- p ri[441 .n ; ,.-., 1 ,,re- .. . . i 1-1 ,. 0 r--t- 3 '4. metk.----.-; ., . 1.. ,...,,..t.,,i, V) ••••• ,, if ... ,,,1 — - �: '..v.; 0 ..71"gii, ,. ...... . r., ,. r_t_ ..... . ' (/ - , 1--, < . ,.._ 1 0.1 . .. .....1 Orl ► 11 nD- (I ) ro yr ''eµ \ CO r. + , \ rl _I J F 1 (b O \ V) a (ri . (10 ry c. U-Iit r 0 coI TVF&R Stations ata . ata . Data ! Current Station ,_, 1 L‘Ur—r— • 6 ' I , ' I 1 I "nes r What do we consider when e _ 4obr***PM +� s +t(uiih(Tains ""°""-' we're siting fire stations ? ,, 4. 71 tett 6a ,, i, _ population density 62 "D a P. 62 - ' e , i , ..„, a a) lir 63 13cavt,7ou incident types m C CD . II CD 31 II,,Ir,1 Wil Kill" M I)uii .1 _ traffic & transportation system fii-- 1 tilxir.u ,l 58® Iual©altI ; 38 ‘.l c. I Litu tea, ri topography I. `A IISitllt'I��t' �. ! - co ai) -/ PA�PRk1.71moms Ai,, _ W1ttAMEITTE• 54 ,/� State of the District: Tigard, November 20 18 .. ■ a1111 111 � II _ 39 c wan oad st 7080 SW McEwan Road Current Status: Under permit review, construction begins this fall. Duration: Approximately 13 months. Station features include: • community room • two drive-through apparatus bays • three bunk rooms for sleeping quarters • separate women's and men's locker rooms State of the District: Tigard, November 2018 ,, ..,„ - i .iti‘t i , ./.:: .. rh- , .4,- , .,.. , , 41zeifaikk W IA1 ,• 1 -411.4111.1.1111141h .1111moimpaniftile '149 c n rtH u „oil rt tt i , ��•' iii 1 is co N C y 0 uev /k, t e t a yew \ , I— a cu 0 at 1 g iminigimmossimommilinlit '',,_,„, • , ....,.-„.. .,„ .-,: ......,'.. ........- -,,, -. .. ' - ''''' ' ''-',, .,. .;._,., . -'' ''. a4Or . . . %1140,4k."6.1'411t!'''" ' -:''''''-• :11',ii:,'-'..''..;:'' ' . '.,„,,,,,''''.,., '',,, a.'.. a .. '., .0. S__SI '' V ..''''''' 4* z. 5, X , , . .., "l'i , ' '''. - e4 ' t . - ,... i •, -. ..„..- .--..- .„,,.. ' 'No .:, -,.. ,-. • ,.. CD o , - r 555 S t , --`-e. CD C7 i. ••••%'-'1 ...„ r) i• .1. rt ... . . - - , ..... ... '.. -1 . ..,. Z ,1=,- ' . c, . . -‹ et. cr a. -1 t.) 0 --. co ' - ... . ... ‘ , 41* t .,. h 1 .«.. ..., 7tq-1,,,,./ ' pAEGp� i'`�,' FDIC UNIT r,a M t +fir``" iF ,. k 1 30° '1, Al 6 A 1 (AV ' m 6 7 . It- # 11/1 6 7 • ... ......17s- •. 4 - a.,07 , . _ _ . . , . x . ,_ , ,_ . . . ...., ,_ , _, , , .. AL VP ,A . 0 . , .., titi ' "allitaiiim0 ,:,,4,;::, v !,!A4',,•:,, p ,;0.1 { 1p ; ' r .ri;i' k Sr P1: .r-ry "i'0,••,'•%• ••:•.-;,•,,, r b rrdr rp State of the District: Tigard, November 2018 „dpp,r,,�,,, r '.•.• •'r'r�r r ,rrr rr dry ,::Pr:1i':di'�ri��.i,:rrd�.'rrt� ,••, .:i4.,.irdi,i”;A,,,�� r ## ISO Rerate May Save on Insurance Premiums for some District Residents Top 3% of all US fire departments! ................. .. .. .. . On a I 0-point scale with Class I being the best,TVF&R is now consi Class 2 in all areas within five miles of a fire station. This could mean savings for people near Tigard, Sherwood,Wilsonville, and rural areas of the District. (Properties within Tigard city limits were already a Class 2.) ISO considered TVF&R's staffing, equipment, training, fire station distribution, incident reporting, data collection and community-risk-reduction efforts. State of the District: Tigard, November 2018 '- ', ',4E,'•::.T.',1E',;:tiiigailiv '',',':.;'• " ')J1'.ii!/-Zillii',1';'.4.5, 'igg,4,iLii•Miiii)'45i]5E', 'ci,,, 4.°.,t,''' .Fi6.15 Eille5q;,';'5,4i,1=i;,.• '''.....a.i..iili".•.i..1.irqi: levy , ., .. . . ......,„ ,.....,............. , IR. , '''', Miii,15E,iiii•:,, renewal ahead;.......,..„.„.,....„ .„,..,,, _ _ _ , ..... .„..... ..,,,, ,,.... . .. .... „„„,. .....,....,...„..... ... ,................ ., .. ........ . . _.... . . ....... , .......... ........:_,,, Ir • .."--- z/ .......„....... 1.15.5P.111,11.:' I .-- ./. I .• :000000•00000000.7. , . z . / .• / . ..., ,... / ,... / ..... / / / / `... For updates & notifications www.tvfr.com AIS-3573 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/27/2018 Length(in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Contract Award-Library Boiler Replacement Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the replacement of the boiler at the Tigard Public Library to Reitmeier NW? STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the Tigard Public Library boiler replacement project contract to Reitmeier NW in the amount of$161,576 and direct the City Manager to take the steps necessary to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In 2016, the Facilities Division hired consultants to perform a Facilities Condition Assessment. Based on recommendations provided by this assessment,the division has determined that both 1,000,000 BTU boilers serving the heating requirements at the library are due for replacement. They have been in service for the past 15 years.The current boilers are rated at 86%efficiency. The replacement boilers will operate at a 96% efficiency rate and will qualify for Energy Trust of Oregon incentives to assist in offsetting the overall cost. At the time of this AIS development, the exact incentive amount has not been relayed to the city from the Energy Trust. An Invitation to Bid was issued for the boilers and installation and the city received bids from two firms: •Northwest Control Company, Inc. •RINU,Inc.,dba Reitmeier. The bids were reviewed for completeness and responsiveness and the bid from Northwest Control Company Inc. (N.C.C.)was found to be incomplete. A requirement of the work was that firms needed a certified Carrier technician as part of their team. Staff did not find proof of this in the N.C.C. bid and further conversations with them verified that they did not meet this requirement. As such,the N.C.C. bid was deemed non-responsive and removed from consideration. RIND, Inc.'s (Reitmeier s) bid was found to be complete and responsive,therefore, staff is recommending the contract award for the boiler replacement at the Tigard Library go to Reitmeier in the amount of$161,576. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject this proposed award and direct staff to resolicit the work after the first of the year. COUNCIL OR TCDA GOALS,POLICIES,MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has seen this proposed contract award. Fiscal Impact Cost: $161,576 Budgeted(yes or no): Partial Where Budgeted(department/program): 650-Fleet/Property Management Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The total cost of this contract for the new boilers and installation is $161,576. The Fleet and Property Management Fund currently has $120,000 budgeted for the project. Additional funding will come through reductions in other budgeted areas. Attachments No file(s)attached. AIS-3574 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/27/2018 Length(in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Contract Award- City Hall Court/Utility Billing Remodel Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Local Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Contract Review Board Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the City Hall Court/Utility Billing Interior Remodel construction project to Endres Northwest, Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the City Hall Court/Utility Billing Interior Remodel construction project to Endres Northwest,Inc. in the amount of$131,800 and direct the City Manager to take the steps necessary to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY With the city's implementation of the photo traffic enforcement program in the coming months, the Court division will need to ramp up and expand to meet the increased case load the program will create. As a part of the Court division expansion, an interior remodel is needed to allow for a larger Court area and additional Court staffs. The current Court location simply cannot handle the new citations that are anticipated with the photo traffic enforcement program. Also,included in this implentation and remodel, the city will need to ensure the new Court area continues to meet all CJIS security requirements for records. Without adding to the City Hall footprint,to make this work,Utility Billing and Court will effectively trade places. The current Utility Billing area (the front counter)will be enclosed with new walls and glass and Court will operate out of this area. Utility Billing will move to the current Court area with an auxiliary equipment room being retrofitted and expanded to create additional room for them. The approximate area to be remodeled is 1,800 square feet. A small add alternative for kitchen cabinets, countertops, flooring,and paint was also included in the scope. The city issued an Invitation to Bid and received three bids upon closing: •Endres Northwest, Inc. Base Bid= $122,800,Add Alt. = $9,000,Total Bid= $131,800 •Troffer Contracting,Inc. Base Bid= $221,500,Add Alt. = $14,500,Total Bid= $236,000 •Woodburn Construction Base Bid = $325,000,Add Alt. _ $17,800,Total Bid = $342,800 Staff reviewed the bids for competency and responsiveness including requesting clarifying details from the two lowest firms to verify their understanding of the work. Staff also verified that no Construction Contractors Board or BOLI issues exist with the Endres Northwest, Inc. and had a conversation with another local public agency that had them under a public contract and gave very positive reviews of their experience. Therefore, staff is recommending the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for the City Hall Court/Utility Billing Interior Remodel construction contract,with the add alternative included,be awarded to Endres Northwest, Inc.in the amount of$131,800. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject this award recommendation and direct staff to resolicit the work. COUNCIL OR TCDA GOALS,POLICIES,MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has discussed this specific contract. Fiscal Impact Cost: $131,800 Budgeted(yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted(department/program): Facilities Capital Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: In the First Quarter Supplemental to the FY 2019 budget, the Facilities Capital Fund had$350,000 added to its "Work-In-Progress" appropriations for this work. The cost of this contract will come from this appropriations. The funding is made up from both anticipated revenue from the photo enforcement program as well as Contingency from the General Fund. Attachments No file(s)attached. AIS-3600 7. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/27/2018 Length(in minutes):45 Minutes Agenda Title: Legislative Public Hearing: Phase II Community Development Code Amendments Prepared For: Schuyler Warren,Community Development Submitted By: Schuyler Warren, Community Development Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting Ordinance -Main Public Hearing-Legislative Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall City Council adopt amendments to Title 18,Community Development Code,as part of the Phase II Policy and Procedures project?The focus of the amendments is on: 1.Policy changes to allow missing middle housing types as recommended in the 2013 Housing Strategies Report and under Goal 10 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; 2.Reorganization of residential and commercial design standards; 3.Policy changes related to group living, transitional housing, and emergency shelter to meet federal requirements; 4.Provision of an on-street parking credit and updates to the off-street parking regulations; 5.Clarifying process and standards for small cell wireless installation in the right-of-way; 6.General housekeeping to increase consistency and remove redundancies; 7.Miscellaneous code fixes identified by staff; 8.Replacing and removing outdated and ineffective regulations; 9.Streamlining existing processes and procedures;and 10.Addressing minor deficiencies in the code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUEST The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed development code text amendments as further amended by staff and with any alterations as accepted by Council determined through the public hearing process. Staff recommends adoption of the findings in the Planning Commission recommendation to Council and adoption of the code amendments as shown in Exhibit B and further amended by Exhibit C. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Phase II Policy and Procedures project is the second part of a comprehensive effort to update the development code to incorporate recommendations from the 2013 Housing Strategies Report and the 2015 Strategic Plan Code Audit, streamline processes,modernize language, and provide a document that is easier to read,understand, and navigate.The first phase of the code update project, completed in 2017, concentrated on smaller non-policy issues and code reorganization.This phase has focused on policy changes related to housing, temporary shelter, strategic plan implementation,parking standards, small cell wireless,process and procedures,and also includes further reorganization and non-policy changes to language. This project specifically focuses on the following areas: Housing Policy The purpose of the updates related to housing policy is to implement the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report and the Housing Options Task Force, and to comply with state and federal law. The 2013 Report included the following recommendations. •Recommendation CAL Update the TCDC to add a new code section specific to cottage clusters. •Recommendation CA4: Adopt single family attached housing standards as special development standards for use citywide. •Recommendation CA6: Amend TCDC 18.710.020 to allow more opportunities for ADUs as well as additional standards to address neighborhood compatibility. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following recommended action measures: •Support housing types, such as shared housing,accessory dwelling units, smaller homes,cottage clusters, adult foster homes,and other assisted living arrangements that allow the elderly to remain in their community as their needs change. •Develop infill design and/or cottage cluster housing standards to ensure that new housing constructed within existing residential neighborhoods complements and is compatible with existing development. The proposed development and design standards for missing middle housing types are intended to ensure that these housing types are both economically feasible and compatible with existing development. Senate Bill 1051,passed in 2017,requires that the City of Tigard allow all types of accessory dwelling units wherever single detached houses are allowed. Previously, the code only allowed internal and attached accessory dwelling units. The proposed code brings the city into compliance with state law, follows the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report, and implements recommendations from the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD), the Housing Options Task Force,and public comment to allow up to two accessory dwelling units per lot,with only one of those units allowed as detached. Another policy change is to bring the development code into compliance with federal law,which precludes differential treatment of group living uses.All restrictions on group living have been amended to match the restrictions on household living. The final changes to housing policy relate to temporary shelter,which has also been added as an allowed temporary accessory use for religious institutions and social and fraternal organizations.This change provides clear criteria for service providers such as Family Promise of Tualatin Valley to provide important shelter services on a limited basis through local religious institutions. Strategic Plan The proposed code changes implement some specific recommendations from the Strategic Plan Code Audit, including: •Adding definitions for sidewalk,path, and trail; •Allowing land dedicated to paths and trails to be subtracted from net development area when placed in an easement; •Reducing the minimum dimensions for off-street parking spaces; •Updated language to specifically refer to the Transportation System Plan and the Trails System Master Plan in land division chapters. •Moved pedestrian connectivity standards in the Design Compatibility Standards,where they were applicable only in certain circumstances, to the development standards for rowhouses. In addition, the strategic plan was considered when creating the development standards for all missing middle housing types. On-site paths that meet federal and state accessibility standards are a requirement of all missing middle development.The street frontage and the pedestrian environment were key considerations in ensuring neighborhood compatibility. Reorganizing and Consolidating The purpose of reorganizing and consolidating the development code is to implement new development standards.These changes include moving several chapters to other locations, as well as creating of several new chapters, some of which are simply placeholders at this time. Parking Policy Updates The Off-Street Parking and Loading chapter was reorganized to use a similar format to other chapters, and many of the provisions were re-worded for clarity. Several obsolete or outdated provisions were removed. In addition,an on-street parking credit provision was added. This is a common credit in other Metro-area jurisdictions,including Hillsboro,Wilsonville, Sherwood, Oregon City, and Troutdale. It is also a key recommendation of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report, since excessive parking provision for residential uses drives up costs through over-allocation of land to parking areas.This is especially true for accessory dwelling units,where parking can typically be accommodated on-site within existing parking areas and where additional spaces can crowd out the actual dwelling,making it infeasible.The typical curb cut for a driveway is the same width as an on-street space,resulting in no net loss of parking area. Small Cell Wireless The proposed code changes clarify how small cell wireless facilities are treated when they are to be installed in rights-of-way. Currently,because the code does not directly address these newer types of wireless infrastructure, they are treated the same as any other antenna installation,requiring a site development review or conditional use permit,depending on the zone. The code changes clarify that small cell wireless installations in the right-of way are not subject to land use regulation,but are instead subject to a city franchise agreement or license, applicable lease,and engineering standards.This change has been coordinated with Public Works and Engineering staff,who are developing their own standards for installation and maintenance of this type of infrastructure. Tigard Downtown Several changes clarify what types of development are subject to downtown design review. In addition, certain regulations, such as stepbacks,were found to be undesirable and have been removed altogether. Procedures The procedures provided in Chapters 18.810,Lot Line Adjustments, Chapter 18.820,Land Partitions,and Chapter 18.830,Subdivisions were updated to allow for lot creation for the purposes of missing middle housing.Lots created for missing middle housing are subject to deed restrictions to ensure that what would otherwise be non-conforming lots are used only for the stated purpose. In addition,language in all three chapters was updated to be consistent.The procedures for Director Determinations were also streamlined and changed to clarify that determinations utilize the Type I process. Outdated/Ineffective Regulations Within some chapters, certain provisions have become outdated or obsolete. These provisions have been removed. Most of these changes are small and specific instances are reflected in the code commentary. Minor Deficiencies and Language Updates Many small changes have been made,most related to language changes. Other small miscellaneous changes have been made to correct deficiencies collated by staff over the previous few years.These small changes are reflected in the commentary. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Other alternative include: 1.Do not adopt the amendments; 2.Revise and adopt the amendments; 3.Remand back to the Planning Commission. COUNCIL GOALS,POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Comprehensive Plan Goal 10: Housing 2013 Housing Strategies Report DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION November 28,2017-Discussion of Housing Options Task Force December 5,2017 and January 23,2018 -motions to form task force and appoint members July 17,2018-Update to Council Attachments Ordinance Exhibit A-Planning Commission Recommendation and Staff Report Attachment 1 -Full Strikethrough Attachment 2-Development Code Reorganization Attachment 3-Agency Comments Attachment 4-Public Comments Attachment 5-PC Minutes Exhibit B-Title 18 Exhibit C-Additional Amendments Memo Powerpoint presentation AgendaQuick©2005-2018 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 18- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE PHASE II-POLICY AND PROCEDURES UDPATE(DCA2018-00003). WHEREAS, the city has initiated an application to amend the text of the Development Code;and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City adopted a Housing Strategies Report including recommendations for policy changes to allow a wider variety of housing options in Tigard, particularly missing middle housing types; and WHEREAS, in 2016, Metro published the Opportunities and Challenges for Equitable Housing report, calling for a wider variety of housing types throughout the region, induding missing middle housing types; and WHEREAS, in 2017, the Oregon State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1051, requiring certain housing types to be allowed and necessitating amendments to the Tigard Development Code;and WHEREAS, Goal 10.1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents;and WHEREAS, The Tigard Comprehensive Plan includes a policy that the city shall implement findings and recommendations from the 2013 Tigard Housing Strategies Report;and WHEREAS,the purpose of the amendments is implement policy changes to allow missing middle housing types as recommended;to bring the code into compliance with federal and state law regarding group living and temporary shelter;to provide a process and standards for small cell wireless installations in the right-of-way;to revise the standards for off-street parking;to reorganize the code for ease of use and clarity of purpose;and to address minor deficiencies and conflicts in the code;and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development and Metro at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice to the public was provided in conformance with the Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.710.110 and ORS 227.186;and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 1, 2018 and recommended by unanimous vote that Council approve the proposed code amendment, as amended by Planning Commission;and ORDINANCE No. 18- Page 1 WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on November 27, 2018 to consider the proposed amendments;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has determined that the proposed development code amendments are consistent with the applicable review criteria. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard City Council adopts the findings contained in the "Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council", dated November 15, 2018 and included as "Exhibit A"to this Ordinance. SECTION 2: Tigard Development Code (Title 18) is amended as shown in "Exhibit B" of the Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council. SECTION 3: Council further adopts the staff memo to Council and further amends the Tigard Development Code (Title 18),as shown in"Exhibit C". SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be effective on January 31,2019. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of ,2018. Carol A. Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2018. John L. Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 18- Page 2 EXHIBIT A Hearing Date: November 27,2018 Time: 7:30 PM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE1111 CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T I G A R D SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment(DCA) DCA2018-00003 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The text amendments include the following: 1. Policy changes to allow missing middle housing types as recommended in the 2013 Housing Strategies Report and under Goal 10 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; 2. Reorganization of residential and commercial design standards; 3. Policy changes related to group living, transitional housing, and emergency shelter to meet federal requirements; 4. Provision of an on-street parking credit and updates to the off-street parking regulations; 5. Clarifying process and standards for small cell wireless installation in the right-of- way; 6. General housekeeping to increase consistency and remove redundancies; 7. Miscellaneous code fixes identified by staff; 8. Replacing and removing outdated and ineffective regulations; 9. Streamlining existing processes and procedures; and 10. Addressing minor deficiencies in the code. The proposed text amendments for the City Council's review are included in Attachment 1, and summarized below in Section IV of this report: APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 ZONES: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), 10 (Housing);METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Tides 1, 6, 7, and 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.12, 2.1.23, 2.1.24, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.6, 10.1.7, 10.1.8, 10.2.5, 10.2.8, 10.2.9, and 10.2.10; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.710 and 18.795. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 22 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends approval by ordinance of the proposed development code text amendments (Attachment 1) as further amended by staff and with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT SUMMARY The Phase II Policy and Procedures project is the second part of a comprehensive effort to update the development code to incorporate recommendations from the 2013 Housing Strategies Report and the 2015 Strategic Plan Code Audit, streamline processes,modernize language, and provide a document that is easier to read,understand, and navigate. The first phase of the code update project,completed in 2017, concentrated on smaller non-policy issues and code reorganization.This phase has focused on policy changes related to housing, temporary shelter, strategic plan implementation,parking standards, small cell wireless,process and procedures,and also includes further reorganization and non-policy changes to language. This staff report covers the first part of the project and specifically focuses on the following code update areas: o Updates to housing policy,including: o Changes related to missing middle housing; o Changes to comply with Senate Bill 1051 (2017) o Changes to comply with federal law on group living and to regulate temporary shelter uses; o Reorganizing and further consolidating the current code structure to provide design standards divisions; o Updates to parking policy and provision of an on-street parking credit; o Clarification of the process for approval of small cell wireless in the right-of-way; o Miscellaneous small changes in the Tigard Downtown Plan District; o Changes to land division,lot line adjustment,and director determination procedures; o Replacing or removing outdated and ineffective regulations;and o Addressing minor deficiencies in the code. The Tigard Planning Commission voted unaninmously to forward this recommendation for adoption to the City Council,with one change. The draft before the Planning Commission included provisions allowing temporary shelter as a temporary accessory use for religious institutions. The Commission felt strongly that this temporary use should also be allowed as a temporary accessory use for lodges, fraternal,and social organizations. The Commissioners offered that this use typically is located in similar places,has similar facilities such as commercial kitchens, and has gathering areas able to accommodate large numbers of people. The Commission also asked for clarification on the distinction between tiny homes and recreational vehicles. The proposed code will treat tiny homes on wheels as recreational vehicles,meaning that they cannot function as permanent housing.To be treated as such, tiny homes must be placed on a permanent foundation with permanent utility connections. Housing Policy The purpose of the updates related to housing policy is to implement the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report and the Housing Options Task Force, and to comply with state and federal law.The 2013 Report included the following recommendations. PHASE IT POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 22 • Recommendation CA1: Update the TCDC to add a new code section specific to cottage clusters. • Recommendation CA4: Adopt single-family attached housing standards as special development standards for use citywide. • Recommendation CA6: Amend TCDC 18.710.020 to allow more opportunities for ADUs as well as additional standards to address neighborhood compatibility. In addition,consider waiving or reducing system development charges (SDCs) for ADUs. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following recommended action measures: • Support housing types, such as shared housing, accessory dwelling units, smaller homes, cottage clusters, adult foster homes,and other assisted living arrangements that allow the elderly to remain in their community as their needs change. • Develop infill design and/or cottage cluster housing standards to ensure that new housing constructed within existing residential neighborhoods complements and is compatible with existing development. The proposed development and design standards for missing middle housing types are intended to ensure that these housing types are both economically feasible and compatible with existing development. Senate Bill 1051,passed in 2017,requires that the City of Tigard allow all types of accessory dwelling units wherever single detached houses are allowed. Previously,the code only allowed internal and attached accessory dwelling units.The proposed code brings the city into compliance with state law, follows the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report, and implements recommendations from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Housing Options Task Force,and public comment to allow up to two accessory dwelling units per lot,with only one of those units allowed as detached. In addition,the code has been updated to recognize the growing lack of distinction between attached and internal accessory dwelling units and duplexes. The duplex housing type has been removed from the code and the size of internal and attached units has been restricted to not exceed the primary unit. In practice, the city's code does not restrict household size,and only restricts the size of a house based on setbacks and maximum height. This means that under the current code, a house could be built to the maximum size and hold any number of people allowed under building code.The only thing that would distinguish a household of 8 from two households of 4 is the number of ovens allowed, since only the range is used to determine a separate dwelling unit. Further, excessive size restrictions on internal and attached units renders basement ADUs infeasible where the basement footprint matches that of the first floor, even though there are no external impacts. Another policy change relates group living and transitional housing. Federal law precludes differential treatment of group living uses. All restrictions on group living have been amended to match the restrictions on household living. The final changes to housing policy relate to temporary shelter. Previously,the code provided for a "transitional housing"use category,which was overly broad in its applicability and treated certain protected classes differentially. This use category has been removed,and a new"temporary shelter"use category has been created.This new use category is not considered a residential use,and as such,is listed under the Civic/Institutional use categories.The key distinction between residential uses and temporary shelter is based on tenancy,not on the tenants served. In application, temporary shelters are treated much the same as commercial lodging,where tenancy can be arranged on less than a month-to-month basis. Similar to the prohibition on commercial lodging in residential zones,temporary shelter is also prohibited in these zones. A major distinction between commercial lodging and temporary shelter is that commercial lodging is typically operated by a for-profit business that is directly compensated by their tenants for their stay while temporary shelter is typically operated by a non-profit that is not directly compensated by the tenants for their stay. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 22 Temporary shelter has also been added as an allowed temporary accessory use for religious institutions and social and fraternal organizations.This change provides clear criteria for service providers such as Family Promise of Tualatin Valley to provide important shelter services on a limited basis through local religious institutions. Strategic Plan The proposed code changes implement some specific recommendations from the Strategic Plan Code Audit, including: • Adding definitions for sidewalk,path,and trail; • Allowing land dedicated to paths and trails to be subtracted from net development area when placed in an easement; • Reducing the minimum dimensions for off-street parking spaces; • Updated language to specifically refer to the Transportation System Plan and the Trails System Master Plan in land division chapters. • Moved pedestrian connectivity standards in the Design Compatibility Standards,where they were applicable only in certain circumstances, to the development standards for rowhouses; In addition, the strategic plan was considered when creating the development standards for all missing middle housing types. On-site paths that meet federal and state accessibility standards are a requirement of all missing middle development.The street frontage and the pedestrian environment were key considerations in ensuring neighborhood compatibility. Reorganizing and Consolidating The purpose of reorganizing and consolidating the development code is to implement new development standards divisions. These changes include the moving of several chapters to other locations,as well as the creation of several new chapters, some of which are simply placeholders at this time. Chapters 18.210, Accessory Structures and 18.220,Residential Compatibility Standards have been removed and their contents incorporated into other chapters. Chapter 18.200 has been changed from Building Development Standards to Residential Development Standards,and the 200 division has been updated to include the development standards for all housing types,including Accessory Dwelling Units and Mobile Home Parks,which were moved from Chapter 18.410 and 18.420,respectively. Similarly, Chapters 18.310, Off Street Parking and Loading and 18.320,Landscaping and Screening were moved to the 400 division, Supplemental Development Standards.This makes sense as these are supplementary to other development standards. Chapter 18.300 has been changed from Site Development Standards to Nonresidential Development Standards,and the 300 division has been updated to include development standards for Commercial, Industrial, and Parks development. These chapter are placeholders for the moment and will be updated in a future code update. Parking Policy Updates The Off-Street Parking and Loading chapter was poorly organized and worded,and contained several obsolete provisions.The chapter was reorganized to use a similar format to other chapters, and many of the provisions were reworded for clarity. Several obsolete or outdated provisions were removed.The intent of these changes are to improve the clarity and usability of this chapter for both staff and applicants. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 22 In addition,an on-street parking credit provision was added. This is a common credit in other Metro-area jurisdictions,and is a key recommendation of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report, since excessive parking provision for residential uses drives up costs. Recommendation CA7: Consider revising parking standards to allow for the following, either on a citywide basis or in areas with existing or planned future high capacity or other frequent transit service: • On-street parking credits • Reduced or simplified parking space requirements for affordable, senior and/or other housing projects This is also a forward-looking change, as it is likely that the average number of vehicles per household is likely to drop in the coming decades,with ridesharing and autonomous vehicles dramatically reshaping the transportation landscape. Small Cell Wireless The proposed code changes clarify how small cell wireless facilities are treated when they are to be installed in rights-of-way. Currently,because the code does not directly address these newer types of wireless infrastructure,they are treated the same as any other antenna installation,requiring a site development review or conditional use permit, depending on the zone. The reality is that small cell wireless infrastructure is much different than other types of wireless infrastructure.These antennas, typically installed on street lights,power poles,traffic signals, or other public infrastructure are smaller in form and have a reduced service area.As a result, they are typically installed in more of a distributed format that provides better coverage.The antennas are typically not visually obtrusive and provide essential functions for the rollout of"5G"wireless service. The code changes clarify that small cell wireless installations in the right-of way are not subject to land use regulation,but are instead subject to franchise agreements,leases,and engineering standards.This change has been coordinated with Public Works and Engineering staff,who are developing their own standards for installation and maintenance of this type of infrastructure. Tigard Downtown Several changes clarify what types of development are subject to downtown design review. In addition, certain regulations, such as stepbacks,were found to be undesirable and have been removed altogether. Procedures The procedures provided in Chapters 18.810,Lot Line Adjustments,Chapter 18.820,Land Partitions, and Chapter 18.830, Subdivisions were updated to allow for lot creation for the purposes of missing middle housing. Lots created for missing middle housing are subject to deed restrictions to ensure that what would otherwise be non-conforming lots are used only for the stated purpose. In addition,language in all three chapters was updated to be consistent. The procedures for Director Determinations were also streamlined and changed to clarify that the determinations utilize the Type I process. Outdated/Ineffective Regulations Within some chapters, certain provisions have become outdated or obsolete. These provisions have been removed. Most of these changes are small,and specific instances are reflected in the code commentary. PHASE II POLICY ANI)PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF 22 Minor Deficiencies and Language Updates Many small changes have been made,most related to language changes. Other small miscellaneous changes have been made to correct deficiencies collated by staff over the previous few years.These small changes are reflected in the commentary. Summary of Code Changes This section provides a finer level of detail of the changes proposed for each new chapter of the revised development code. Some types of changes are common throughout the code.These types of changes unify and standardize the entire development code through using consistent phrasing, terminology, and formatting. Terminology changes made throughout the code include: • The word"shall"has been mostly removed from the code. This change is being made because"shall" can be legally murky,and has interpreted by the courts to mean"must" or"may". In most cases where the word"shall"indicated a mandatory requirement for a party other than the city,it has been changed to"must". In most cases where the word"shall"indicated an action to be undertaken by the city or a specific city employee or body,it has been changed to"will". In cases where the words "shall not"were used, either the phrase was changed to"may not", or the wording was changed to use the word "prohibited". • The word"permitted" has been replaced with"allowed"where the specific instance does not involve issuance of a permit. • The word"yard" has been replaced with"setbacks" throughout the code for consistency and clarity. • The phrase"single-family residential"has been replaced with"single detached houses"or in some cases with"single detached houses and rowhouses". • The phrase"multi-family residential"has in most cases been replaced with"apartments" or in some cases "apartments and rowhouses". • The phrase"attached houses"has been replaced by"rowhouses". • The code was updated to use the word"lot" only.The code previously used the words "lot", "parcel", "tract",and sometimes "site"interchangeably. • Items with a parenthetical plural suffix— (s)—were changed to singular, as the code specifically states that the singular is inclusive of the plural. • The word"lapse"was changed to "expire". • The phrase"side facing street on corner and through lots"was shortened to"street side". • The phrase"distance between front of garage and property line abutting a public or private street" related to setbacks was shortened to"garage" or"garage setback". • References to variances have been removed,as they are not necessary with a general adjustment. Certain chapters of the code are moved and renumbered, some are removed entirely, and others are added. These changes are summarized in Attachment 2 of this staff report. In the proposed draft, chapters with significant changes not covered above include commentary pages. Chapters that do not contain commentary pages do not contain significant changes. Chapters that are new also include some commentary. Chapter specific changes are discussed below. If a chapter does not indude significant changes it is not listed. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO"TIE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 22 Chapter 18.10 Legal Framework This chapter is updated to explain the use of language as detailed above and to provide a means for the director to waive certain portions of the code where it conflicts with federal and state law requiring accommodations for disabled persons. Chapter 1830 Definitions The definitions chapter is reorganized to utilize section numbers that correspond with the first letter of words. This means that all words beginning with"A"are in Section A,all words starting with"B" are in Section B, and so forth. This makes the chapter easier to navigate and allowed definitions to be added and removed without renumbering the entire chapter each time. The chapter is also updated to move certain transportation- related definitions into a separate grouping. Definitions related to housing are updated or added,including definitions for new missing middle housing types and the removal of single-family and multi-family designations. Definitions for"attached" and"detached are also added. The definitions for"building"and"structure" are updated,because there was previously no distinction between the two and the definition was overly broad. Lot-related definitions are updated, and the code is revised to use only the word"lot"whereas it previously used"lot","parcel",and"tract"interchangeable.The definition of"lot of record"is reworded to clarify the criteria for determining a lot of record.A definition of"unit of land" is added. Chapter 18.40 Measurements This chapter is revised to split the calculation of net development area and residential density into two separate sections. Provisions for determining the plane of a building wall,which were not used in the code, are removed. Measurement for floor area and floor area ratio are added. A new measurement is provided for specific situations where accessory dwelling units are added into existing accessory structures. Chapter 18.50 Nonconforming Circumstances This chapter contains provisions for nonconforming lots,nonconforming uses,and nonconforming development.The proposed draft removes a section called"Nonconforming uses of development"which was redundant with the other provisions of the chapter. Chapter 18.60 Use Categories This chapter is updated to remove the"Transitional Housing"use category and add a new"Temporary Shelter"use category. Provisions were added to allow Temporary Shelter as an allowed accessory use subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.440,Temporary Uses. The"Wholesale Sales" category was updated to "Wholesale Sales and Equipment Rental" to reflect the actual uses in the category. Chapter 18.110 Residential Zones PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 7 OF 22 This chapter was updated to remove development standards,including Table 18.110.3. Development standards are now provided in the individual chapters for each housing type. This chapter now includes only information on the allowed uses and housing types in the zone. Chapter 18.120 Commercial Zones This chapter was updated to remove redundant language,and to consolidate and clarify the tables and footnotes.The MU-CBD,MUC-1, and TMU zones were removed from the development standards table because these zones are unique to plan districts and any provided standards were moved to the appropriate plan district chapter. 18.200 Residential Development Standards The Building Development Standards division contains nine chapters,which provide regulations for residential development. Chapter 18.210 Residential General Provisions This is a new chapter but contains development standards and provisions from Chapter 18.110,Residential Zones that are broadly applicable to all housing types. Chapter 18.220 Accessory Dwelling Units This chapter is moved from former Chapter 18.410 and updated to comply with Senate Bill 1051. Policy changes include the allowance of detached accessory dwelling units, up to two accessory dwelling units per lot, and an increase in the allowed square footage of internal and attached accessory dwelling units. Chapter 18.230 Apartments This chapter is new, and includes development standards moved from Chapter 110,Residential Zones. Chapter 18.240 Cottage Clusters This chapter is new and provides standards for a new housing type. Cottage clusters must contain 4-12 units, and be arranged around a common open space.The units are limited in size, at an average of 1,100 square feet or less. Height is restricted to 25 feet. Landscaping and screening standards are provided to ensure compatibility. Chapter 18.250 Courtyard Units This chapter is new and provides standards for a new housing type. Courtyard units must contain 5-12 units, and be arranged around a common open space.The units are limited in size to an average of 1,000 square feet or less. Height is restricted to 25 feet. Landscaping and screening standards are provided to ensure compatibility. Chapter 18.260 Mobile Home Parks PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 8 OF 22 This chapter is moved from former Chapter 18.420 and updated to comply with state law regarding manufactured housing and clear and objective standards. Manufactured housing language was removed from the chapter and it now solely focuses on mobile home parks and subdivisions. Chapter 18.270 Quads This chapter is new and provides standards for a new housing type. Quad units are built on slightly larger lots and contain four units,with two on a ground floor and two on a second floor.The units are limited in size to 1,000 square feet or less. Landscaping and screening standards are provided to ensure compatibility. Chapter 18.280 Rowhouses This chapter is new, and includes development standards moved from Chapter 18.110,Residential Zones and the former Chapter 18.220, Residential Compatibility Standards. New standards require shared access between two adjacent units. Chapter 18.290 Single Detached Houses This chapter is new,and includes development standards moved from Chapter 18.110,Residential Zones. 18300 Nonresidential Development Standards The Building Development Standards division contains five chapters,which provide regulations for nonresidential development. Chapter 18.310 Nonresidential General Provisions This is a new chapter but contains development standards and provisions from Chapters 18.120, Commercial Zones, 18.130 Industrial Zones,and 18.140,Parks and Recreation Zones that are broadly applicable to all development types. Chapter 18.320 Commercial Development Chapter 18.330 Industrial Development Chapter 18.340 Parks and Recreation Development These chapters are new. Each is a placeholder for forthcoming development standards. Chapter 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading This chapter was moved from 18.310 and was updated to remove obsolete and unnecessary regulations. In addition,much of the chapter was reworded for clarity and brevity.An on-street parking credit section was added that allows for a 1-to-1 substitution of on-street spaces for required off-street spaces.This credit is only available to residential uses in the R-3.5, R-4.5,R-7,and R-12 zones and religious institutions. The credit for religious institutions was already provided for in this chapter,but was combined with the residential credit for ease of use. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT'TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 9 OF 22 Restrictions ensure that credits are only issued in cases where adequate and unrestricted on-street parking exists.The on-street spaces must be of a minimum size,and along curbed right-of-way. Granting of the credit does not provide the applicant with exclusive use of the parking,which remains available for all public use. Chapter 18.420 Landscaping and Screening This chapter was updated to include information in Table 18.420.1 that was previously provided in the footnotes of Table 18.120.3. Chapter 18.430 Marijuana Facilities This chapter was updated to clarify that marijuana facilities are not allowed in the TMU zone.This information was previously provided only in the Tigard Triangle Plan District chapter and as a result was not readily available to applicants seeking information on allowed locations.Another change is the result of an oversight in the wording of the chapter as originally adopted.A provision requiring main entrances to open to Highway 99W was inadvertently applied to all uses rather than to retail uses,as originally intended. The language has been updated to correct this error. Chapter 18.435 Signs This chapter was updated to remove language regarding building code compliance,which is not necessary in the development code. In addition,language requiring inspections of signs by the director was removed, although the director retains the power to inspect if a violation of the code is believed to exist. Some language was removed because it was redundant, and references to adjustments,variances, and exceptions were removed, as they are not needed with a general adjustment. A new permit exemption was added for banners in the right-of-way in the MU-CBD zone. This permit exemption requires that the banner be approved by the city engineer through an encroachment permit and limits the display of each banner to 60 days or less in a calendar year. Chapter 18.440 Temporary Uses The temporary uses chapter was updated to allow temporary shelter as an accessory use to religious institutions and social and fraternal organizations under conditions.The use is allowed only for up to 20 people at one time, any stay must be 30 days or less, and the accessory use must not provided more than a total of 90 days in a calendar year. Chapter 18.450 Wireless Communication Facilities This chapter was updated to clarify how small cell wireless facilities are treated when they are to be installed in rights-of-way. Currently, these uses require a site development review or conditional use permit, depending on the zone. Small cell wireless infrastructure is much different than other types of wireless infrastructure that typically requires these review types. These antennas,typically installed on street lights,power poles,traffic signals,or other public infrastructure are smaller in form and have a reduced service area. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO TIIE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 10 OF 22 The code changes clarify that small cell wireless installations in the right-of way are not subject to land use regulation,but are instead subject to franchise agreements,leases, and engineering standards. This change has been coordinated with Public Works and Engineering staff,who are developing their own standards for installation and maintenance of this type of infrastructure. Chapter 18.510 Sensitive Lands The density transfer procedures from Chapter 18.110,Residential Zones were specific to sensitive lands. The Sensitive Lands chapter contains procedures only for a density reduction process. Rather than provide density transfer and reduction in two separate chapters,the transfer procedures were moved to this chapter. Chapter 18.620 Bridgeport Village Plan District This chapter was updated to include development standards that were previously provided in Table 18.120.3. Chapter 18.650 Tigard Downtown Plan District Language was added to this chapter to clarify that certain changes do not trigger a design review: • a change of use in a building that fronts Main Street,and • a change of any exterior elements on facades that do not face the street. Some language regarding bonding and assurances was removed since it was redundant with other chapters. Development standards for the MU-CBD zone were provided in two places: this chapter and Chapter 18.120, Commercial Zones. The standards provided in 18.120 were moved into the plan district chapter for ease of use and consistency. A requirement that buildings over 3 stories provide a stepback was removed at the request of the Redevelopment Manager, as that provision proved impracticable. Chapter 18.730 Director Determinations The previous procedure provided in this chapter did not use a specified review type; however, other sections of code clarified that a Type I procedure was to be used for a determination. To provide consistency and clarity, the chapter was rewritten to simplify the process for obtaining a Director Determination and to use only the Type I procedure. The language regarding code interpretations was removed; interpretations are considered a type of determination. There are typically no specific approval criteria for a Director Determination. However, chapters that provide criteria for a specific type of determination are clearly referenced. Chapter 18.760 Home Occupations This chapter was updated to prohibit Type II home occupations in missing middle housing development and on lots with more than 1 accessory dwelling unit. This is to prevent impacts from customers visiting these types of development, to ensure that they remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Language regarding the storage of commercial vehicles was clarified,by referencing the commercial vehicle definition provided in the Oregon Vehicle Code. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 11 OF 22 Chapter 18.810 Lot Line Adjustments and Consolidations Chapter 18.820 Land Partitions Chapter 18.830 Subdivisions These chapters were updated to accommodate the creation of lots for missing middle housing types. Because a lot created for this type of development would be nonconforming for other types of development,the land division chapters require the recording of a deed restriction on a lot proposed for missing middle development. This deed restriction can only be removed through a subsequent land division process that brings the lot into conformance with another type of development. The deed restriction is required to be recorded at the time the final plat is recorded. Additionally,the chapters were updated to require that lots must meet the density and dimensional standards for the housing type proposed for each lot.Those standards are provided in the individual development standards chapters.This allows the code to provide differing standards that are appropriate to each housing type. Finally, dimensional requirements for flag lots that were previously provided in 18.40,Measurements have been moved into the approval criteria in Chapter 18.810 and 18.820,which are the land division procedures that allow the creation of flag lots. Changes to City Council Draft There were only minor changes from the Planning Commission draft and the City Council draft. The changes include: • updating the definition of small cell wireless facilities and public infrastructure based on public comment, • providing procedures for installation of small cell poles in the public right-of-way, • adding provisions allowing temporary shelter as a temporary accessory use to social/fraternal club/lodge uses, subject to limitations in the temporary uses chapter, • using consistent use categories in use tables, and • changing the term"entry" to"entrance" throughout the code; • added a description of rowhouses to the purpose statement of the rowhouse development standards; • clarified that side and rear setbacks are minimum standards in the rowhouse development standards; • changed the definition of tiny house from a type of manufactured home to a type of recreational vehicle;and • various numbering and reference fixes. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed code amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Statewide Planning Goals, only applicable statewide goals are addressed below. Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 12 OF 22 This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This goal has been met in multiple ways, guided by a Citizen Involvement Plan created in November of 2017. A Housing Options Task Force was formed by City Council resolution on December 5, 2017. This task force was convened six times from January 2018 to July 2018, and provided guidance on policy changes related to housing. The committee was made up of the Planning Commission chair, a representative from the Town Center Advisory Committee, a representative from the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee, a representative from an affordable housing provider,and three at-large members. The Task Force also participated in a Housing Options Open House, held at the Tigard Public Library on June 13, 2018. This event allowed the project manager and the task force to present proposed policy changes to the public and receive feedback. The open house received local media coverage both prior to and after the event, and was well-attended. A Housing Options web page was provided on the city's website that summarized the information presented at the Open House and requested further comments. In addition, a community engagement website that directly interacts with Tigard residents and asks for input prominently featured the Housing Options code changes. Local media continued to cover the project,with an article appearing in the Tigard Times on May 13, 2018 and an editorial appearing in the same paper on June 27, 2018. An article was published in Tigard Life on June 13, 2018. Comments received from the open house and through the website allowed the Task Force and staff to further review and refine the proposed policy changes. A discussion draft of the proposed code changes was published to the city's website on September 10,2018. Notice commensurate with state law and Measure 56 was mailed on September 11,2018 to all property owners in the R-40 zone informing of the proposed change to prohibit future development of rowhouses in this zone. Notice was sent to affected government agencies by US Postal Service and email on September 12,2018. Notice of the City Council hearing was sent to the interested parties list by email on October 15,2018. The final City Council draft of the code package was published to the Housing Options webpage of the City's website on November 1, 2018. The notice requirements set forth in Section 18.710.110 (Legislative Procedure) were met. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper on September 13, 2018. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. A minimum of three drafts of the proposed code changes (Discussion Draft, Proposed Draft to the Planning Commission, and Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council) will be made available to the public for review prior to hearings and adoption. This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 13 OF 22 City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 10—Housing: This goal requires cities and counties to provide adequate capacity for needed housing. OAR Chapter 660 Division 8, which implements Goal 10, states that "the purpose of the division is to ensure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units, the efficient use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, and to provide greater certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs." FINDING: The city conducted an analysis of housing needs and capacity in 2012 as part of an update to Chapter 10 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This analysis found the capacity to build 6,714 units on 600 acres throughout the city.The analysis also found that 6,545 new units were needed by 2032. Once the types of needed housing were compared with the inventory of buildable lands,the capacity dropped to 6,457, a shortfall of 88 units. The proposed code changes do not decrease housing supply or capacity.They support more housing diversity, and allow increased housing capacity in exchange for development of smaller housing units.The code changes will not decrease housing supply or capacity. New missing middle housing types include in the code changes allow for a more efficient use of land, particularly land that would otherwise be marginally developable. Because missing middle housing remain on a single lot,larger lots that may be constratined by sensitive lands or topography can include housing in the developable portions of the lot while protecting natural resources. Lots with these types of constraints may not be developable for single detached houses due to density and lot size requirements. The city may only apply clear and objective standards to housing under Goal 10. These code changes have removed any standards that were not clear and objective,and have provided only clear and objective standards to all newly allowed housing types. This goal is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and the related findings below, staff finds the proposed code amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN State planning regulations require cities within the Metro service area to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, only applicable Tides are addressed below. Title 1—Housing Capacity The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a"fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity except as provided in section 3.07.120. FINDING: Tide 1 has been met by increasing the housing capacity in Tigard. Missing middle housing types included in the proposed code changes provide for incremental capacity growth that is compatible with existing PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT'1'0 THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 14 OF 22 neighborhoods. Each of the standards provided in 3.07.120 Housing Capacity sets minimum zoned capacity, which is not affected by the proposed changes. In addition, the final standard states that a "city or county shall authorize the establishment of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling unit in each zone that authorizes detached single-family dwellings." The proposed code changes exceed this standard by providing up to two accessory dwelling units for each detached dwelling unit.This title is satisfied. Title 6—Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets The Regional Framework Plan identifies Centers, Corridors, Main Streets and Station Communities throughout the region and recognizes them as the principal centers of urban life in the region. Title 6 calls for actions and investments by cities and counties, complemented by regional investments, to enhance this role. A regional investment is an investment in a new high-capacity transit line or designated a regional investment in a grant or funding program administered by Metro or subject to Metro's approval. FINDING: The proposed code changes have little effect on the city's adopted Town Centers — the Downtown Plan District and the Tigard Triangle Plan District—because each of these districts already provide for increased housing capacity through allowances for mixed-use and incremental development, as well as increased height allowances. The city's regional center—the Washington Square Plan District—already includes allowances for most housing types. The proposed code changes would add the three missing middle housing types as an allowed use in the MUR-1 and MUR-2 zones, the residential mixed-use zones of the Washington Square Plan District. Section 3.07.640(c) of Title 6 states: "Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets need a mix of housings [sic] types to be vibrant and successful. The following mix of housing types is recommended for each: (1) The types of housing listed in the "needed housing" statute, ORS 197.303(1); (2) The types of housing identified in the city's or county's housing need analysis done pursuant to ORS 197.296 or statewide planning Goal 10 (Housing); and (3) Accessory dwellings pursuant to section 3.07.120 of this chapter." The city's adopted housing needs analysis from 2013 specifically recommends allowing missing middle housing types. Unfortunately, many of the lands included in the MUR-1 and MUR-2 zones are constrained by sensitive lands. Because missing middle housing types can make more efficient use of constrained lands by building around sensitive lands without regard to creating lots sized for single detached housing, they are an appropriate type for inclusion in these two zones. This title is satisfied. Title 7—Housing Choice The Regional Framework Plan calls for establishment of voluntary affordable housing production goals to be adopted by local governments and assistance from local governments on reports on progress towards increasing the supply of affordable housing. FINDING: Title 7 has been met by increasing the capacity for housing choice in Tigard. Section 3.07.730 of Title 7 states that: "cities and counties within the Metro region shall ensure that their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances: (a) Include strategies to ensure a diverse range of housing types within their jurisdictional boundaries. (b) 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. (c) 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." Tide 7 does not specify what is meant by "affordable housing". Staff interprets the mandate to include not just regulated affordable housing, but naturally-occurring affordable housing and housing made affordable by a range of choices in size. The proposed code changes encourage greater housing diversity and choice in Tigard, leading to more affordable choices for families and individuals, and ensuring opportunities for affordable home ownership and rental for all income levels and household sizes. This title is satisfied. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 15 OF 22 Title 8—Compliance Procedures A city or county proposing an amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall submit the proposed amendment to the COO at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing on the amendment. The COO may request, and if so the city or county shall submit, an analysis of compliance of the amendment with the functional plan. If the COO submits comments on the proposed amendment to the city or county, the comment shall include analysis and conclusions on compliance and a recommendation with specific revisions to the proposed amendment, if any, that would bring it into compliance with the functional plan. The COO shall send a copy of comment to those persons who have requested a copy. FINDING: Notice and a copy of the proposed code amendments were provided to Metro on August 27, 2018. No comments were received. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend comprehensive plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals and consistent with their adopted comprehensive plan goals and policies. Because the development code amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, only applicable comprehensive plan goals and associated policies are addressed below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. FINDING: See the findings for Statewide Planning Goal 1 for details on citizen involvement. This goal is satisfied. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.1: The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests. FINDING: The proposed text amendments to the development code comply with all state and regional requirements, as the previous findings indicate. The proposed amendments provide clarification to ambiguous, redundant, and contradictory language in the development code. The proposed amendments also establish a clear policy direction for the approval of housing types. The proposed text amendments have been reviewed by two citizen committees — the Housing Options Task Force and the Planning Commission. Each committee forwarded recommendations to adopt to the Council.This policy is satisfied. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As demonstrated in this staff report, the proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.3: The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC IIEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 16 OF 22 FINDING: Copies of the proposed text amendments were sent to affected agencies and each agency was invited to comment on the proposal, asd discussed in Section V of this report. Comments submitted by affected agencies have been incorporated into this report and the proposed amendments. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.4: The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs. FINDING: The proposed amendments include provisions that will allow for the efficient use of land. An incentive is provided to provide smaller housing units in exchange for greater unit capacity. These changes will allow the redevelopment of marginal properties that would not have produced increased housing capacity otherwise. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.12: The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,and conservation easements,that encourage results such as:A. High quality and innovative design and construction; B. Land use compatibility; C. Protection of natural resources; D. Preservation of open space; and E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions. FINDING: The proposed amendments include design standards that allow for each of the results (A through E) listed in Policy 2.1.12, above. Innovative design and construction is allowed through flexible standards for home size and site configurations that allow for greater housing choice. Land use compatibility is ensured through design standards that require appropriate size, scale, and screening of missing middle housing types. The flexibility allowed in the site configuration of missing middle housing developments allows for decreased disturbance and encroachment into natural resource areas. Required common areas in missing middle housing developments ensure adequate open space. All of these standards taken together allow greater flexibility for projects to adapt to site conditions.This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.23: The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. FINDING: The development standards for each new housing type and for accessory dwelling units are designed to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods. The design standards place limits on the height, size, scale, and placement of each housing type to ensure that they blend into existing development patterns. This ensures that none of these housing types is taller than existing development or has significantly different setbacks or unit spacing. All new housing types included in the code amendments require adequate screening at the property line and around parking areas, minimizing visual conflicts with existing and future land uses. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.24: The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the community's value,livability, and attractiveness. FINDING: Prior to this code amendment, design standards for residential development were limited in scope. These code amendments begin to fulfill the city's policy directive for design standards that ensure that the value, livability, and attractiveness of the city is preserved and increased. The aforementioned compatibility standards ensure that new development blends into existing neighborhoods. Standards for street-facing facades ensure that the pedestrian realm remains attractive and that housing does not present blank walls to the street. These design standards also meet the state requirement that they be clear and objective, which prevents PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC IIEARING,STAFF REPORT 1'O THE CITY COUNCIL, PAGE 17 OF 22 subjective aesthetic criteria from being applied to residential development. The standards provided ensure that the city's goals and the state requirements are simultaneously met. This policy is satisfied. Comprehensive Plan Goal 10: Housing Policy 10.1.1: The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. FINDING: The city has expressed a desire through its Comprehensive Plan policies to provide opportunities for greater housing variety, to meet the needs of its present and future residents at all stages of life. In addition, the city has expressed a desire to provide greater economic integration through housing variety. The proposed code changes meet this policy directive by providing a process for development of new housing types that are limited in size. These limits are incentivized by an increased housing capacity that ensures that developments of that type are financially feasible. This in turn ensures that units are available to be sold or rented at price points that meet the needs of young families, singles,and senior citizens. This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.1.2: The City's land use program shall be consistent with applicable state and federal laws. FINDING: Senate Bill 1051,passed in 2017,requires that the city amend its development code to allow at least one detached, attached, or internal accessory dwelling unit for each single detached house. The proposed code amendments bring the city into compliance with this requirement. In addition, federal fair housing law requires that group living uses be treated the same as household living uses. The proposed code amendments bring the city into compliance with federal fair housing law.This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.1.3: The City shall support housing affordability, special-needs housing, ownership opportunities, and housing rehabilitation through programs administered by the state, Washington County,nonprofit agencies, and Metro. FINDING: The proposed code amendments support greater housing affordability and ownership opportunities by ensuring that adequate housing variety is allowed. Affordable housing, both regulated and non-regulated, requires flexibility in standards that make smaller housing unit production possible. First-time homeownership is dependent on the provision of smaller housing units that have a reduced up-front cost as well as lower maintenance and utility costs. This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.1.6: The City shall allow accessory dwelling units in appropriate residential districts,but shall require that they are compatible and blend into the overall residential environment. FINDING: State law now preempts this policy by requiring that the city allow all types of accessory dwelling units in all zones that allow single detached houses. Further, state law prohibits the adoption of standards for housing that are not clear and objective. The proposed code amendments ensure compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods without the use of subjective standards such as matching requirements and owner residency. This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.1.7: The City shall comply with federal and state housing laws, including the Fair Housing Act, as well as applicable implementing administrative rules and regulations. FINDING: The proposed code amendments bring the city into compliance with federal fair housing law. Federal fair housing law requires that group living uses be treated the same as household living uses. The code was updated to implement this change. This policy is satisfied. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC IIEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 18 OF 22 Policy 10.1.8: The City shall implement findings and recommendations from the 2013 Tigard Housing Strategies Report as incorporated in the Recommended Action Measures described in this Plan and further detailed in the Housing Strategies Report. FINDING: The proposed code amendments implement several findings and recommendations from the 2013 Housing Strategies Report, including updating the code to provide a new code section specific to cottage clusters, to provide attached housing standards citywide,to allow more types of accessory dwelling units,and to allow flexibility in parking standards including the provision of on-street parking credits. This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.2.5: The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resources,easy access to public transit and other efficient modes of transportation, easy access to services and parks, resource efficient design and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources. FINDING: The proposed code amendments allow the development of smaller housing units that provide for an efficient use of land and conservation of natural resources. Average home size since 1950 has soared from 1,000 square feet to over 2,500 square feet. The environmental impacts of new housing are primarily influenced by size. This is not just because of the material costs,but the energy consumed in climate control. Smaller units are more efficient to heat and cool. The code amendments ensure that smaller housing units are economically feasible, making it possible to lower environmental impacts and ongoing costs for residents. This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.2.8: The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or more intense, land uses on residential living environments, such as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another; B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. FINDING: The proposed code amendments ensure compatibility of new housing types with existing neighborhoods through development standards that reduce their size, scale, and location on lots in relation to typical single detached house development. In addition, the standards include requirements for common open spaces and screening at property boundaries and around off-street parking areas. This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.2.9: The City shall require infill development to be designed to address compatibility with existing neighborhoods. FINDING: The design and development standards included in these amendments ensure that all new housing development is designed to be compatible with existing neighborhoods. These standards apply to all development,not just infill development,as detailed above. This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.2.10: The City shall regulate home-based businesses (occupations) to prevent adverse impacts on residential areas. FINDING: The proposed code amendments include provisions that prohibit the inclusion of Type II home occupations, those serving customers, in any of the missing middle housing developments. This ensures that any home occupations in these developments not generate additional traffic from customer visits and prevent adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. This policy is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 19 OF 22 APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Section 18.795: Map and Text Amendments 18.795.020 Legislative Amendments A. Approval process. Legislative amendments shall be processed through a Legislative procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.110. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative in nature. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the legislative procedure as set forth in Chapter 18.710. This standard is satisfied. B. Approval considerations. A recommendation or a decision for a legislative amendment may be based on consideration of the applicable legal requirements. They may, but do not necessarily include: Oregon Revised Statues, Oregon Administrative Rules, one or more Statewide Planning Goals, Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and any other regional plans. FINDING: This criterion does not require consideration of the above listed legal requirements; however, applicable requirements have been considered in the findings and conclusion of Section IV above, including the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requirements. This standard is satisfied. Section 18.710: Land Use Review Procedures 18.710.110 Legislative Procedure A. Notice of hearing. 1. All Legislative applications require two hearings, one before the planning commission and one before the city council. FINDING: A hearing before the Planning Commission was held on October 1, 2018. A hearing before the City Council was held on November 27,2018. This standard is satisfied. 2.A notice of hearing shall be provided as follows: a. At least 20 days prior to the hearing date, notice shall be mailed to individual property owners as required by state law FINDING: State law requires that individual property owners be notified when a change to a land use regulation limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone. Only one zone is affected by this requirement: the code changes will prohibit development of rowhouses in the R-40 zone. Notice was mailed to the affected property owner on September 11,2018. This standard is satisfied. Notice was mailed to the city's interested parties list on November 7, 2018. This standard is satisfied. b. The director shall prepare an affidavit of mailing such notice that indicates the date that the notice was mailed to the necessary parties.The affidavit shall be made part of the record. FINDING:Affidavits were prepared and made part of the record.This standard is satisfied. c.At least 14 days prior to the hearing date, a notice of the hearing shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The affidavit of publishing such notice shall be made part of the record. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO TIIE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 20 OF 22 FINDING:A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper on September 13,2018.An affidavit of this notice was made part of the record. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text amendments are consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code. SUMMARY CONCLUSION: As shown in the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals; METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS City of Portland, City of Beaverton, City of Durham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Tualatin, City of King City, Washington County, TVF&R, METRO, DOGAMI, ODOT, DLCD, DEQ, ODFW, CWS, OR Dept. of Aviation, OR Historic Preservation Office, OR Public Utilities Commission, TTSD, Comcast Cable, Frontier Communications, NW Natural, Century Link, OHA, OLCC, PGE, Tigard Water District, Portland&Western Railroad, Inc.,Tualatin Hills Parks and Rec District, and Tri-Met were notified of the proposed code text amendments. The Department of Land Conservation and Development submitted written comments. Those comments and the staff response are included in Attachment 3. SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS The City received emails and phone calls about the project, during multiple phases of the project. During the course of regular business at the Permit Center, visitors were informed of the proposed code changes when expressing interest in accessory dwelling units. Some of these visitors submitted subsequent comments related to the project. During the advertising and promotion of the Housing Options Open House, the city actively sought comment on the proposed changes. After publication of the discussion draft of the proposed code changes, the city received comments from Jim Cahill,Joanne Shipley, Ralpha Newton, Proud Ground, and Wayne Chapman. After publication of the Planning Commission draft, the city received comments from Patti Winters, Yi-Kang Hu,Meridee Pabst (AT&T),Kim Allen (Verizon),and Canine Arendes. After the Planning Commission hearing, the city received comments from Matt Murfin, Francesca Dodson, Marilyn Manson,Wayne Chapman, and Alan Galloway of Davis,Wright,Tremaine on behalf of T-Mobile. Public comments are included in Attachment 4. PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 21 OF 22 ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: 1. Draft Text Amendments—strikethrough with commentary 2. Reorganization Table 3. Agency Comments 4. Public Comments 5. Planning Commission Minutes L November 15.2018 PREPARED BY: Schuyler Warren DA 1'P. Associate Planner ...' .1(r) ---;)2 (//-2?W4---- L‘("t November 15.2018 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DA 1'P. Assistant Community Development Director PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES DCA2018-00003 11/27/2018 PUBLIC TIEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 22 OF 22 Attachment 2 Development Code Reorganization and Amendments This proposal reorganizes and renumbers the Development Code in conjunction with these amendments. The following table lists the proposed and current chapter/section numbers. Additional notations indicate chapters/sections that are "new," "amended," or"repealed and replaced." Current chapters that do not have any notation next to the chapter/section number remain unchanged with the exception of references to other sections, renumbering and shortening section titles. Proposed Chapter/Section Number Current Chapter/Changes 18.00 Introduction 18.10 Legal Framework Same (amended) 18.20 Administration and Enforcement Same (amended) 18.30 Definitions Same (amended) 18.40 Measurements 18.30 —floor area and measurements moved out of definitions 18.50 Nonconforming Circumstances Same (amended) 18.60 Use Categories Same (amended) 18.100 Base Zones 18.110 Residential Zones Deleted Development Standards section 18.110.010 Purpose 18.110.020 List of Base Zones 18.110.030 Uses Changed to use A, R, C, P 18.110.040 Housing Types Moved/new— changed to use Y,N, L 18.110.050 Densities Renumbered, all standards moved out 18.120 Commercial Zones 18.120.010 Purpose 18.120.020 List of Base Zones 18.120.030 Uses Changed to use A, R, C, P 18.120.040 Housing Types Moved/new — changed to use Y,N, L 18.120.040 Development Standards 18.120.050 Special Limitations on Uses 18.120.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines 18.130 Industrial Zones Same (amended) 18.140 Parks and Recreation Zone Same (amended) 18.200 Residential Development Standards 18.210 Residential General Provisions 18.110.050.0-F (amended) 18.220 Accessory Dwelling Units 18.410 (amended) 18.230 Apartments Table 18.110.3 (amended) 18.240 Cottage Clusters New 18.250 Courtyard Units New 18.260 Mobile Home Parks 18.420 (amended) 18.270 Quads New 18.280 Rowhouses Table 18.110.3 (amended) and 18.220 (amended) 18.290 Single Detached Houses Table 18.110.3 (amended) 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards 18.310 Nonresidential General Provisions 18.120.040.0-F 18.320 Commercial Development New 18.330 Industrial Development New 18.340 Parks and Recreation Development New 18.400 Supplemental Development Standards 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading 18.310 (amended) 18.420 Landscaping and Screening 18.320 (amended) 18.430 Marijuana Facilities Same (amended) 18.435 Signs Same (amended) 18.440 Temporary Uses Same (amended) 18.450 Wireless Communication Facilities Same (amended) 18.500 Special Designations 18.510 Sensitive Lands 18.110.040.E (amended) 18.520 Urban Forestry Same (amended) 18.600 Plan Districts 18.610 Plan Districts Same (amended) 18.620 Bridgeport Village Plan District Same (amended) 18.630 Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Same (amended) Plan District 18.640 River Terrace Plan District Same (amended) 18.650 Tigard Downtown Plan District Same (amended) 18.660 Tigard Triangle Plan District Same (amended) 18.670 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District Same (amended) 18.700 Land Use Applications and Review Types 18.710 Land Use Review Procedures Same (amended) 18.720 Annexations Same (amended) 18.730 Director Determinations Same (amended) 18.740 Conditional Use Same (amended) 18.750 Historic Overlay Same (amended) 18.760 Home Occupations Same (amended) 18.770 Planned Developments Same (amended) 18.780 Site Development Review Same (amended) 18.790 Variances and Adjustments Same 18.795 Map and Text Amendments Same (amended) 18.800 Land Divisions 18.810 Lot Line Adjustments and Consolidations 18.30 flag lot standards moved from definitions (amended) 18.820 Partitions 18.30 flag lot standards moved from definitions (amended) 18.830 Subdivisions Same (amended) 18.900Streets and Utilities 18.910 Improvement Standards Same (amended) 18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation Same (amended) 18.930 Visual Clearance Areas Same (amended) Repealed chapters: 18.210, 18.220. ` Attachment 3 . f- K0 ,,, reon Department of Land Conservation and Development I# ,,,i431 ►,i Community Services Division �� Kate Brown,Governor Portland Metro Regional Solutions Center 1--14: 1600 SW Fourth Ave., Suite 109 Portland,Oregon 97201 503.725.2182 anne.debbaut@state.or.us www.oregon.gov/LCD September 19,2018 MI Schuyler Warren SENT VIA EMAIL Community Development Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Proposed Plan Amendment (Local File DCA2018-00003, DLCD File 002-18; Tigard Development Code Related to Housing Dear Schuyler: Thank you for the proposed amendments to the city's development code related to Housing types and standards. Overall this is very comprehensive and well done, however,we do have just a few comments and suggestions regarding the proposal (attached). Please include these comments into the record for this plan amendment and the proceedings of future Planning Commission and City Council hearings on this topic, including your currently scheduled October 1, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing and future hearings on this topic. Please contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, a"1-1101--- --- Anne Debbaut DLCD, Regional Representative Attachment A cc via e-mail: Tom McGuire, City of Tigard DLCD (Debbaut, Howard) Attachment A Comments on Tigard Missing Middle Housing Code Amendments It makes sense to not allow cottage clusters, courtyard units, and quads in the R-25 and R-40 zones if there is a concern that allowing them would prevent those zones from achieving desired densities. However, since single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, and row houses are allowed in those zones, I am wondering why the proposal prohibits cottage clusters, courtyard units,and quads? There are several instances where, in the event of a conflict with standards and requirements,the plan district requirements supersede the Chapter 18 requirements. For example: ADUs (18.220.020.B.), cottage clusters (18.240.020.B), courtyard units(18.250.020.B),and quads (18.270.020.6) all have a provision that says that, "the requirements of any applicable plan district supersede these requirements in the event of a conflict."Just a reminder that this works as long as the plan district has clear and objective standards and in compliance with SB 1051. The amendment summary on page 1 says that the size restriction for attached ADUs has been removed, yet 18.220.040.B.2 limits the square footage of an attached ADU to that of the primary unit(and 18.220.040.C. limits height). You may want to make the summary consistent with Chapter 18. 18.220.040.C.2:The wording in the provision seems a bit confusing. Is it correct to say, "A structure containing an attached accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the maximum height for a single detached house in the base zone"? 18.220.040.G:There appears to be an incorrect cross reference to 18.40.130.Think it must be 18.40.120, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Suggest you consider being more flexible with the cottage cluster(18.240.040.A) and courtyard unit (18.250.040.A.1) requirement for exactly one unit per 2500(cottage clusters) or 2000 (courtyard units) square feet. It may be difficult to achieve if the lot isn't sized exactly right. Perhaps it could be written as a range or provide flexibility to account for fractions of lots and variation in lot size. It appears that several housing types have parking location standards that make alley parking less space efficient. Cottage clusters (18.240.040.F.3.a.) require parking areas ' _.,, to be at least, "20 feet from any property line adjacent to a public .r �� right-of-way".This means that if parking were to be placed on the 1' ' alley side of a cottage development, it couldn't be immediately •-or along the alley (unless it is a private alley), but would have to be set '', "4 back 20 feet. This takes up valuable land with limited benefit. The ' ; two pictures from our Salem office show early-to mid-20th century cottage developments with alley loaded parking.These '\ - ' developments are locally considered models for good cottage i R' ¢ .: clusters. " `r iti c, t ..y 1 1of2IPage 1 01: :: ---* ' '' . ill , - s$, - 1 ,,, s , , - ; ___;„) ,..„ _ ., , ,, ,,-- ,.,„,„ "1 , is,. y "F. 4 t !:411_ _ 1 . - - _11•40.,,, _ Both courtyard units (18.250.040.E) and quads (18.270.040.F) appear to require parking to be at least 20 feet from any "street property line". It's not clear why these two housing types say "street"while ADU and cottage clusters (above) say "adjacent to a public right-of-way." The definition of street is proposed to be removed from the zoning ordinance, so I'm not sure if an alley is considered a street. If these two housing types would allow parking along an alley (closer than 20') then these provisions are fine. However, if like ADUs and cottage clusters,the provisions would prohibit parking closer than 20'from an alley,then you may want to consider allowing alley loaded parking(pictured above). 2of2IPage Comments on Tigard Missing Middle Housing Code Amendments Staff response in red italics. It makes sense to not allow cottage clusters, courtyard units, and quads in the R-25 and R-40 zones if there is a concern that allowing them would prevent those zones from achieving desired densities. However, since single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, and row houses are allowed in those zones, I am wondering why the proposal prohibits cottage clusters, courtyard units, and quads? Since the notice to DLCD went out, the draft has been changed to prohibit single detached houses and rowhouses in the R-40 zone, and a Measure 56 notice was sent to the sole property owner in the R-40 zone.A subsequent code package that will take effect on the same date as this code package will remove the allowance for single detached houses in the R-25 zone. Rowhouses are still allowed in the R- 25, although other missing middle types are not. There are several instances where, in the event of a conflict with standards and requirements,the plan district requirements supersede the Chapter 18 requirements. For example:ADUs (18.220.020.B.), cottage clusters(18.240.020.B), courtyard units(18.250.020.B), and quads (18.270.020.B)all have a provision that says that, "the requirements of any applicable plan district supersede these requirements in the event of a conflict."Just a reminder that this works as long as the plan district has clear and objective standards and in compliance with SB 1051. Since the notice to DLCD went out, the draft has been changed. The missing middle housing type standards are only superseded by the River Terrace Plan District chapter, which provides clear and objective standards. The only other plan district that allows missing middle housing is the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District, which does not supersede the residential development standards. The amendment summary on page 1 says that the size restriction for attached ADUs has been removed, yet 18.220.040.6.2 limits the square footage of an attached ADU to that of the primary unit (and 18.220.040.C. limits height).You may want to make the summary consistent with Chapter 18. The summary was incorrect in stating that the size restriction for attached ADUs had been completely removed. 18.220.040.C.2:The wording in the provision seems a bit confusing. Is it correct to say, "A structure containing an attached accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the maximum height for a single detached house in the base zone"? The wording of this provision was updated to provide greater clarity. 18.220.040.G:There appears to be an incorrect cross reference to 18.40.130.Think it must be 18.40.120, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. This error was corrected. Suggest you consider being more flexible with the cottage cluster(18.240.040.A) and courtyard unit (18.250.040.A.1) requirement for exactly one unit per 2500 (cottage clusters) or 2000(courtyard units) 1ofWage square feet. It may be difficult to achieve if the lot isn't sized exactly right. Perhaps it could be written as a range or provide flexibility to account for fractions of lots and variation in lot size. The cottage cluster and courtyard unit standards are flexible in that the requirement allows lot sizes that are variable. Density is calculated differently for these housing types. The requirement isn't for a lot size that is an exact multiple of 2,500 square feet. Rather, it requires that one unit is provided for every 2,500 square feet of lot.So for instance, a lot that is 12,499 square feet would only be required to provide 4 cottage units. It appears that several housing types have parking location standards that make alley parking less space efficient. Cottage clusters (18.240.040.F.3.a.) require parking areas 44:, ` ,,, to be at least, "20 feet from any property line adjacent to a public j • right-of-way".This means that if parkingwere to beplaced on the ,' Via' I. r -��, alley side of a cottage development, it couldn't be immediately •.r 4 a; ' along the alley(unless it is a private alley), but would have to be set ''' ' back 20 feet.This takes up valuable land with limited benefit.The i ,,'"-s two pictures from our Salem office show early-to mid-20th century s ``� 1 f , F cottage developments with alley loaded parking. These '`� - i developments are locally considered models for good cottage - ! �"' a clusters. zl. ,r, r,t- .40, 1 The standards have been changed to accommodate this situation. Parking may now be provided within 5 feet of an alley property line. The 5 foot standard is intended to accommodate adequate backing and vision distance. 2of2IPage ,rt-' 411 _. - 4 *. '7"-*""itk"- • If ..z i -1 -,4 irlik.le W i , . t .4. _ ir ''''' . • -219P4.. * '., ' - ' !III '1:„---„,-;,:- . x ,. %td lair .. ' Both courtyard units (18.250.040.E)and quads (18.270.040.F) appear to require parking to be at least 20 feet from any "street property line". It's not clear why these two housing types say "street" while ADU and cottage clusters (above) say "adjacent to apublic right-of-way."The definition of street is proposed to be removed from the zoning ordinance, so I'm not sure if an alley is considered a street. If these two housing types would allow parking along an alley(closer than 20')then these provisions are fine. However, if like ADUs and cottage clusters,the provisions would prohibit parking closer than 20'from an alley,then you may want to consider allowing alley loaded parking(pictured above). 3 of 2I Page Schuyler Warren Attachment 4 From: Jim Cahill <jcahill3@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 9:51 AM To: Schuyler Warren Subject: Re:Tigard Housing Options Discussion Draft Schuyler, Thank you for sharing this. What is the best way to provide feedback on the draft? I want to provide a suggestion for 18.220 specific to the size requirements of attached ADU's not exceeding the main home. I am hoping there can be some wiggle room added to the new definition, so that "The size can't exceed the main home by more than 10%." It's a selfish ask, but my wife and I were stopped from adding a range to an in-law quarters in our daylight ranch because of the size restrictions at 800 SF, but would also be stopped by the current draft because our basement / in-law quarters is roughly 50 SF larger than our main level, on an entire home that is 3,450 SF. Please let me know the best way to share our feedback and reasoning that we're requesting this. Thank you, Jim On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:04 AM Schuyler Warren <SchuylerW(a,tigard-or.gov>wrote: Hello. You are receiving this message because you have expressed interest in the Tigard Housing Options code amendment project. The discussion draft of the code changes has been published to the city's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/housingoptions. You can download the full pdf of the code changes there. We are working on publishing an excerpt of just the housing-related changes to the website, however it will likely not be published until later this week, so I am attaching that version to this email. If you choose to look at the full version on the website, the changes related to housing are contained in Chapters 110, and the 200s. If you have questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 Best regards, Schuyler Schuyler Warren Associate Planner sch uy l erw(&,ti gard-or.gov 503-718-2437 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e- mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule_" 2 Schuyler Warren From: Richard Shipley <rjshipley@frontier.com> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:07 AM To: Schuyler Warren Subject: new website Hi, I am interested in your engagement website, particularly regarding housing. But I don't see anything there about affordable housing or potential options for folk who are currently houseless. We are very short of well managed affordable housing in Tigard, and I think this ought to be high on the list of priorities for the future. Joanne Shipley This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus 1 Schuyler Warren From: Ralpha Newton <ralpha_newton@frontier.com> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:18 AM To: Schuyler Warren Subject: Response to survey regarding types of housing. I live on 83rd Avenue,a cul-de-sac north of SW Murdock. In planning for the Bonaventure Community residents in this end of our street were not notified because we are out of the 350'foot rule—even though we are in the impact zone. Please consider changing the notification "regions". This type of facility has the potential of a win-win for the neighborhood if all parties are included in the planning. Fifteen years ago, I purchased a home in a single-family residential zone —I feel that represents my contract with the city about how housing is managed in my neighborhood,with some exceptions about the long-standing commercial uses of larger parcels. Parking in a cul-de-sac is problematic, however, allowing for in-fill or changes in the single-family structure creates a whole new set of issues. Example: -Home with a large family boards students from another country under the guise of them being exchange students — not so, since no agency is involved, it is a home business which utilizes free public schools for profit. -Homeowners move to another neighborhood, house is then used to board six young adult males. The in-charge male brings homeless males home for temporary housing. Some of these boarders have vehicles — with only 2 spaces in the driveway. -Home renter moves in an elderly boarder,with a car. -Home renter moves in a second family— again more vehicles,5 for the two-space driveway. Impacts: Vehicles park blocking the sidewalk, access to mailboxes, or space for garbage/recycle bins or in the middle of the street. The single-family violations are not addressed by city staff. As a resident, I am denied mail delivery and refuse services— and my only option is to talk to the offending parties(who have no buy-in to observing Tigard residential standards and parking conditions). The walking-friendly folks from Bonaventure and the surrounding streets are denied the use of the sidewalk. If the City of Tigard wants to change the single-family structure of the community, it needs to involve the stake- holders...and include enforcement provisions that better serve the community. Ralpha Staeger Newton 503.679.6880 Sent from my iPad 1 III PROUD GROUND September 24, 2018 Kenny Asher City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Housing Policy Updates As a Community Land Trust, Proud Ground is the only affordable housing provider in the area that can currently ensure permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for working families in the City of Tigard. In early 2018, Proud Ground's Board of Directors made the strategic decision to focus its new development work in the City of Tigard as a larger effort to mitigate displacement along the SW Corridor. Proud Ground has worked collaboratively with the City, Metro, local developers, and non-profit partners on the feasibility of developing permanently affordable homes within the City. On behalf of the Board and Staff of Proud Ground, I share our support of the proposed development code amendments and the goal to provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. As the region's core neighborhoods appreciate, low-and moderate-income families are priced out and forced to move away from their communities to find affordable housing to rent and buy. With the housing crisis creating aggressive market forces, it is essential that Proud Ground continues to create more permanent affordable homes for working families. Proud Ground shares in the City's understanding that this area is missing crucial mid-sized housing that fills an important role for first-time homeowners, singles,and senior citizens. By developing a comprehensive plan to create affordable homeownership opportunities,the City is not only stabilizing working families today, but ensuring that the City of Tigard maintains its affordability for years to come for future generations of residents. The City of Tigard has the opportunity to take action to reduce regulatory barriers and incentivize affordable housing by making it more cost-effective.The proposed code amendments provide a clear path forward for developers, like Proud Ground and its partners,and willing landowners who are ready to explore housing types that have been unnecessarily zoned out of Tigard. Proud Ground has prospected land in Tigard that could be developed into mid-scale, affordable homeownership opportunities if these amendments were approved. We urge the Planning Commission and City Council to approve these proposed changes, to ensure that Tigard stays an inclusive city where everyone can afford to live. Permanently affordable homeownership can offer a solution to households through the long-term wealth building and stability of owning a home. Moreover,as the City of Tigard invests in permanent affordability, its one-time investment in each property ensures perpetual opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents. Using the Community Land Trust method of permanent affordability, these investments grow and serve more families without any additional cost. Dzean .Stant?le/ce, 5288 N INTERSTATE AVE., PORTLAND, OREGON 97217, 503.493.0293, www.proudground.org PROUD GROUND These code changes will significantly contribute to Proud Ground's ability to develop permanently affordable housing for first-time homebuyers in the City of Tigard. We appreciate your consideration and are always available for follow-up. Sincerely, Diane Linn, Executive Director Proud Ground dianelinn@proudground.org DI.ean d Simi Rae. 5288 N INTERSTATE AVE., PORTLAND, OREGON 97217, 503.493.0293, www.proudground.org Wayne K. Chapman,Tigard property-owner(11850/11900 SW 95th Avenue, Greenburg Neighborhood) My parents bought two acres, a 1920s-era bungalow,and a couple of outbuildings in 1950. In 1961, my family moved into a single-story house that my father designed and had built on the same property. I planted most of the trees on the property as my father directed me from his wheelchair.The exceptions are one volunteer maple and four ancient white oak trees that date before any of the extant buildings on 95th Avenue—seedlings, no doubt, at the time of Dr.John Hicklin's original claim of 1850.Tigard was fairly open country when I was a small child except Main Street and property fronting both sides of 99W. 95th was a gravel road until the mid-1950s. Grazing land for cows and horses, of course, is gone, as are woodlots,orchards, and hay-fields, and have seldom been replaced cogently with ad hoc development pursuant to growth and profit over the past 68 years. My sister and I still own that two-acre parcel and intend to keep a piece of it while seeing the whole blended with the best features of the locale as it is today.That's to enhance community,the reason I support the proposed housing options that apply to our Zone R7 property. Individually,the several housing types offered are appropriate to circumstances that vary, in practice if not in theory. For instance,the courtyard and quad options may not work in particular instances due to lot size and shape. In our case, limited 2-to 3-unit row-houses combined with a cluster of cottages and adjoining common greenspace might be the best way to avoid yet another unimaginative cul de sac. We want a neighborhood in which natural features of the environment such as those heritage oaks are used to enhance livability, or quality of life.Affordability is enhanced,too, in such housing diversity laid out by design, not to mention the promotion of walkability, which is already a noted benefit of residents who walk their dogs or stroll down to a revitalized Main Street via Commercial. Our particular green stretch of 95th is quiet and should remain peaceful with the eventual construction of housing on our lot. Hence I applaud the City of Tigard for proposing options that are in line with its Strategic Plan—options that may allow a pocket community to develop within the Greenburg Road Neighborhood.Thank you. Schuyler Warren From: webteam@tigard-or.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 11:50 AM To: Schuyler Warren Cc: Lauren Scott Subject: Housing Options Name= Pattti winters Email =Kiwitime22@gmail.com Comments=We are interested in building a guesthouse and would like it to be at least 1000 sq feet. My adult son is ill and its been difficult financially for he and his wife. Having a place for them to live while he heals is important. I understand you are changing your regulations so i wanted to give my input Thanks Client IP= 107.77.75.111 Yi Hu comments for PC meeting on Oct 1. Page 1 of 3 Staff response in purple bold italic. 18.20.030 A. Violations. It is unlawful to violate any provisions of this title, including but not limited to provisions relating to a land use approval or conditions of land use approval. Erection, construction, alteration, maintenance, or use of any building or structure in violation of this title; or use, division, or transfer of any land in violation of this title is prohibited. Each violation of a separation provision of this title constitutes a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this title is committed or continues constitutes a separate infraction. These changes were incorporated into the City Council draft. 18.30.02 D.14.b "Accessory dwelling unit"is missing "living"and "eating"compared to the definition of "Dwelling."Why? D.14.h "Manufactured home"—same question as above. The"living"and"eating"terms were removed from the"dwelling"definition in the City Council draft. 18.50.010 The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming lots, structures, uses, and development to continue but to prohibits their enlargement, expansion, or extension 444ticti These changes were incorporated into the City Council draft. 18.50.020 B. {44=.-:fit: :. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the following: This chapter is to allow things, so I don't think it's appropriate to have "exemptions"to it because exemptions are generally provided for laws that require or prohibit things. 18.50.020 was retitled as "General Provisions"and reworded to eliminate the usage of "exemptions": 18.50.030 A. A determination regarding the legal status of a nonconforming use is processed through a Director Determination, as provided in Chapter 18.730, Director Determination, when both of the following are met: Yi Hu comments for PC meeting on Oct 1. Page 2 of 3 1. The applicant has provided proof that the use was otkowekeWibt41214€4.410 lawful at the time it was established, by one or morer of the following: a. Copies of issued development permits or land use approvals granted at the time the use was established; b. Copies of zoning ordinances or maps;and c. Demonstration that the use was established before the first development code for the City of Tigard was adopted. 2. The applicant has provided proof that the use has been maintained over time.This proof must include copies of one or more of the following for every other year from the time the use was established until the current year. a. Utility bills; b. Income tax records; c. Business licenses; d. Listings in telephone, business, or other related directories; e. Advertisement in dated publications, for example trade magazines;wand f. Land use approvals or development permits. These changes were incorporated into the City Council draft. 18.50.040 B.1.a The nonconforming use is not enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land or space, except that a nonconforming use may be enlarged, increased, or extended into any existing parts of the building it occupies, provided that the building was specifically designed and constructed to lawfully accommodate that use at the time of original construction; What would be an example of this exception? This change was incorporated into the City Council draft.An example is a nonconforming warehouse use that wants to expand into an adjacent suite that was originally built for warehouse use but was most recently used for a non-warehouse use. B.1.e.iii The original "and"was correctly used. This was changed to "or"as only one criterion must be met from the list. Yi Hu comments for PC meeting on Oct 1. Page 3 of 3 18.60.040 G.4.a This doesn't read like an exception to me. The exception is in the classification of certain portions of a medical campus as Office. Tables 18.110.2, 18.120.1, 18.130.1, 18.140.1 Please insert the "Use Categories"headings on page 2 of the tables so they will be easier to read and follow. This will be done at the codification stage. 18.710.100 A.1.a Are substantive criteria different from approval criteria?I don't remember substantive criteria being read out loud before a meeting. This language mirrors the language in ORS 197. A.1.b Missing an "and"at the end. This change was incorporated into the City Council draft. A.10 Should the hearing authority also disclose information gathered from Google Streetview or other online sources so the applicant can rebut it if needed? This change is not necessary. The site visit provision has been removed in the City Council draft. There is no part B to this section so perhaps everything should be renumbered. This change was incorporated into the City Council draft. 18.710.110 D.1.a Add an "or"after "adopt an alternative." This change was incorporated into the City Council draft. 18.760.060 C. One too many "must." This change was incorporated into the City Council draft. WPG GROUP WIRELESS POLICY October 1, 2018 Calista Fitzgerald, President Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Or 97223 SENT VIA EMAIL:Schuyler Warren,Associate Planner, SchuylerW@tigard-or.gov Re: DCA 2018-00003-Small Cell Code Amendments Dear President Fitzgerald and Commissioners: On behalf of Verizon Wireless, we submit these comments on the City's proposed text amendments governing wireless facilities. Small cells are a new technology essential to adding network capacity for the city's residences and businesses, and also providing the means to deploy 5G when it becomes commercially available. Unlike a single cell tower that can provide coverage for miles, small cells add data and voice capacity with signals that only cover a few blocks. Small cells are targeted for existing utility poles and light standards in the right of way,with antennas and equipment similar in look and scale to what is typically seen on utility poles today. More sites are needed to add small cells than is the case with traditional macro cell towers. More people are using more wireless devices to do more things than ever before, like streaming video and uploading images. In fact,wireless data usage tripled from 2013 to 2015 and is forecast to multiply seven-fold from 2015 to 2019. Verizon is working to stay ahead of the demand by adding fiber optic capacity and small cells to connect people where they need it most. The low visual profile of small cells makes them an excellent solution for delivering capacity and coverage to residential neighborhoods. Small cells will also deliver connections for"smart communities" services to boost the flow and safety of vehicle traffic, manage resources like light, power and water and improve the quality of life of Verizon's customers. Moreover,this technology is key to PO Box 34628-#75604 Kim.Allen@wirelesspolicy.com t 425.628.2666 Seattle,WA 98124 www.wirelesspolicy.com October 1, 2018 Page 2 preparing Verizon's network infrastructure so that it is capable of offering 5G wireless connections when it becomes commercially available. Small Cell Need and Benefits We are in a period of tremendous growth in wireless data use. To put it simply, more people are using more wireless devices to do more things in more places than ever before. • In 2016, mobile data use was 35 times the volume of traffic in 2010. • In 2015,the average smart phone used 3.7GB of data each month. That is expected to increase nearly 6-fold by 2021,when average use is expected to be about 22GB per month. • But it isn't just our phones. Machine-to-Machine connections are projected to increase from 36M in 2013 to 263M in 2018. That is a 7-fold increase in just 5 years. • This growth is happening because the ways that we use our wireless data are changing. Our phones are not just phones anymore. They are the remote controls for our lives. And it isn't just Facebook, and streaming video. More and more people are using wireless data to stay connected from any location. • Devices that have never been wireless before are wireless now and require expanding the capacity in the existing network to function reliably. Some smart device examples: lights, cameras,watches,traffic signals,trashcans, refrigerators, and home heating. • Reliable and robust wireless services are essential to effective telecommuting,which reduces traffic congestion and improves quality of life. People use wireless service to stay connected with friends and family locally, nationally, and around the world. Home automation is allowing people to control lights, appliances, and security systems remotely. Smart Communities solutions are improving safety and allowing our cities to operate more efficiently. • Wireless data is important for public health and safety. 76%of 911 calls originate from cell phones, and it is now common for first responders to use wireless data networks from devices in their vehicles and on their person when responding to a crisis. October 1, 2018 Page 3 • Wide ranges of medical devices are connected to wireless networks, helping doctors to more effectively treat their patients. Devices include smart heart monitors and insulin pumps. • 52%of American households are wireless only for voice service. More than 70%of all adults aged 25-34, and of adults renting their homes, are living in wireless-only households. People are using mobile devices more than ever before, and that trend is expected to continue. 1 Specific code concerns: While Verizon is generally in support of the proposed amendments, we would like to suggest the following revision: 1. 18.450.030(F)would limit small cells as an allowed use only when attached to publicly owned structures in the right of way or those that support public utilities. There is other vertical infrastructure in the right of way owned by private entities, such as Century Link and Comcast,that also offers opportunities for siting small cells. Small cell attachments to these locations should be an allowed use because the impacts to the right of way are the same as when placed on public property. This provision is also inconsistent with the FCC Order'approved this week,which does not limit available infrastructure to that which is publicly owned. Verizon requests that this limitation be removed. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide stakeholder input on this very important ordinance. With a reasonable path forward from the city,Verizon will be able to deploy the new technology and infrastructure needed to provide Tigard residents and businesses with continued robust and reliable wireless service. Sincerely, Kim Allen, Wireless Policy Group, LLC Representatives for Verizon Wireless 1 A Wireless Trends compilation with the sources for these statistics is attached for your reference. 2 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order(September 27,2018);47 CFR§1.6002. verizon' W i re.(.e sy Tre v 43- S 2017 In 2015, the average smartphone in North America consumed 3.7 GB of data per month, and this is expected to increase to 22 GB per month by 2021. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Around 52 percent of American households are now wireless only for voice service. (CDC's 2016 Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December) For Millennials (those born between 1982 and 2004), the number increases to over two-thirds who live in mobile-only households. That number is another significant jump up from 10.5% in 2006 and 31.6% in 2011. (FCC, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Nineteenth Report, DA 16-1061 (Sep. 23, 2016) More than 70% of all adults aged 25-34 and of adults renting their homes were living in wireless-only households. (National Health Interview Survey, "Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2016.) In 2016, wireless data traffic reached yet another record high. In all, traffic totaled 13.72 trillion MBs—the equivalent of 1.58 million years of streaming HD video - an increase of 4.07 trillion megabytes over 2015. Over the past two years, data use has increased 238 percent. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Based on estimates from the U.S. Cellular Monthly Data Usage Estimate tool, available at https://www.uscellular.com/data/data-estimator.html) 2016 mobile data use is 35 times the volume of traffic in 2010. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017) There are now more wireless devices than Americans, with about 1.2 devices for every person in the country. That makes the wireless platform nearly ubiquitous: 95 percent of U.S. adults own a cellphone. Compare that to the 78 percent of Americans who own a computer. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/) Wireless-powered smart city solutions could produce$160 billion in benefits and savings from lower energy use, reduced traffic congestion, and decreased fuel costs. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017&Accenture, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities (January 2017) available at https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-smart-cities.) Connected devices could create $305 billion in annual savings for the healthcare industry. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & David H. Roman and Kyle D. Conlee, The Digital Revolution Comes to US Healthcare: Technology, Incentives Align to Shake Up the Status Quo, Goldman Sachs Equity Report, Internet of Things Volume 5 (June 29, 2015) available at http:// massdigitalhealth.org/ digital-revolution-comes-us-healthcare. Self-driving cars could save 21,700 lives and $447 billion per year. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara Kockelman, "Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations for Capitalizing on Self-Driven Vehicles," Eno Center for Transportation (2013), available at https://www. enotrans.org/etl-material/preparing- a-nation-for-autonomous-vehicles-opportunities-barriers-and-policy-recommendations/) The number of loT devices worldwide will conservatively surpass 20 billion by the year 2020, (2) and this increase in connectivity stands to add roughly $2.7 trillion to U.S. GDP by 2030. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Dr. Michael Mandel, Progressive Policy Institute, Long Term U.S. Productivity Growth and Mobile Broadband: The Road Ahead (March 2016) available at http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016.03-Mandel_Long- term-US-Productivity-Growth-and-Mobile-Broadband_The-Road-Ahead.pdf) In 2021, video will account for around 70%of mobile data traffic. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Across income levels, a significant majority of Americans now have smartphones, with 64 percent of people making less than $30,000 a year and 93 percent of people earning more than $75,000 a year owning smartphones.9 And since 2011, the number of individuals making under $30,000 per year who own a smartphone has grown by 42 percent. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/) Today,just over half-50.8 percent—of American households only have a mobile voice connection.13 For Millennials, the number increases to over two-thirds who live in mobile-only households. That number is up from 10.5% in 2006 and 31.6% in 2011. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & FCC, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Nineteenth Report, DA 16-1061 (Sep. 23, 2016)) Millennials lead smartphone adoption, with 92 percent of 18-29 year olds having a smartphone, followed by 88 percent of 30-49 year olds, and 74 percent of 50-64 year olds. With respect to race, smartphone ownership cuts across the board, with approximately 72 percent of African-Americans, 75 percent of Hispanics, and 77 percent of whites in the U.S. having smartphones. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/) Teens have increased smartphone TV/video viewing 85% in 4 years. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Teen usage of cellular data for smartphone video has grown 127% in 15 months. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) 76% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone (National Highway Traffic Administration, February, 2016) More than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong cellular connections(RootMetrics, June 2015) 35%of Americans reach for their smartphone first in the morning (CTIA, July 2015) z Machine-to-machine connections are projected to rise from 36 million in 2013 to 263 million in 2018. (Cisco, VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights 2013-2018, at"United States–2018 Forecast Highlights and 2013 Year in Review) By 2020, more than 34 billion internet-connected devices will be installed globally — that's more than 4 devices for every human on earth. (Business Insider, May 20, 2016) 3 TO: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CARINE ARENDES 9524 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST.TIGARD,OR 97223 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT(DCA) 2018-00003 DATE: OCTOBER 1,2018 CC: SCHUYLER WARREN,ASSOCIATE PLANNER I am writing in support of Development Code Amendment DCA 2018-00003. I am a Tigard resident. I have served on the Tigard Town Center Advisory Commission (formerly known as the City Center Advisory Commission) for 6 years. I am also a trained land use planner,currently working for Washington County,where we are tackling many of the some issues that DCA 2018-00003 addresses,in particular housing and telecommunication facilities. Although I have a body of knowledge and experience from both Tigard and the County to draw on, this letter is my personal statement of support. There are many reasons I support the adoption of DCA 2018-00003. Based on my experience in mixed use areas of Tigard and overall housing trends,we cannot expect the market to deliver all of the housing types we need without making changes. I believe that providing additional housing options ensures more housing and more affordable housing for all of our community members, now and in the future as our community ages.Allowing different kinds of housing types in more areas also allows for a more incremental build out of housing and less impact on existing neighborhoods. Today's housing market does a great job of delivering large,expensive homes on small lots. It has been a struggle to develop multifamily housing in the few areas of Tigard that allow it. Since the City Center Urban Renewal Area was established over a decade ago, only two new multifamily housing developments have been built;we are taking the lessons learned from those to make changes in how the Tigard Triangle is zoned in an effort to encourage more multi-family housing. So what happens in the meantime? As a Tigard resident I have watched too many families struggle to stay in Tigard as housing costs have risen. Friends and neighbors have had to stay in housing that fails to meet their needs or relocated out the city in order to find housing they can afford. It is critical that we provide housing of all kinds within our city. This is matter of complying with state law sure, however it is so much bigger than that,Tigard's families should be able to live near their workplaces and their kids should be able to stay in schools they love. Older individuals with roots in the community need to stay within their system of support. Making changes to code to allow a greater variety of housing types isn't likely to led mass construction, the market still controls must housing development. However,what DCA 2018-00003 will do is give people who want to make changes on their property to add options for their adult kids or their older parents an opportunity to do so. It will also allow for the provision of more kinds of housing options for duplexes, triplexes, and"quads." These types of homes actually blend into neighborhoods of existing single family housing quite well. In my own neighborhood, I have had the chance to see two different types of housing go up. One: a single lot was redeveloped with a 2 story duplex with shared driveway. It is almost impossible to distinguish this home as two attached dwelling units and the bulk of the structure fits in quite well with the existing surroundings. In contrast,just around the corner, an oversized lot that had a single house is now the site of several single family homes. However, each of these single family homes is 3 stories tall and not has much yard and it turns out that they are much more visually disruptive to the neighborhood pattern. Incremental kinds of housing development are so much more likely once DCA 2018-00003 is adopted,which will be much less disruptive to existing neighbors. It will also add a variety of housing options that families of all different kinds desire at a variety of different sizes and costs. Not only does Tigard need to make changes to comply with state law and the passage of SB 1051 and implement the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report, making changes to house our community as it grows and ages is the right thing to do. Please adopt DCA 2018-00003. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, • Carine Arendes Tigard resident, 14 years Schuyler Warren From: Matt MuSi <mmurfinsimmons@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 2:41 PM To: Schuyler Warren Subject: Tigard house options: http://www.tigard-or.gov/housingoptions/ We are doing early researching on building an ADU and I found the referenced link and thought I would just send you my thoughts on our current situation. We are trying accommodate some kind of age-in-place solution for our 80+year old parents. They are between needing full time nursing care and being fully independent. Our hope is to allow them to stay together and semi independent for as long as possible (likely 2-10 years). This will require a mix of proximity and separation that aligns well with a detached ADU. We would also build for full wheelchair accessibility (near ground level,no garage-top). We would like the flexibility of renting the ADU out in the future- ideally this would allow for separate utilities metering although this certainly starts to blur the line between ADU and subdivision!. Perhaps sub-metering or private metering would accomplish this. Thoughts: I agree with the general consensus that age-in-place(missing middle?)will be a growing concern as families age and fully managed care costs skyrocket and quality of care appears to be highly variable and scary. Our family in Seattle suburbs built an ADU a several years ago and the process was quite streamlined and transparent for the builder(codes, guidelines, permitting website help). Finding specific details for this feels pretty hard to research on the Tigard web site(but I see that Nov changes may be in the works addressing lack of focused ADU policy). I would appreciate any specific'guidelines' or indexed results searching for ADU on the Tigard websites- basically to get a fairly solid understanding if it is even an allowed option with my lot, setbacks maximum footage, etc. We would also like to consider a tiny house(even though these are quite difficult to make wheelchair accessible)because of the additional options to'move it or sell it'. Q: Is Tigard considering anything similar to the following I found for PDX? https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/659268 Q: Or is there any process that'converts' mobile dwelling to become a DADU (remove wheels and set up on slab for example)? Q: I'm a bit confused about how/when/why does a homeowner select between an ADU and some kind of normal addition that has a kitchenette and bathroom? Are 2nd kitchens additions generally not allowed by code or do they have a large difference in permitting costs or applicable codes? Thanks, Matt MurfinSimmons 13365 SW Watkins Ave Schuyler Warren From: webteam@tigard-or.gov Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:19 PM To: Schuyler Warren Cc: Lauren Scott Subject: Housing Options Name = Francesca Email=Jf.dodson@gmail.com Comments=Yes we would like to be able to place an ADU on our property as we want to stay in Tigard but with my mother getting older we need a place for her in the next few years 1 October 1,2018 To Members of the Tigard Planning Commission From Marilyn Manson My name is Marilyn Manson, wife of Wayne Chapman who has spoken in support of the proposed Tigard zoning changes. I also support the proposed zoning changes because they provide for affordable housing in Tigard. For some forty years, I have become acquainted with Tigard and the community here through Chapman family members and their friends and neighbors. My family and friends really support the community that they have created here. I have gotten to know folks, who like my parents-in-law Ken and Rachel Chapman, made their home here because they wanted to spend the rest of their lives here and hoped that their children and grandchildren might do the same. Rising home prices worry many members of this community that housing is becoming unaffordable for their children—a concern that my father-in-law had decades ago. Some of the Chapmans' neighbors in the Greenburg Road area have lived there all of their lives and would like to have their children and grandchildren live nearby. These folks are teachers, office workers, construction workers, small business owners, etc.—people who need affordable housing. The proposed zoning changes would ensure affordable housing which would strengthen Tigard neighborhoods and communities. Wayne K.Chapman,Tigard property-owner(11850/11900 SW 95th Avenue,Greenburg Neighborhood) My parents bought two acres,a 1920s-era bungalow,and a couple of outbuildings in 1950. In 1961,my family moved into a single-story house that my father designed and had built on the same property. I planted most of the trees on the property as my father directed me from his wheelchair.The exceptions are one volunteer maple and four ancient white oak trees that date before any of the extant buildings on 95th Avenue—seedlings,no doubt,at the time of Dr.John Hicklin's original claim of 1850.Tigard was fairly open country when I was a small child except Main Street and property fronting both sides of 99W. 95th was a gravel road until the mid-1950s.Grazing land for cows and horses,of course,is gone,as are woodlots,orchards,and hay-fields,and have seldom been replaced cogently with ad hoc development pursuant to growth and profit over the past 68 years.'My sister and I still own that two-acre parcel and intend to keep a piece of it while seeing the whole blended with the best features of the locale as it is today.That's to enhance community,the reason I support the proposed housing options that apply to our Zone R7 property. Individually,the several housing types offered are appropriate to circumstances that vary,in practice if not in theory.For instance,the courtyard and quad options may not work in particular instances due to lot size and shape.In our case,limited 2-to 3-unit row-houses combined with a duster of cottages and adjoining common greenspace might be the best way to avoid yet another unimaginative cul de sac.We want a neighborhood in which natural features of the environment such as those heritage oaks are used to enhance livability,or quality of life.Affordability is enhanced,too,in such housing diversity laid out by design,2 not to mention the promotion of walkability,which is already a noted benefit of residents who walk their dogs or stroll down to a revitalized Main Street via Commercial 3 Our particular green stretch of 95th is quiet and should remain peaceful with the eventual construction of housing on our lot. Hence I applaud the City of Tigard for proposing options that are in line with its Strategic Plan—options that may allow a pocket community4 to develop within the Greenburg Road Neighborhood.Thank you. NOTES 1. See`Tigard,Oregon:Then and Now." https://tigard.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Storytel l i ngSwipe/index.html?appid=ece4a883750d49748 da6a49506c71500#. 2. For instance,when design involves participation by organizations such as Proud Ground.See https://proudground.org/. 3. It should be obvious how key to the enhancement of both walkability in the neighborhood and revitalization of Main Street are the(re)introduction of light rail,building the new corridor,and filling in the"food desert"by including a small grocery outlet on Main Street or nearby in the development of the Triangle. 4. For an authority on the aesthetics and real practicality of such communities,I recommend Ross Chapin's Pocket Neighborhoods:Creating Small-Scale Community in a Large-Scale World(New- town,CT:The Taunton Press,2011). ISBN 978-1-60085-107-0. Suite 2400 Davis Wrig ht 1300 SW Fifth Avenue Portland,OR 97201-5610 L:! Tremaine LLP Alan Galloway 503-778-5219 tel 503-778-5299 fax alangalloway@dwt.com November 6,2018 Via Email to CouncilMail@tigard-or.gov Mayor John L. Cook Council President Jason Snider Councilor John Goodhouse Councilor Tom Anderson Councilor Marc Woodard City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: T-Mobile's Comments on Proposed Amendments to Tigard City Code Concerning Wireless Communication Facilities Dear Mayor Cook and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile")to provide the City of Tigard ("City")with comments regarding the City's proposed revisions to Tigard City Code provisions concerning Wireless Communication Facilities,namely Chapter 18.450 and related definitions in Chapter 18.30 (the"Proposed Amendments"). T-Mobile appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the City's efforts to update its code and facilitate the deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure, including infrastructure for next-generation 5G services. T-Mobile provides wireless communication services in the City to residents,the business community,and visitors. To meet the increasing demands of consumers for voice and high- speed broadband services, it is necessary for T-Mobile to install additional wireless facilities in Tigard and surrounding communities in order to densify its network. While some of these additional deployments will be traditional macro sites,T-Mobile is also looking at deploying small cells,which are considerably smaller and deployed in greater density than traditional"cell towers." Small cells in the right-of-way have the capability to provide far greater broadband speeds, faster response times, and an overall increase in network communications capacity where they are deployed—albeit over a much smaller geographic area. Modernizing the City's code provisions concerning wireless infrastructure deployment is a critical step to help ensure that Tigard is able to gain the benefits of next-generation mobile connectivity. Anchorage New York Seattle Bellevue Portland Shanghai Los Angeles San Francisco Washington,D.C. www.dwt.com City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 2 In its comments concerning the Proposed Amendments, T-Mobile has identified several provisions where further changes are necessary in order for Tigard's code to accommodate wireless infrastructure in a way that is consistent with federal law—including Sections 253 and 332 of the federal Communications Act,1 and Section 6409 of the federal Spectrum Act.2 The Federal Communications Commission("FCC")has recently clarified federal law on communications infrastructure deployment in its September 27,2018 order aimed at accelerating the deployment of wireless broadband infrastructure (the "Broadband Deployment Order").3 In the comments below, T-Mobile aims to assist the City in ensuring that the City's code provisions and processes are consistent with federal law concerning wireless broadband infrastructure, as clarified by the Broadband Deployment Order. A. Section 18.450.030 needs to be harmonized with federal law Section 6409 of the federal Spectrum Act"requires a State or local government to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station."4 Section 6409 also preempts local regulation of collocation. However,the Proposed Amendments to Section 18.450.030 place restrictions on installation of antennas on both existing towers and non- tower structures that conflict with Section 6409. The proposed changes to Section 18.450.030 include the following: 18.450.030 Uses.followed Pemitted-Ontfight A. Collocation of-antennas)on existing towers-in-eemmereial Installation of an antenna(s)on an existing communication tower of any height is allowedpe muted-ouk, provided the additional antenna(s)hare no more than 20 feet higher than the existing tower, no more than three providers are collocating on the towers, and the color of the antenna(s)blends with the existing structure or surroundings. B. Collocation ef-antennafs4 on existing non-tower structures Installation of an antenna(s)on an existing structure other than a tower, such as a building,water tank, sign, light fixture or utility pole, is allowedpermitti-outfight provided the supportinE structure is not in a public right-of way. 47 U.S.C. §253 and§332. 2 47 U.S.C. § 1455. 3 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order,WT Docket No. 17-79;WC Docket No. 17-84,FCC 18-133 (released Sept.27, 2018)("Broadband Deployment Order"),https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf. 4 47 C.F.R. § 140001 (implementing Section 6409). City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 3 the additional antennas)is no more than 20 feet higher than the existing structure,no more than three providers are collocating on the structure, and the color of the antenna(s)blends with the existing structure or surroundings. Collocation in a public rij'ht-of wav is subject to the small cell standards of Parajraph 18.450.030.F. * * * T-Mobile is concerned that the provisions in subsections A and B on collocating antenna(s)on existing tower and non-tower structures do not accurately reflect the applicable federal standards under Section 6409. Moreover,under Section 6409 and the federal rules implementing it,5 the City cannot limit the number of collocators on a pole to three—as it does in paragraphs A and B. A general problem with the proposed provision is that it incompletely,and thus inaccurately,paraphrases the federal standards. This creates inconsistency between federal law and the Proposed Amendments. Accordingly,T-Mobile urges the City to harmonize its language with the federal requirements in order to avoid this problem. T-Mobile also notes that the last sentence of subsection B contains an apparent typo, stating that"Collocation in a public right-of way is subject to the small cell standards of Paragraph 18.450.030.F,"when the last paragraph in the Section is 18.450.030.E. In addition, although T-Mobile appreciates the idea behind new subsection 18.450.030.E, the wording of that section raises additional concerns. In part,the new provision states: E. Small cells. The following small cell facilities are allowed in a public right-of-way: 1. Small cell antennas and accessory equipment mounted to existing public infrastructure or small cell monopoles, when all of the following are met: • b. A public facility improvement or right-of-way permit has been issued for the installation of the antenna and accessory equipment;and 2. Small cell monopoles, including antennas and associated accessory equipment, when all of the following are met: a. The monopole does not exceed 30 feet in height; 5 See 47 U.S.C. § 140001. City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 4 T-Mobile suggests clarification of the requirement for a"public facility improvement or right-of-way permit,"including how this relates to the permit application process in Tigard Municipal Code § 15.04.040,the standard for granting such permits, and whether the requirement would apply to existing utility poles. Moreover, the references to wireless facilities throughout the Proposed Amendments use terminology that is not clearly defined(e.g. "tower")and do not distinguish between poles in the public right of way, such as utility poles,and more traditional cell towers such as monopoles and lattice towers.6 As described in more detail below,this lack of clarity results in certain requirements being unreasonable and unlawful,particularly when applied to utility poles in the right of way. Finally,T-Mobile is concerned that the monopole height restrictions are unrealistic and would effectively prohibit the provision of service. Typical existing utility poles are 35-40 feet tall. T-Mobile recommends that the height restriction be adjusted, at a minimum,to 50 feet, which would correspond with the definition established by the FCC.7 In areas where existing poles are taller,T-Mobile requests wireless facilities be able to be deployed on that taller infrastructure as well. B. The setback,spacing,fencing,and landscaping requirements in Section 18.450.040 are impractical and unlawful. T-Mobile has several concerns about Section 18.450.040. First,the setback requirements in subsection A.5 of Section 18.450.040 are both unrealistic and discriminatory. The Proposed Amendments provide: A. Uses allowedpermitted. The approval authority shall review the uses subject to site development review using approval criteria provided in Subsection 18.450.040.B. The following uses are subject to approval through the Site Development Review process of Chapter 18.780, using the standards of 18.450.040.8 as approval criteriaunder this section: * * * 56. Towers and and-ani in public rights-of-way. Installation of any a tower exceeding 30 feet in height OF antenna within any public right-of-way,provided that such tower iserantenna-shall-be set back from any off-site 6 The definitions in the Proposed Amendments are not clear."Tower"is not clearly defined,but from the definition of"Wireless communication transmissions towers,"it appears that a utility pole installed in the ROW to support a small wireless facility falls within the definitions of"tower." 7 See Broadband Deployment Order,¶ 11. City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 5 residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower and the tower does not exceed 50 feet in height. The City has not imposed similar setbacks for any existing utility poles,which shows that the proposed setbacks are not reasonable or legitimate right-of-way management measures—as they would need to be to be lawful under the FCC's recent order. As the FCC recently explained,"aesthetic requirements that are more burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible,"and"a minimum spacing requirement that has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service would be considered an effective prohibition of service."8 In addition,imposing restrictions for utility poles over 30 feet in height is impractical, and would materially inhibit deployment of small cell infrastructure. The 30-foot limit does not appear realistic for either exiting utility poles or for new poles. In T-Mobile's experience, utility poles are typically at least 35 to 45 feet high. T-Mobile has additional concerns about the criteria in subsection B of 18.450.040,which the Proposed Amendments set forth as follows: B. Standards 2. Setbacks. a. Towers designed to collapse within themselves mustshal-1 be set back in compliance with the setbacks of the applicable base zone; b. Towers not designed to collapse within themselves mustshall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to or Rreater than the height of the tower. The setback requirement in subsection B.2.b is overly restrictive, and it would be unrealistic to apply such a requirement to a right-of-way that is at the property line. In addition to the setback requirements,the restrictions on tower spacing are inconsistent with federal law. The definition of"tower" in proposed Section 18.30 appears very broad, encompassing any"new structure,tower, pole, or mast erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances." The restrictions on spacing state: 3. Tower spacing.No new tower issue allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. If havi teem leted 8 Broadband Deployment Order,11 87. City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 6 A4 . 18.790.030.13.7. Especially in light of the broad"tower"definition,the 500-foot requirement has no rational basis, and it is not technologically feasible for small wireless facilities installations in the right- of-way given their narrower coverage range. Accordingly,the prohibition on locating towers within 500 feet of existing towers is an effective prohibition of service in violation of Sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act. T-Mobile believes there should be no spacing requirement at all, however,to the extent any is retained it should be limited to generally applicable spacing requirements for all poles. The fencing requirement in 18.450.040.B.6 requires revision because, as drafted,it appears to require fencing even when facilities are located in the public right-of-way,where erecting a fence makes little sense. The current Proposed Amendments provide: 6. Fencing and security. , Towers and ancillary facilities mustshall be enclosed by a minimum 6-foot fence. Because of the relevant definition of"tower,"this fencing requirement could inadvertently require obstruction of the rights-of-way that the code is designed to manage. A similar problem is created by the landscaping provision in subsection B.7,because of the City's definitions, this regulation will result in landscaping requirements for utility poles, which fall within the broad definition of"tower" in Section 18.30. The current text provides: 7. Landscaping and screening. a. Landscaping mustshall be placed outside the fence and mustshall consist of evergreen shrubs that will reach 6 feet in height and 95 percent opacity within 3 years of planting; Six foot tall shrubs in the public right-of-way are unheard of and likely will create visibility issues. C. Certain requirements in 18.450.050 are overbroad and unlawful. T-Mobile has related concerns about the conditional use review set forth in 18.450.050, which—in light of the definitions—would appear to apply even to utility poles and facilities in rights-of-way. The current provision in the Proposed Amendments states: A. Uses allowed . The approval authority willshall review the uses subject to conditional use review, using approval City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 7 criteria provided in Subsection 18.450.050.B. The following uses are subject to approval under this section: 1. Towers in residential zones.A tower, including antennas, other support equipment or accessory equipment sheltersbtngs, in any residential zone; 2. Towers within areas with historic overlay designation. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment or accessory equipment sheltersbuildings, in areas with historic overlay designation; 3. Towers in excess of 100 feet for a single user and 125 feet for multiple users except those located in the I-L and I-H zones, which are allowed-eutright allowed-eas provided in 18.450.030.E. Because utility poles in the right-of-way appear to be"towers"under 18.30,the description of towers in residential zones in subsection A would include utility poles in the right- of-way. This is particularly problematic because the standards of review set forth in Section 18.450.050.B are not workable for installations in the right-of-way. Section 18.450.050.B focuses on protection of points of visual interest, color, setbacks, fencing and so on. Applying these criteria and requirements to utility poles in the right of way is likely not the City's intent, but the language of the Proposed Amendments needs to be revised to prevent this undesired result. In particular,the definitions in Section 18.30 need to be amended to differentiate utility poles from"towers." Under the current definitions,the current provision is unlawful. For example,the standards of review provide that"No new tower in a residential zone is allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing tower," and that"[n]o new tower in nonresidential zones is allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower." The 2,000- and 500-foot requirements in 18.450.050.B.4 are infeasible for providing service via small wireless facilities. Therefore,those spacing requirements are an unlawful effective prohibition of service under Sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act—which the FCC recently clarified are violated if a local regulation "materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment."'9 The fencing requirement in subsection B.6 is similarly infeasible and unlawful. 9 Broadband Deployment Order,¶35. The FCC's interpretation of the Communications Act is authoritative and entitled to judicial deference because the FCC is the expert federal agency empowered to implement and enforce the Act. See, e.g., Clear Wireless, LLC v. City of Wilmington,No.C.A. 10-218-MPT,2010 WL 3463729,at*2(D. Del.Aug. 30,2010)(acknowledging that the FCC's 2009 Declaratory Ruling interpreting 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B) is entitled to judicial deference). City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 8 D. The "Collocation Protocol" in Section 18.450.060 should be omitted. T-Mobile urges the City not to enact the Collocation Protocol set forth in Section 18.450.060. While T-Mobile understands the City's goals with respect to collocation,the protocol that is set forth is not realistic for deployment of small cell facilities or even towers or building-mounted facilities. The positioning and deployment of such facilities is an extremely precise endeavor. Existing towers even '/2 mile away from a target area may be technologically unable to provide the same level of service that T-Mobile seeks,particularly when it is trying to address localized network capacity issues. Because it would result in a degradation of service, the collocation protocol is also unlawful. The FCC has made clear that denial of the ability to improve service to the level of performance characteristics, as defined by T-Mobile, would constitute an effective prohibition of service.1° Additionally,the pre-application requirements of 18.450.060.0 would count against the FCC shot clocks. The pre-application requirements,therefore, would not work either for right- of-way installations or any other wireless installation. That said, T-Mobile recognizes the value of early discussions about proposed projects as a means of identify and resolving issues earlier in the process. The Broadband Deployment Order establishes the following application review timeframes for Small Wireless Facilities: (1) 60 days for collocations of Small Wireless Facilities on existing structures, and (2) a shot clock of 90 days for construction of Small Wireless Facilities that require new support structures." The FCC's new order reiterates its prior holding that"a shot clock begins to run when an application is first submitted,not when the application is deemed complete," and the new Order sets forth the (limited)circumstances in which a clock may be"paused."12 The Broadband Deployment Order also clarifies that the shot clock applies to all authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure,and is not limited to decisions on zoning authorities.I3 Finally, the Broadband Deployment Order clarifies that failure to adhere to the"shot clock"deadlines is a presumptive prohibition of service in violation of Section 332 of the Communications Act14(which,just like Section 253,prohibits effective barriers to entry). E. Conclusion In closing, T-Mobile appreciates the City's willingness to engage with it and other carriers regarding the City's wireless facilities requirements. T-Mobile believes the City shares T-Mobile's goal of timely and efficient deployment of the wireless infrastructure needed to meet 1°Broadband Deployment Order, ¶40,n.95. "Broadband Deployment Order,¶ 13. 12 Broadband Deployment Order,11 141. 13 Id.¶ 132. 14ld. ¶113, 118. City of Tigard November 6, 2018 Page 9 the growing demand for mobile communications in Tigard. T-Mobile's goal is to work with the City Council and City staff to achieve that objective in a way that complies with applicable law, so that deployments are not impeded. T-Mobile stands ready to assist the City in that effort and looks forward to further dialogue on these issues. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP i Alan J. Galloway Counsel to T-Mobile cc: Schuyler Warren, Planning(schuylerw@tigard-or.gov) Schuyler Warren From: Carol Krager Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 9:26 AM To: Schuyler Warren Subject: FW:ADUs: REJECT revised ADU code text section trainwreck:enclosed: actual city and home cost comparisons vs. planner's lack of any relevant Tigard stats/data, surveys, polls Attachments: ADUs-exhibits.zip;ADUs-Compare Local Cities.zip Importance: High I am forwarding this written testimony for the Public Hearing on November 27. It doesn't appear you were copied on it. Carol Krager City Recorder City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 (503) 718-2419 carolk@tigard-or.gov From: MB <mbrewin72@wesleyan.edu> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:18 PM To:John Cook<MayorCook@tigard-or.gov>;#Councilmail<#councilmail@tigard-or.gov> Subject:ADUs: REJECT revised ADU code text section trainwreck:enclosed:actual city and home cost comparisons vs. planner's lack of any relevant Tigard stats/data, surveys, polls Importance: High This letter (including attachments)constitutes My Public TESTIMONY: regarding proposed code text changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit sections(particularly Standards),and the Public Hearing on November 22, 2018 Please include this letter, researched materials, and attachments in the 1)City Planner's packet and as 2) public testimony(with the attachments made available)for the public hearing(including the big screen). Thank You. The planner wanted some feedback;well, here it is: November 15, 2018 Dear Mayor and City Councilors [and City Recorder, and Mayor's Assistant]: I am writing to urge you reject the proposed code text revisions regarding ADUs(accessory dwelling units),until such time as Planning has corrected MAJOR SUBSTANTIVE FAILINGS,OMISSIONS,and other deficiencies in the vague, irresponsible,and incompetently constructed text—and exercised more due diligence. Moreover,the planner's presentation is clearly slanted,the local data skewered and incomplete(or missing),the home prices inaccurate, and the overall picture and subject has been willfully misrepresented to the people of Tigard simply to gain passage—which is improper conduct. The new planner's skewered, paltry, and sloppy homework is largely based upon some lazily cut and pasted excerpts taken from a Pew report(discredited by many, including myself),which is rife with sweeping generalizations and stereotypes which are irrelevant;the article's claims are not verified or supported by any materials 1 locally statistically. In point of fact,there is NO supporting local data, NO Tigard surveys, NO Tigard opinion polls, NO verifiable mandate (in favor) by the citizens of Tigard whatsoever on this subject, and Nothing whatsoever substantive to support any of planner's presumptuous and uninformed assertions. On the contrary,the proposed deliberately vague and radically extreme code text revisions (and glaring omissions) are quite Harmful to all Tigard single detached home residential zone neighborhoods,would harm property values of affected adjacent neighbors, would create an assortment of unwanted nuisances for neighbors, and the debunked false god of Socialist urban planning, DENSITY, is patently anti-environmental (including Increased Noise Pollution, Increased Air Pollution, Increased Parking and Traffic Congestion, increased Tree removals and loss of canopy, increased Street Parking/Storage issues/violations, etc.),and would lead to numerous disputes and code compliance issues,and would also be harmful to the living and natural environment of our city—all of which is detrimental to our citizens' current quality of life. The current ADU section was already recently reviewed and revised—just last December, 2017, and is much superior to the proposed text revisions. However, the current code needs some improvement, including better delineation of the standards. Please retain the current ADU code text until this matter has been meticulously reviewed and improved. To do anything other would be irresponsible public conduct. Regarding the substantive issues on the ADU subject: I am providing you here with the information which our paid public employees did not bother to research or present responsibly or accurately—or Fairly and Balanced. My compiled data includes real comparisons for ALL the west-side cities: regarding ADU city ordinances,and actual averaged 2018 home costs(Price Paid, not inaccurate 'list prices']. In other words, I have done the homework which our paid Planning staff neglected to do, yet again. Also enclosed: I have made substantive improvements,text restorations, and additional corrections to the proposed revised ADU code sections(based on adjacent cities' own revised ADU codes). Please NOTE: 1) Every City in our area has a stated limit of 1 (ONE) ADU per single family detached residential property!! No city near Tigard on the westside allows 2 ADUs. Allowing 2 ADUs would be EXTREME and unprecedented;it would turn single family detached home properties into potential Triplexes,thereby sabotaging and undermining residential zoning and building restrictions,and directly harming affected nearby property owners. 2)Also, removing the current'owner occupancy requirement'would essentially negate the falsely stated purpose [or pretense]of allowing people to stay in their homes at all stages of life. Not requiring the property owner to live in the primary or accessory dwelling would result in properties being converted to duplexes [and triplexes] by mercenary absentee landlords—thereby exposing as a blatant lie the very smokescreen cover excuse and alleged basis used to make these harmful code changes. 3)There needs to be a set limit of occupants per ADU—i.e. 2 [TWO]. Otherwise,you are more than doubling the human density for a property, perhaps even multiplying the density so it harmfully impacts neighbors,and street parking. With no set limit,persons will cram 10+people into an ADU! Some years ago,a small apartment at Bonita Villa was found to have 20-25 occupants[including fugitives from the law]. Accordingly, Please approve my corrected and improved code text changes (enclosed herein), or at least simply retain the Current ADU code section for now (until the code has been thoroughly reworked,while retaining all the current substantive restrictions, which protect adjacent neighbors, neighborhoods, building codes, quality of life,and real estate property values). Thank you. Best Wishes, 2 Michael Brewin SW Morgen Ct,Tigard,OR Table of Contents: 1. Official Public Complaint 2. ADUs - Comparison of Standards - Local Cities 3. Average Actual 2018 Home Sale Prices - by City 4. Planner's Incomplete Chart 5. Planner's 'slanted'Questionnaire (w/balance added) 6. Tigard already has Most Affordable Rent Costs of SW suburban cities! 7. Current Tigard ADU code 18.410 8. Corrections to proposed Tigard ADU code (retains current code provisions; adds the best provisions of other localities)! 9. Other Comments - i.e. Parking, Systems Development Charges, ADU Height, Size, etc. 10. Folders w/ all Attachments 1) Official Public Complaint (as a class action, made on behalf of all Tigard residential property owners): Failure to Duly Notify All Affected Residential Property Owners: The proposed changes to the accessory dwelling unit [aka ADU] code text section would affect all residential zoned neighborhoods, and such code changes clearly negatively impact zoning standards, and by 2 city employees' own publicly stated admissions the proposed code subversions would "change" neighborhoods. Therefore, by law the City of Tigard was required to mail USPS notice (e.g. 30 days in advance)to all property owners in all affected residential zones. The city's willful failure to send such required timely advance public notice plainly violates Oregon statutes. (Waiting until 2 weeks prior to the hearing, and then merely posting on a cluttered website the information, hidden within hundreds of pages of code text changes, is Not a reasonable defense or excuse—for deliberately avoiding sending notice of this important matter to Tigard property owners.) When the city wanted passage of its [failed] 2018 revenue measure (and remember, I clearly advised you not to shoot for the moon!),the city misused public funds to mail improper and blatantly political promotional pro- campaign materials citywide (in violation of election laws). Yet,when a very serious issue affecting (and potentially harming)the real estate assets of all Tigard residential property owners is being pushed and misrepresented (against the will of the majority in this city),then the city officials purposely avoid properly notifying the thousands of affected citizens. As I have noted and stated previously,this lack of honest and genuine transparency, and a failure to provide proper notification to affected citizens, is a substantiated repeated pattern of official impropriety—and is evidence of wanton disregard for the property-owning citizens of Tigard, those of us who actually pay for our city governance (and employee salaries). 2) Accessory Dwelling Unit - Comparison of Standards, Regulations - by City: Accessory Dwelling Units— Comparison — Local Cities Number allowed: 1 ADU! ONE ADU allowed! (NOT 2 !) Lake Oswego: 1 3 Sherwood: 1 Tualatin: 1 Wilsonville: 1 Beaverton: 1 Portland: 1 Hillsboro: 1 Owner Occupancy Required of primary unit or ADU:YES Tigard:Yes(Current) Lake Oswego:Yes Sherwood:Yes (+NO rental of owner occupied unit). YES! Size: Tigard:(keep Current code) may not exceed 50%of primary unit,up to max of 800 sq ft. Sherwood: not to exceed 40%of primary residence: Tualatin:not to exceed 50%of primary unit, up to max 800 sq ft. Beaverton:not to exceed 50%of primary unit(incl garage),up to max 800 sq ft. Wilsonville:maximum is 600 sq ft. Lake Oswego:not to exceed 800 sq ft. Hillsboro:detached ADU not to exceed 750 sq ft.;or 450 sq ft max. if 5 ft from rear/side property line;ADU height Not to exceed 10 ft. Number of ADU Occupants Permitted: needs clear limit! 2-3 Lake Oswego: No more than two persons. 2 Tigard: Limited by state building code [sq ft](Current) Hillsboro: Not to be occupied by more than 3 persons. Sherwood: Not to exceed household number,calc. by sq ft [other code section] Home Occupation Type II Prohibited on properties with ADUs: Portland: NOT allowed (no customers,no employees) Parking: Must have additional off-street parking space[s]:Y Tigard:Yes. 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for the ADU. This space shall be paved or covered. (Current!) Lake Oswego:Yes Sherwood:Yes Hillsboro:Yes, Must have at least 1 additional off-street parking space. Tualatin:Yes, Must have 1 paved additional parking space,and NOT within 5 ft of a side or rear property line. NO ADU front entrance,at ground level: Tigard: No ADU entrance located on front of primary unit, unless such door already exists. (keep Current) Tualatin: No ADU entrance permitted with street frontage, unless such door already exists. Hillsboro: NO ground floor entrance permitted on front of primary dwelling; NO front ground entrance permitted for detached ADU. Sherwood:ADU entrance must be "unobtrusive"from front view of primary unit. Fees: SDC[System Development Charges for an ADU]YES!! Beaverton:Yes 4 Permits Required for ADU:= Revenue+Oversight All Cities:Yes Garage Conversions Prohibited: Tigard: NO Garage conversion[s], unless it is rebuilt as part of the primary structure. (Current) Tualatin: NO Garage conversions! City can impose conditions to protect neighbors: YES!! Lake Oswego: re height modifications, landscaping,buffering and orientation of the ADU to protect privacy of the neighbors. ADU Living Unit Separation from Primary Unit:YES! Beaverton:Yes NO selling ADU as separate unit: YES! Tualatin: ADU NOT to be sold, or as condo. Sherwood:ADU NOT to be partitioned or divided off from the parent parcel. 3.) 2018 Averaged Actual Home Sale Cost ($ Price Paid): 2018 Average Actual Home Sale Cost ($ Price Paid): updated 9/2018: BestPlaces.net (real estate sources: Zillow and RMLS) Data compiled: totals for Actual Home Cost(Price Paid), Averaged (NOT inaccurate median 'list prices'), for All Home Sales this year through September, for each listed municipality here. SW Suburban Cities with resident populations and demographics closest to Tigard's: 2018 Average Home Cost (= price Paid); + Population Tigard: $408,300 (51 ,000 pop.) Base of comparisons Tualatin: $452, 800 (27,500 pop.) Lake Oswego: $657,400 (39,000 pop.) Sherwood: $413,000 (20,000 pop.) Wilsonville: $459,400 (23,000 pop.) Tigard: $408,300 (51,000 pop.) Among Portland's South-West suburban cities, Tigard is quite affordable for housing, especially compared with our actual adjacent and similar neighboring suburban cities with a population range of 20,000-60,000 residents. On Portland's West-side, Tigard is the alleged 'missing middle' housing (which is a concocted phony term, anyway). Overall, Tigard residential real estate is actually at a lower average cost paid than Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Sherwood, and Wilsonville. And Portland, too! Overall,Tigard 5 also has lower rent costs than the rest of the inner west-side suburbs. (NOTE: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are NOT'missing middle' housing fa false term which is a deliberate misrepresentation], but rather'low income' housing, with typically lower standards than apartments.) Tualatin: $452, 800 (27,500 pop.) Tualatin is a very good comparison with Tigard. It is adjacent, with similar demographics, and our public schools are the Tigard-Tualatin School District. Its average home cost(price paid) is higher than in Tigard. Lake Oswego: $657,400 (39,000 pop.) For several reasons, affluent Lake Oswego is a good comparison with Tigard. It is adjacent to Tigard, shares a water partnership with Tigard, and has a slightly smaller population (the closest population size to Tigard of any west-side city). It is what Tigard should aspire to, or at least emulate, in municipal governance, policing, amenities, schools, and especially quality of life, appearance, and the preservation of existing neighborhood values, and codes which protect residential zones. Sherwood: $413,000 (20,000 pop.) Sherwood is also adjacent to Tigard, has similar demographics and averaged residential real estate prices paid. Wilsonville, OR: $459,400 (23,000 pop.) Next to Tualatin, Wilsonville has similar demographics and averaged real estate prices slightly higher than Tigard. Larger cities that are less comparable with Tigard: (90,000-650,000 residents) Portland, OR: $427,500 (633,000 pop.) Although adjacent to Tigard, Portland has 633,000 residents, and a mix of dense housing, including blighted, poor, and very wealthy neighborhoods. Curiously, Portland is also proud to be "weird": lawless, crime-infested, anti- business, and its city council coddles street hooligans, anarchists, federal fugitives, violent foreign criminals, and thousands of unemployed young adult homeless transients who flock to Portland from less permissive U.S. cities. Due to anti-environmental DENSITY, Portland also has more AIR POLLUTION, and NOISE POLLUTION, and CONGESTED PARKING! However, Portland does have a 24-hour residential zone parking limit(which Tigard had until 2018, when residential parking code and enforcement was officially weakened.) [Note: since recent weakened parking code changes, Tigard residential parking enforcement has already markedly deteriorated and become ineffective (esp. regarding trailers illegally parked overnight; there's a 30 minute limit 12-6 a.m. which is NOT being enforced, even upon complaints (No tags or tickets). [That's also lost revenue for the city; issuing parking tickets brings in revenue!] Beaverton, OR: $380,300 (97,000 pop.) Although adjacent to Tigard, the City of Beaverton has about twice the population (97,000), is overall of lower socio- economic status than Tigard, and has thousands more older, smaller tract homes than Tigard (which has developed more recently). Overall, residential real estate within the City of Beaverton is of lower quality and property value. NOT Comparable to Tigard: Hillsboro !! (This fact is contrary to the latest new Tigard planner's incomplete and purposely skewered chart, and as erroneously cited repeatedly in his claims and publicized socio-political activist agenda (in local Tigard newspapers). Note: on-the-job public political activism to aggressively fundamentally change/harm existing neighborhoods is improper, and as such constitutes an abuse by a hired public employee on the job; and the lack of any original or complete local research/data by the planner is evidence of gross incompetence.) Hillsboro is NOT adjacent to Tigard, NOT near Tigard,and NOT comparable with Tigard: Hillsboro, OR: (103,000 pop.) ($357,000) [Although Hillsboro is in the same county as Tigard, that's meaningless in real estate terms. Just like Cooper Mountain is in the same county; perhaps we should have a separate category for the Cooper Mountain mansions, and another for unincorporated Wine Country mega estates!] Hillsboro is a large city with mostly low socio-economic residential zones, many homes of poor quality, blighted neighborhoods, and high crime. Furthermore, Hillsboro has 100,000+ residents, and is 15 miles distant from Tigard! Its community and its real estate prices are NOT reasonably comparable to Tigard—and never have been. 6 [Everyone knows that fact(except for recent ignorant carpetbagger city planners who came here from outside this area; the same planners who choose to live elsewhere, i.e. in Portland, not Tigard!)!] Ironically, the average income within the City of Hillsboro is$66,700, compared to $60,850 in Tigard. [The blighted nature of residential sections of Hillsboro can be partially explained by the overall lower average educational level of Hillsboro residents, lower overall personal standards regarding home and property maintenance, combined with related high crime rates, even though Hillsboro residents average higher incomes than City of Tigard residents.] 4. Planner's Skewered Incomplete Chart (with inaccurate data: 'median listing price'): Planner's Skewered, Inaccurate, Incomplete Chart 2017 Median SF Lusting Price Ti a rd Tigard 51,000is V j : g ► • • HiHs o-..--N,a $3-7.0047 Hilsboro is 15 miles distant from Tigard! Hi lsboro has 103,000+ residents Beaverton $3S7126-1 Beaverton has 93,000 residents Portland $426;678 Portland has 633,000 residents 5. Planner's Posted Rigged Questions: designed to elicit only positive responses. [with my questions (in red) added to balance the obvious pro campaign slant]: 7 Planner's Questions were designed to elicit only positive responses! Housin O tions for All Stages of Life! ke are seeking feedback fro m residents and other stakeholders to help guide development code amendmentslto allow a wider range of housing typesiwithin the city. (Would you like to: see actual local data and research, instead of a one-sided sales pitch? be notified 30 days in advance by USPS of hearings changing codes in your neighborhood? • add an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on your property? • own your own home but not worry about yard maintenance? • downsize but stay in your neighborhood? • have a family member live near you but not in your home? Are you concerned about ADUs harming your neighborhood and property values? Do you want DENSITY and added NOISE of residents 5 ftfrom your property line? Are you con erngd increased DENSITY will hrm your environment (cutting trees, CO2)? Housing Options ProposedChangs How could potential code amendments affect you?Increased parking congestion and traffic? Should city planners destroy zoning protections, creating slums in your area? 6. Tigard already has the most affordable Rent costs on inner Westside and SW Portland suburbs: Tigard already has lots of affordable housing: LOWER RENT COSTS! Asking rent per unit $1,700 $1,500 $1,300 $1,100 $900 $700 $500 ti`O '`A ti1, 'V '1, '1, ,,` —Metro PortlandTigard —SW Corridor Source:CoStar Multi-Family Property database Presented in Sold Out:PDX Report 8 7. Current Tigard Code: 18.410: 9 Current Tigard Code: updated 12/17 ! ! Chapter 18.410 ACCESSORY DWELLIN Sections: 18.410.010 Purpose 18.410.020 Approval Process 18.410.030 Approval Standards 18.410.010 Purpose A. This chapter provides clear and objective standards for th in detached single-family residences to achieve the follow 1. Increase energy efficiency in large or older homes; 2. Increase the number of affordable housing units; 3. Increase residential densities with minimal impact neighborhoods; 4. Allow small households to retain large houses as resid 5. Permit young households to achieve home ownership; 6. Provide needed space for elderly family members, tee 22 §2) 18.410.020 Approval Process 10 3. The number of residents permitted to inhabit the acce building code; 1 4. Either the primary or accessory dwelling unit shall be 5. A primary residence in which an accessory dwelling home occupation; 6. In addition to the number of parking spaces require4 Chapter 18.310, Off-Street Parking and Loading, 1 accessory dwelling unit. This parking space shall be p 7. The front door of the accessory dwelling unit shall primary unit unless the door is already existing; 8. There shall be compliance with all development static 22 §2) ■ 11 7. Corrections to Proposed ADU Code: 12 Page 275 of 933 — f Automatic Zoom Tigard CORRECTED Proposed Code 18.220418.030 Approval ProcessStandards Applications for accessory dwelling units are processed through a Type I Section 18.710.050. 18.220.040 Standards Owner Occupancy:The property owner,which shall include the A. Number of units.occupy either the principal unit or the ADU as their permanent months out of the year, and at no time receive rent for the owr 1. A maximum of4accessory dwelling units allowed per single detr e IS 2. A maximum of 1 detached accessory dwelling unit is allowed peg 3. The number of occupants is limited to no more than two persons in the accessory unit. B. 1. The maximum size of a detached accessory dwelling unit is 800 squu 2. The square footage ofdlattached accessory dwelling unit&may not ea the primary unit. (ci C. Height. 20 1. The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit is 25 fee Furthermore,a detached accessory dwelling unit shall NOT exceed the heir 2. A structure containing an attached accessory dwelling unit may height for a single detached house in the base zone. D. Setbacks.Accessory dwelling units must meet the setback standards for the base zone. with the exception that a detached accessory dwelling u feet from the rear property line lithe accessory dwelling unit is less than E. Entrances. Only 'tone attached accessory dwelling unit may have an e facade. -aitgehO• dwe - -me __marleiNfte. to ADU must be completely separate from the primary teapot jtaye inter-eocyuyllicating doors or open F. Parking. 1. In addition to the number of parking spaces required for the primer street parking space must be provided for each accessory dwelling Ill a-right-of way-that i r -tr+nsitservice ,eztvnni rem-the-pada 13 H.The reviewing authority may impose conditions regarding height modifications, landscaping, buffering and orientation of the accessory dwelling unit to protect privacy of the neighbors. • •• / . ,.. Imo. , / ,. .,♦ . ,,, , • • • M 1 f ,• +A . •^... r. 1 ..1' •/ r/ ♦ f r••r . Irl / 1 /r I,I '.. I I.'• ', .A . I I A♦ I r '1 I I'IN,r , .♦'1 • /• I• • I . .. .. ... -_... . _ .... .. .-_ ... - .•. .. .. .. . u » $ode; .. _ _ ..,. home occupation', _ .,... ._ - .. ._. .. ".s I.The property owner must pay System Development Charges for an accessory dwelling unit. J.An accessory dwelling unit shall NOT be sold separately from the primary unit, or as a condo. 14 9. Comments: All cities in our immediate area limit ADUs to 1 (ONE) per residential property, and for good reason! Tigard should NOT become the lone exception; that would be unsound and reckless public policy = lunacy! [Over time, allowing 2 ADUs would be very harmful to residential zoning and to neighborhoods, and to property values.] Primary dwelling unit or the ADU must be occupied by the property owner, at least 6 months each year, and at no time shall the owner receive rent for the owner-occupied unit. This prevents the proliferation of greedy mercenary absentee landlords. Occupancy of an ADU should be expressly limited to 2 [Two] persons. Sq footage of an ADU should not be more than 50% of the primary dwelling unit, and NOT to exceed 800 sq ft. Height of an ADU should not exceed the height of the primary dwelling unit. Height of an ADU should not exceed 10-15 feet if built up to 5 feet from the rear/side property line. Size of an ADU next to a setback shall not exceed the size of a permitted 'accessory structure.' [500-529 sq ft] NO Front street-facing ADU entrance permitted, unless the door was already existing. ADUs must be completely sealed off from the primary dwelling unit; NO interconnecting doors or openings. 1 off-street Parking Space (paved or covered) for the ADU is Necessary and Required: 1. NO other cities here add or allow an exemption from the requirement of 1 additional off- street parking space per ADU. 2. Most of Tigard is not walking distance (1/4 mile) to a Tri-Met bus stop or light rail. 3. It is unreasonable, draconian, and unrealistic to expect people to walk up to 1/2 mile (2500 ft.) to a bus stop (especially the elderly and disabled), and especially from November-April, or after dark. A stated purpose for ADUs was allegedly for elderly citizens to keep their homes; 95%+ of such persons in Tigard do NOT use public transit. 4. Without a required off-street paved or covered parking space, ADU residents will obviously park [and illegally store] vehicles on city streets, further congesting streets. 5. The Tri-Met system is NOT designed to facilitate easy commuting around and within Tigard. The Tri-Met system was designed by the Portland political elite to make Portland the center, the hub. 15 6. Most working people in Tigard do NOT commute to downtown Portland, but rather to outlying areas, which are difficult to access using public transportation. 7. The parking space should NOT be built within a required 5 ft side or rear setback from the property line. Home Occupations (Type II) involving customers, employees, and deliveries should NOT be allowed on any property with an ADU. A property with an ADU should be limited to 1 [ONE] HOP Type I. The City should reserve right to impose further conditions (buffering, landscaping, etc.) to protect the privacy of neighbors. The ADU property owner must naturally be required to pay an SDC (Service Development Charge) for the ADU building. An ADU shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit, or as a condo, or otherwise sub-divided from the parent parcel. 10. Attachments (2 Folders): DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail 16 may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 17 City of Tigard SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET R EC E I V E D FOR NOV 272(,ah Attn: The Tigard City Council (DATE OF MEETING) 13125 SW Hall Blvd. C'TY G`' TIGARD PLANNINt /ENGINEERING Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: DCA2018-00003, DCA2018-00004 & ZON 2018-00005 RE: Monday, November 27th,2018 City Council Written Testimony: Hello councilors, my name is Robert Ruedy and I've been paying a very expensive mortgage every month for 26-years on my 1.14 acres of R-12 zoned development land while residing at its location of 14185 SW 100th Avenue here in Tigard. Having only received the draft of this Code Amendment 2- weeks ago, time has not allowed as thorough an evaluation and comment as would be possible if you were to "continue the hearing" and extend the testimony response period another preferably 4- weeks so I and other interested parties can connect with City Staff to improve the revisions towards an "approval worthy" outcome. In my opinion, in its current form, it is incomplete, has typos and other housekeeping issues, and needs additional clarification prior to being formally approved by the City Council. I'll do my best to address these aforementioned issues herein with what little time I have today to compose this testimony. To start, I'd like to reflect on an old saying that"if you want a specific outcome with certainty,just stack-the-deck in favor of that outcome and it will be realized and achieved"... but that methodology is just plain unethical, unprofessional, and potentially illegal for this subject matter being discussed herein. With that said, I have significant concerns regarding how this proposal was crafted, who was to benefit, and who was to be disenfranchised by its composition. It does not appear to be in alignment nor compliance with Oregon State Law as it appears to deliberately discriminate against, and disenfranchise, a select group of citizens and property Owners... that being the remaining few Private Development Property Landowners of the City of Tigard. If an Agency wants to intentionally exclude or bias any particular or specific entity or group of affected parties, this specific effort being testified against herein would be an exceptional example of such an exclusive and biased outcome. The Legislative Amendments proposed for the City's Development Code (TCDC) have numerous flaws in their current form. Such as: 1. It failed miserably to include, or even represent,the participation in its crafting and composition by the most affected parties to these proposed Amendments, namely the many Private Development Property Landowners within the City Limits, and especially those with less than 2 acres of Private Development Land. The City could have contacted these predominately affected Property Owners using its "Available Lands Inventory" Map and readily available contact information related to those affected parties on that map, especially November 27,2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 1 of 10 for this and prior related committee assembly, pre-release/submission comments, and especially this hearings' notices towards involvement. 2. The DCA 2018-00004 Staff Report "Section III, Background Information and Project Summary" Land Use Procedures specifically refer to Development Standards for Developed and Undeveloped Commercial Properties to "be more fully updated in a future code project after consultation with the industrial development community". But this did not happen as mentioned previously with the non-commercial development community and its Development Property Landowners. Hence, there's a level of inconsistency of procedural outcome within the non-commercial amendments currently under discussion. This similarly relates to all of the "Section III topics." 3. Within the same Staff Report "Section IV, Applicable Criteria, Findings, and Conclusions",the Statewide Planning Goal#1 for Citizen Involvement has not been adequately met based on my prior testimony herein. The cross-section of the "Interim Development Advisory Committee" was biased due to its absence of less than 2-acre (aka "tight site") Private Development Property Landowners of Tigard. 4. Additionally within Section IV (and V), it states that "Notice was sent out to affected government agencies by US Postal Service and email on October 16, 2018",just three weeks prior to this hearing,yet nothing was sent out to Private Development Property Landowners identified from the City's "Available Land Inventory Map." This appears inconsistent with the "Notices" Procedures required by law to affected parties in that the government agencies were directly notified through multiple methods for comment, but few (if any) were provided directly to the Private Development Property Sector in any manner, so there appears to be an intentional disparity to the Private Development Property Sector. Hence the Statewide Goal was not adequately satisfied to this respondent due to failures of consistent and direct notification to all affected parties. 5. Additionally within the DCA2018-00004 Section IV(and V) statement identified above,there was no confirmation provided by Staff that those agencies even received the hearing notices, yet the Staff still chose to make their early recommendation to the Planning Commission that there would be no government response or impacts to the City's findings in these subject significant amendments to the City's Development Code. This seems a bit crafty and insincere as to the true involvement by affected parties in this process. Hence,these are not adequately satisfied goals. 6. Statewide Planning Goal 10—Housing: This sections goal has not been adequately met due to an absence of accommodation for the growing need for Group Living and Congregate Care centers that will meet increasing local aging population demand for "Group Living" and "Transitional Housing" needs that also meet Oregon DHS Project Siting and Building Design requirements. This omission from the Development Code severely restricts the ability of remaining Development Land Owners and Developers to maximize their density options and accommodate all residential housing needs,which is apparently supposed to be the objective, right? Again, the inclusion of the Private Property Development Landowners November 27, 2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 2 of 10 would have brought a better solution forward to meeting the Statewide Planning Goal 10 for Housing towards year 2032. If the "goals"objective is truly to provide lesser expensive housing cost options for all planned of future residents, "omitted Development Code frameworks" (such as Group Living and Congregate Care centers) are counter-productive to that outcome. 7. Relating to "Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 1—Housing Capacity and Title 8—Compliance Procedure" stated in DCA2-018-00004, apparently there were no "findings" for the City Staff to weigh-in on following their unconfirmed unilateral attempt to cover the topics within "Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 1—Housing Capacity and Title 8—Compliance Procedure"( and Section V herein), due to their being no confirmation of receipt nor a "No-Comment" reply from Metro of the "copy" purportedly provided to Metro by City Staff on October 1, 2018,just one month ago. It appears that only the R-25 Zoning District Property Owner comments were specifically and intentionally included and/or considered within this "Staff Finding", which effectively concludes that City Staff failed to provide comment considerations for all other Zoning Districts which were disenfranchised by this and all other proposed Amendments to the City Development Code. Because of these concerns, the subject Metro goals have not been addressed in an unbiased and comprehensively inclusive manner and are therefore unsatisfied achievements. 8. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan: "Goal 1:Citizen Involvement", the Policy 1.1.2 goal has not been adequately met due to the absence of Private Development Property Landowners being involved in each phase of the Land Use process. It was a complicit group assembled to "rubber stamp"the City Staff proposed changes. Instead, it should have been a cross-section of Tigard Landowners, especially undeveloped or under-developed landowners. Unfortunately, it appears a "puppet" committee established to promote a biased desired outcome which is a disservice to existing and future City of Tigard Private Development Property Landowners. It's a "sham" process that needs to be exposed for what it truly is... "Divisive, Unethical, and Inequitable". 9. The City's "Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning" identified in DCA2018-00004 has not been adequately met as it has been assembled inconsistently in many ways mentioned herein. 10. Policy 2.1.3: This policy has not been adequately satisfied due to non-confirmation of receipt and/or non-response from the other Agencies and Jurisdictions the City Staff purports to have attempted to contact. The City needs to receive a document from each and every agency with a "confirmation of receipt" and whether or not they agree with the changes, and not just rest on an "absence of response" or even a sole (yet unresponsive) "confirmation of receipt" of said notification. 11. Policy 2.1.12: This policy has not been adequately satisfied. "Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions" is not meant to be a "blank check" for November 27,2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 3 of 10 over-bearing jurisdiction or overreach by the City, or any other agency or entity for that matter. Please reference my additional comments on this subject herein. 12. Policy 2.1.21: This policy has not been adequately satisfied. The "standards that ensure of high-quality development" are not best achieved through over-reaching agency ambitions, but instead through inclusion in the process by those directly involved in the Land Use Development activity such as the Private Property Landowners and Developers. These parties appear to have been intentionally excluded from the amendment text creation process, even though they are the greatest impacted parties from the outcome of such legislative changes. 13. Policy 2.1.23: "Standards related to open space ensure that developments provide adequate space for outdoor activities and prevent overcrowding of buildings." Frankly, outdoor space in the Northwest, including Tigard, is weather restricted most of the year due to inclement weather. Thinking across the board at residential structures, some need more and others need less outdoor open space. For example: A residential Senior Care Facility likely need less since more activities are indoor year-round, and a school likely needs more even though they are basically vacant during the non-rainy summer time of the year. This policy is also likely in conflict with Oregon Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) Facility Siting guidelines due to safety concerns of the eventual new residents. Was the Oregon DHS included in the City's agency notifications for comment? I don't see any evidence of such an inclusion within this City Amendment proposal, yet the Oregon DHS has to approve all Facility Siting locations to ensure those locations also meet their guidelines and requirements. These aforementioned factors indicate that this policy has not been adequately met nor satisfied. 14. Policy 2.1.24: There appears to be a disconnect in the neighborhoods where single-family detached homes are to be impacted by "Apartments". Within the pre-application conferences I've conducted over the past number of years, not one attendee has shown a positive interest in hosting "Apartment Development Projects", likely with renters, amongst their neighborhood livability profile. In fact, I've received a strong response of negative comments from those attendees regarding the placement of"Apartments" adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, single-family detached home neighborhoods. There does not appear to be a presence in these Amendments to the City Development Code that would allow comprehensively restriction of public input or neighborhood association influence where application is made for placement of Apartments adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, single- family detached home neighborhoods. It would make sense that such verbiage should be included concurrently to these proposed amendments to restrict neighborhood comment in these instances to meet the City's goals currently being presented in the subject proposed Amendments to the Development Code. I request that the Tigard City Council NOT-pass or Approve, but instead remand the Staff Report back to City Staff for their revisiting and clarification of these proposed Amendments, and allow participation and discussion by the community about such placements of"apartments" adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, single- family detached home neighborhoods. The DCA2018-00004 Staff Report states that the November 27, 2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 4 of 10 intent of this policy is to "ensure a FAIR and consistent application of the design standards and provide clarity for applicants", but this does not appear to be what's occurred in these proposed Amendments. Hence, this policy has not been adequately met nor satisfied. 15. Policy 2.2.10: The buffering and screening rewrite in DCA2018-00004 Development Code Chapters 18.420 & 18.520 are overbearing, inconsistent, and an example of government overreach. Due to time constraints on this testimony, I am unable to capture these inconsistencies swiftly enough to make the testimony deadline today, but I'd be happy to assist in clarifying them once given the option to participate in the rewrite by City Staff. This policy has not been adequately met nor satisfied. 16. Policy 2.3.5: The current proposed DCA2018-00004 Staff Report does not take into account private property "deeded view-line obstruction restrictions", "hazard trees" remediation options to parcels adjacent to planned and future land developments, and the potential placement of trees or a storm water detention facility obstacle by a developer to specifically restrict development an adjacent parcel, such as in visual clearance areas for those adjacent parcel access/egress development requirement achievements. Until these aspects, genuine concerns, and other written contents of DCA2-18-00004 Chapters 18.420& 18.520, plus their influences on other Chapters under current amendment and past enactment have been addressed with Private Development Property Landowners, and their adjacent developed or undeveloped landowners,this policy has not been adequately met nor satisfied. 17. Policy 10.1.1: The policy fails to address the concerns and protect the interests of Tigard Landowners, since it only refers to "present and future residents". This policy appears discriminatory and exclusive of many current and future Private Property Landowners, and therefore this policy has not been adequately met until all parties affected by it are considered and represented in its composition and implementation. 18. Policy 10.2.6: Because this amendments process has specifically excluded Private Development Property Landowners in its crafting of the text, this Policy's' perspective is flawed. The DCA2018-00004 Staff Report states that the intent of this policy is to "ensure a FAIR and Consistent application of the design standards and provide clarity for applicants", but this does not appear to be what's occurred in these proposed Amendments and Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy compliance narratives. These proposed amendments are not "Fair"to Private Development Property Landowners, whether applicants or not, and also significantly lack "consistency". Hence,this policy has not been adequately met nor satisfied. 19. Policy 10.2.8: It appears to this respondent that the goals of DCA2018-00004 Items A, B & C within this policy are to "ensure" development standards and compliances with the sweeping overreach ambitions of the Planning Department Staff and their overbearing and biased Development Code provisions. But, also apparent is the only thing this policy looks to "ensure" under these amendments is less property development interest overall within the Tigard City Limits, and that will be contrary to the City goals of more housing in any price range. Hence, this policy has not been adequately met nor satisfied. November 27,2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 5 of 10 Interim "Conclusion"on Policies: Based on the findings within the Staff Report, this Development Property Landowner concludes that the proposed code text amendment is "inconsistent"with the applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. I request and encourage the Tigard City Council disapprove and object the Staff Report and remand/return it back to City Staff for inclusion of Tigard Private Development Property Landowners concerns, comments, and compromise by the City towards a workable and "Fair" outcome for all parties affected by such significant changes. Additionally, omitted from this Staff Report Proposal for Development Land Use and Occupancy Type Amendments to the Development Code is any form of summary as to how the definitions of DCA2018-00003 Section 18.120,within Table 18.120.1,the Use Categories are to be defined. For example: What types of"Detention Facilities" are to be "Prohibited" or "Conditional" Use? If this "Detention Facility"term is meant to cover "Criminal" Detention Facilities,then a definition needs to clarify that. But Alzheimer Care is required by the State DHS to "detain" many of its residents in a secured "Detention Facility" form, so not all "Detention Facilities" should be "Prohibited" or "Conditional" Use. That is, unless the City of Tigard is specifically choosing to exclude the disabled and/or aging populations from its housing goals. In light of these aforementioned concerns, it would likely be beneficial for the Development Code to include a separate Code Section (Say, possibly "18.300"?)for Group Living(including Senior Care, Skilled-Nursing Care, Acute Care, Memory Care, Rehabilitative Care),Adult Day Care, Medical Centers, Personal Services, Eating& Drinking Establishments, Vehicle Fuel Sales, and others that comprise a Care Center to be allowed to develop and function effectively and efficiently. The majority of"Self-contained Group Living/Care Centers" contain most or all of these Uses and also coincide with State DHS guidelines and requirements, which it does not appear that these revised Development Codes have taken into account. And differentiation would also then benefit by separate identification from the "Commercial Lodging" definition which should likely include Hotels, Motels, Air B&B, VRBO, Short-term stay Transient housing, etc. as a separate Use category. The revised/new DCA2018-00003 Section 18.110.010.B "Purpose" states to provide residential zones of varying densities, with flexible design and development standards to encourage innovation and reduced housing costs." However, by disallowing "flag lots" on subdivisions reduces density enhancement by limiting development potential thereby raising housing costs. When it comes to affordable housing goals, a "flag lot" is a better solution then NO lot. Hence, this rework of the Development Code is incomplete, confusing and conflicting in nature. So again, more time is needed to work through and iron-out these core challenges rather than approve deficient results. The "commentary" for the revised/new DCA2018-00003 "Section 18.210 General Provisions" states that it is to "provide for all residential development", but unfortunately it doesn't as is explained herein by excluding Congregate Care Centers or similar Land Type and Use options. Please reference the attached "Senior Living and Care Definitions"to better understand the diverse needs of this sector of residential housing. November 27, 2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 6 of 10 Please reference the attached "Alzheimer Association Excerpts"to better understand the coming tsunami that will impact the future housing needs of many of the 10,000+ local residents currently age 55 and up. Please reference the attached "Baby Boomer Retirement Facts"with highlights of the critical elements weighing on the age 55 and up market sector. Please reference the attached Alzheimer Association "Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures" to better understand that 1 in 3 persons will likely be affected by this memory crippling disease. Please reference my Local Market Study Excerpts and Map entitled "Current SW Portland Market Demographic Supply and Demand Study" for additional clarification of the pent-up demand in our underserved area which includes the City of Tigard as the only residentially based City nearest to King City, Summerfield, and the surrounding Senior aged populous living within 1-mile of those communities. This current Development Code revision DCA2018-00003, and its subsequent Development Code Revision DCA2018-00004&Zon2018-00005 headed-up by Susan Shanks, are incomplete and still in need of revision, clarification, and improvement. My request to the City Council is to not pass or approve bad or incomplete legislation, but to complete and correct it as needed, then pass a better outcome for Tigard to enhance its future for all residents, excluding none. And since the "Commentary" for the revised/new Section 18.110"Residential Zones" states that "Federal Law Requires Group Living to be treated the same as Household Living", it simply makes sense that this category be given its own Development Code section (possibly 18.300?) and that it be comprehensively created prior to approval by the City Council. On a personal level, I purchased the property at my address to develop it and have been diligently working on its Oregon DHS facility siting approval and other elements of financing towards the development of a Senior Care Facility over the past five (5) years. My efforts have taken me literally many thousands of hours and have cost roughly$400K to this point in time to gain the necessary approvals, preliminary designs and graphic renderings, interested financiers, lenders, post- construction Operators, and otherwise. The comprehensive 104-page Market Study,that I was required to pay for to gain the Oregon DHS Siting approval for such a Use and Occupancy, reflected a compelling outcome of pent-up demand in an under-served area,that being the area of King City, Summerfield, South Tigard, and their surrounding area where over 10,000 aged 55 and up currently reside in their independent living residences. The real problem for these local residents is that there is literally nowhere for them to go within a 5-mile radius of my property for their likely non- ambulatory or other disability"Plan B" if and when they become unable to continue living in their homes, since all current Care Facilities are full-up with "waiting lists"that only continue to get longer. I'm concerned that the proposed changes to the current Tigard Development Code, Zoning and available "Occupancy and/or Use" options for my current R-12 Zoning will be negatively impacting to my ongoing efforts which are currently pre-approved by the Oregon DHS, and circumvent or negate November 27,2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 7 of 10 my objectives for my privately owned property. Because of this genuine concern of mine, any "diminished Value"financial damages that I may incur from these proposed Development Code, Zoning and Use changes will need to be fully compensated by the City of Tigard. If nothing else comes out of these testimonies and Planning Commission recommendations, there needs to be a "grandfather clause" in this amended Code dissertation for those like me who have current property development plans in "mid-stream" status to continue forward with our development plans under the Tigard Development Codes and otherwise "that are least restrictive"to our private property development objectives and outcomes. In conclusion to this portion of my testimony: This Private Development Property Landowner strongly disagrees with the Staff Report "Section II, Staff Recommendations" narrative and requests that the Tigard City Council rule against the proposed Development Code text amendments (Attachment 1) and map amendments (Attachment 2) with all alterations as purportedly determined through the review of the Public Hearing Process and make no final approval until its inaccuracies and/or incomplete status until it is remanded back to the City Planning Department for a complete rewrite with the comprehensive inclusion of the City's Private Development Property Owners throughout the rewriting and resubmission proposal process. On an aside... if the City of Tigard chooses to encourage and promote widespread "gentrification", this subject Development Code &Zoning Amendment appears likely to do just that to its oldest, disabled, and/or less fortunate residents by disenfranchising them with no other alternative when unable to reside in their current homes, since the City has no other provisions to allow "aging-in- place" options to reside somewhere close-in-locale to their current residence. Additionally, I've held multiple Neighborhood Meetings regarding my planned Senior Care Facility development, and through these I've received an overwhelming support by neighbors to accomplish my objectives in our neighborhood. Many have even mentioned they'd like to reside there if needing it for their or other family members, "Plan B"! My personal perspective is that these subject Amendments to the City's Development Code, Zoning, and Land Use options reek of government overreach towards private development property ownership rights. "Land Grabs" by those who don't own it, from those who do, have been addressed in the prior State Measure 37 with regard to basically stealing "private property Land Use Rights", and concurrently their "property values",thru legislative "Amendment". Simply put... it's just"wrong", unethical, and even possibly illegal! So my question to you the City Council is... When is the City of Tigard going to stop legislatively "stealing" private property Values and Occupancy Type Use from its Private Development Property Landowners? Or will you mandate commensurate compensation to such devaluations? This Private Development Property Owner also takes specific exception to what I'll refer to as "The Ultimate Weasel Clause" within DCA2018-00004's Section 18.770.070 which appears to give the City Planning Department UNLIMITED AUTHORITY over Private Development Property Landowners and November 27,2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 8 of 10 their Private Property Development Rights! Meaning"Flexibility"towards "Suitable and Necessary" shouldn't translate to, or be acted upon as, "Unlimited Authority of Control". If the City wishes to buy my property to have unlimited Authority of Control over its Development and Use,that's perfectly fine...just don't continue to disenfranchise me by diminishing the value of it by"stealing" my property Land Use through unscrupulous legislative actions such as this! How would you like it, and how would you feel, if the Public disenfranchised you by "diminishing" your own personal 401K's or PER's Retirements value similarly??? This property is currently my ONLY retirement resource! So do any of you on the City Council really need to approve screwing me out of part or all of my sole retirement investment? This entire City of Tigard Development Code and other aspects"Amendment" process appears to be an intentionally orchestrated "Land Takings" effort through biased legislative process that is disguised as being in the interest of all parties,which it is not. For those who remember A-Boy's litigation against the City of Tigard a number of years back regarding the"US Supreme Court Ruling on Land Takings"...that's where these subject proposed Amendments to the City's Development Code are currently headed, and Tigard Citizens and Taxpayers shouldn't have to be burdened with another multi-million dollar litigation loss from their wallets! In conclusion: The subject Amendments and Decision Making Process of Chapters 18.380& 18.390 in DCA2018- 0004 have not been met. Additionally,the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section VI was not an inclusive process for all parties affected by these proposed Amendments. This Private Property Landowner recommends, and additionally requests,that the Tigard Planning Commission find against the proposed Development Code"Text and Map Amendments" in discussion with all alterations as determined through review of the public hearing process,and take no action towards a final approval of its current text composition by you, the Tigard City Council,today but instead remand it back to the Tigard Planning Department. Without the proactive inclusion and significant on-going public input regarding issues and concerns towards its rewrite from existing Private Development Property Landowners of Tigard,this proposed rewrite of the Tigard Development Code and Zoning Map is comprehensively biased and unfair, since Private Development Property Landowners in Tigard are apparently the unrepresented minority primarily at risk of this and other ongoing"diminished value" actions l y the City. Additionally, since there was only a 2-weeks Public Notice for this hearing, I also request that the Tigard City Council keep the record open on this hearing for an additional 4-weeks to receive ongoing comment and testimonies from residents,and especially Private Development Property Landowners,to voice their opinions and suggested changes to these proposed Amendments and even work together with City Staff to complete a comprehensive outcome to their efforts for City Council approval in late December 2018 of early January 2019. November 27,2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 9 of 10 Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Ruedy Resident and Private Development Property Owner Cell: (503) 819-7898 Email: RobRuedy@gmail.com November 27,2018 Public Hearing Testimony on the Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Page 10 of 10 Senior Living and Care Definitions Levels of Care: Independent Living: Continuing Care: Level 0: Fully Independent Generally any housing Continuing Care Retirement Level 1: Applicant residents arrangement designed exclusively Facilities combine all levels of care who need "assistance" with for seniors, aged 55 and over. — Independent Living (ILF), routine care and must be in Housing varies from apartment or Residential Care (RCF), Assisted stable medical condition. boarding house style living to Living (ALF), and usually Memory Level 2: Applicant residents freestanding homes. The housing Care (MCC) and/or Skilled Nursing who need "assistance" and who is friendlier to older adults, more Care (SNF) in a single setting. may be "dependent" in up to 3 compact, with easier navigation, Applicant residents enter at their areas of their care needs. and assistance in yard point of current need with the Level 3: Operated by a nurse maintenance if there is a yard. understanding that they will move or caregiver with more than Additional support services can be toward greater levels of care being 3-years of experience providing employed. Other commonly used provided as needed. This care to applicant residents who terms: retirement communities, additional care can be provided "by are "dependent" in four or more retirement homes, senior housing, them" (privately/independently areas of their care needs. May senior apartments, Independent paid), or"for them" (Medicaid or need to be "secured"for safety. Living Facilities (ILF's), etc. Insurance paid). Assisted Living Residential Care Facility: Memory Care: Facilities: Usually defined as a private or A Memory Care Community (MCC) They provide apartments for semi-private room with on-duty is an additional DHS endorsement individuals who do not need staff 24-hours/day. Services to an RCF or ALF Licensed Facility. 24-hour supervision but may generally provided are medication While limited by DHS to only the need support with activities of management, group or individual ground floor, its purpose is to daily living. Facilities are meal preparation, housekeeping, provide services for people who licensed to provide room and laundry and linen services, and can no longer live independently or board, with staff on duty 24- assistance with errands, plus within standard RCF or ALF hours/day, organized activities, assistance with eating, dressing, options due to severe Alzheimer's intermittent nursing services, bathing, grooming, toileting, Disease or other debilitating medication management, plus transferring, and mobility. The Memory Care issue which makes assistance with dressing and facility may be secured 24- them a wanderer, eloper, or flight personal hygiene. A licensed hours/day to accommodate risk. They can be any "Level of nurse is available. Most residents who are at risk of Care" and may include multiple provide apartment kitchens wandering, and those vulnerable "Complex Care" needs. Residents and/or group meal preparation to wandering criminals. Payment are typically detained in a 24/7 fully options, linen service, and can be by Private Pay, Medicaid, staffed and "secured" space as general housekeeping needs. or Insurance. required by DHS Agencies. Rehabilitation Care: Adult Day Care: Nursing Facilities: Short or Medium-Term This is a facility-based (i.e. out-of- A Nursing Facility provides Transitional Care in a normal-residence) program 24-hour nursing care and a wide residential living, co-housing designed to provide socialization, range of personal care. Some style and social atmosphere. rehabilitation, personal care, and nursing facilities may provide Usually accompanied 24/7 by nutrition services to impaired "skilled" care after an injury or semi-skilled "Nurse Practioners" adults and seniors. They are also hospital stay. Services may and caregivers. Skilled Nursing established, many times, to offer include rehabilitation, such as is available during daytime respite to full-time caregivers who physical, occupational, speech, and hours and "on-call" when need a short break from their care respiratory therapies. Medicare needed during other hours. giving responsibilities. Usually pays for skilled nursing facility care Meal preparation, linen service they are accompanied by specific for a limited period of time when and housekeeping are included. limitations and fees. you meet certain conditions. lip.,...„...... ,.,...._ „,._ . ..„.„. ..„. ...„„,„,,,,,,„„,,,,,,_ .,:.:__....,,,,,,?...„. ;, ,;, ;1040,- -•...:'-',.•:-..-,...,,,,.•;;:i.!-1?..„., .. ,-,-..-_,-, -, _, ... , ...._ ._ ... _ . ....„ . . ...... ..„, .... ... _, „ ._ __„..,... .„,. ..., . ya • . .,_,, ... ,;,,,..„...,,,,,,,....„...„..,.... ._ . _. ... ,....,. _ . . ._,, ...., , ._ . . _ .. ...,.. .., „ .. „. ....., ,,,... .. .. . , . ,.. .„ .. ,,,,,.. _ _ ..,...,...,.,,. ...," ,„......._....., .._ , „„„_ .. „ ...„„ _ . .. . _ .,. ...,„,„„,._.,. . „ oi ..„.... ___., _,,,......... .., ''''=4 n..... _ c ..„. . . .__,. ., ,,....,,, .. . fr', ,,,, -. ,,,,,,,,,. ..,,,,,„.,. .,,,,,_ .,.- - i,-, - ' ,I, ,‘„,...„ _ :„. ,...„._ _ . ,: „;.. . ,.....,..,. _..„,.,...„„: „...„. ,,,,,,,..,,,.....,..,.. . .. ___T„ _.,... ..., ....,. ., ....... .,,..... ,,,..„..:. ..,,,,,,,_ .. . ...:.,....„: ,....,..:.....„„,,,...:::,,,,,,„„„.... , _,_.......„ _, ,..,:„.„..,... .....„.. :_ ,.,. . „. _ , . ...... ...=.. ,„__.„--- , ,.._...., ... .„ : .., ,,,_,„,..4._,,, -,,_ ,,,,,-:--- r„. tom , _r t ' --••__ 1.-_,- ,, - - alzheimer's association” THE BRAINS BEHIND SAVING YOURS: v Millions of Americans have Alzheimer's or other Prevalence of Alzheimer's and Other Dementias dementias.As the size and proportion of the U.S. in the United States population age 65 and older continue to increase. the number of Americans with Alzheimer's or other An estimated 5.7 million Americans of all ages are living with Alzheimer's dementia in 2018.This number includes dementias will grow.This number will escalate rapidly in coming years,as the population of Americans age an estimated 5.5 million people age 65 and olderA'3O and 65 and older is projected to grow from 53 million in approximately 200,000 individuals under age 65 who 2018 to 88 million by 2050.144-r4=,-The baby boom have younger onset Alzheimer's,though there is greater generation has already begun to reach age 65 and uncertainty about the younger onset estimate.' beyond.` 'the age range of greatest risk of Alzheimer's; • One in 10 people(10 percent)age 65 and older has in fact,the oldest members of the baby boom Alzheimer's dementia.^2.30.'4' generation turned age 72 in 2018. • The percentage of people with Alzheimer's dementia increases with age:3 percent of people age 65-74. This section reports on the number and proportion of people with Alzheimer's dementia to describe the 17 percent of people age 75-84,and 32 percent of magnitude of the burden of Alzheimer's on the peop,e age 85 and older have Alzheimer's dementia.3° • Of people who have Alzheimer's dementia,81 percent community and health care system.The prevalence of Alzheimer's dementia refers to the number and are age 75 or older(Figure 1).A3.30 proportion of people in a population who have The estimated number of people age 65 and older with Alzheimer's dementia at a given point in time.Incidence Alzheimer's dementia comes from a study using the latest refers to the number of new cases per year.Estimates data from the 2010 U.S.Census and the Chicago Health from selected studies on the number and proportion and Aging Project(CHAP),a population-based study of of people with Alzheimer's or other dementias vary chronic health conditions of older people.'° depending on how each study was conducted.Data from several studies are used in this section. National estimates of the prevalence of all dementias are not available from CHAP,but they are available from other population-based studies including the Aging, Demographics,and Memory Study(ADAMS),a nationally representative sample of older adults.A4'48-'49 Based on estimates from ADAMS,14 percent of people age 71 and older in the United States have dementia.148 Prevalence studies such as CHAP and ADAMS are designed so that everyone in the study is tested for dementia. FIGURE 1 Ages of People with Alzheimer's Dementia in the United States,2018 85+years,37% Ii 75-84 years,44% ‘1° 65-74 years,16% <65 years,4% Created from data from Hebert et al A-J0 Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding. Prevalence 17 I FIGURE 4 Protected Number of People Age 65 and Older(Total and by Age) in the U.S.Population with Alzheimer's Dementia.2010 to 2050 Millions of people Ages 65-74 Ages 75-84 ® Ages 85+ with Alzheimer's 13.8 is 11.6 12 10 8.4 3 5.8 6 4.7 4 0 Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Created from data from Hebert et al.^u.3° Growth of the Oldest-Old Population The number of Americans surviving into their 80s,90s and beyond is expected to grow dramatically due to medical advances,as well as social and environmental conditions.229 Longer life expectancies and aging baby boomers will lead to an increase in the number and percentage of Americans who will be 85 and older,the oldest-old.Between 2012 and 2050.the oldest-old are expected to comprise an increasing proportion of the U.S.population age 65 and older—from 14 percent in 2012 to 22 percent in 2050.229 This will result in an additional 12 million oldest-old people—individuals at the highest risk for developing Alzheimer's dementia 229 • In 2018,about 2.1 million people who have Alzheimer's dementia are age 85 or older,accounting for 37 percent of all people with Alzheimer's dementia.30 • When the first wave of baby boomers reaches age 85 (in 2031),it is projected that more than 3 million people age 85 and older will have Alzheimer's dementia.3° • By 2050,7 million people age 85 and older are projected to have Alzheimer's dementia,accounting for half(51 percent)of all people 65 and older with Alzheimer's dementia.30 Prevalence 23 FIGURE 2 Projected Increases Between 2018 and 2025 in Alzheimer's Dementia Prevalence by State 13.6%-20.2% 20.3%-26.8% 1111 26.9%-33.5% • 33.6%-40.1% • 40.2%-46.7% 1< WA / r MT NO r t OR y SD NV ./;ti l N E u 0*' CA .- W 400` KS MO VA t � 2 ".,,'t_ k -o { Az _' I OK rs e ) AR SG 1111:1a, GA MS h LA , .��e. Z„t y FL Change from 2018 to 2025 for Washington,D.C.:1.1% Created from data provided to the Alzheimer's Association by Weuve et ai.A7-209 Researchers are now questioning whether the risk It is unknown why the APOE gene could convey different of Alzheimer's could actually be higher for women at risk for women,but some evidence suggests that it may any given age due to biological or genetic variations be due to an interaction between the APOE-e4 genotype or differences in life experiences.176 A number of and the sex hormone estrogen.180-181 Finally,because low studies have shown that the APOE-e4 genotype education is a risk factor for dementia,88-89.95,174,182-183 (see the Overview,page 11).the best known genetic it is possible that lower educational attainment in women risk factor for Alzheimer's dementia.may have a stronger than in men born in the first half of the 20th century association with Alzheimer's dementia in women than could account for a higher risk of Alzheimer's and other in men.177-178 However,a recent meta-analysis,which dementias in women.184 combined data from a number of independent studies, found no difference between men and women in the Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Prevalence of association between APOE genotype and Alzheimer's Alzheimer's and Other Dementias dementia except for a slightly elevated risk for women Although there are more non-Hispanic whites living with the APOE-e3/e4 genotype compared with men with Alzheimer's and other dementias than any other with the same genotype between ages 65 and 75.179 racial or ethnic group in the United States,older African- 20 Alzheimer's Association.2018 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures.Alzheimers Dement 2018:14(3):367-429. 1 TABLE 4 Projections of Total Numbers of Americans Age 65 and Older with Alzheimer's Dementia by State Projected Number with Percentage Projected Number with Percentage Alzheimer's(in thousands) Increase Alzheimer's(in thousands) Increase State 2018 2025 2018-2025 State 2018 2025 2018-2025 Alabama 92 110 19.6 Montana 20 27 35.0 Alaska 7.5 11 46.7 Nebraska 34 40 17.6 Arizona 140 200 42.9 Nevada 45 64 42.2 Arkansas 56 67 19.6 New Hampshire 24 32 33.3 California 650 840 29.2 New Jersey 180 210 16.7 Colorado 71 92 29.6 New Mexico 39 53 35.9 Connecticut 77 91 18.2 New York 400 460 15.0 Delaware 18 23 27.8 North Carolina 170 210 23.5 District of Columbia 8.9 9 1.1 North Dakota 14 16 14.3 Florida 540 720 33.3 Ohio 220 250 13.6 Georgia 140 190 35.7 Oklahoma 64 76 18.8 Hawaii 28 35 25.0 Oregon 65 84 29.2 41111*"'"' Idaho 25 33 32.0 Pennsylvania 280 320 14.3 Illinois 220 260 18.2 Rhode Island 23 27 17.4 Indiana 110 130 18.2 South Carolina 89 120 34.8 Iowa 64 73 14.1 South Dakota 17 20 17.6 Kansas 53 62 17.0 Tennessee 120 140 16.7 Kentucky 71 86 21.1 Texas 380 490 28.9 Louisiana 87 110 26.4 Utah 31 42 35.5 Maine 28 35 25.0 Vermont 13 17 30.8 Maryland 110 130 18.2 Virginia 140 190 35.7 Massachusetts 130 150 15.4 Washington 110 140 27.3 Michigan 180 220 22.2 West Virginia 38 44 15.8 Minnesota 94 120 27.7 Wisconsin 110 130 18.2 Mississippi 54 65 20.4 Wyoming 9.7 13 34.0 Missouri 110 130 18.2 Created from data provided to the Alzheimer's Association by Weuve et al A7239 Prevalence 19 irt our e, Baby Boomer Retirement' s The Boomer Market • 76.4 million baby boomers • Leading-edge boomers turn 62 in 2008 • Another baby boomer turns 60 every eight seconds • In 2000, 35 million Americans were 65+ • By 2030, 70 million Americans will be 65+, and will comprise 20-25% of the US population Boomer Finances • Average annual household earnings of boomers = $53,000 • Average boomer predicted to retire with $500,000-$1,000,000 in assets • Mature consumers possess $7 trillion in wealth — 70% of the total wealth in the United States • 66% of all US stockholders and 60% of annuity owners are boomers • 66% of boomers are not confident in selecting a mutual fund • Retirement savings for boomers dropped from 58% in 2001 to 41% in 2002 • 23% of retirees see finances as their biggest challenge • By 2040, Social Security benefits will need to be reduced by 37% if no changes are made to the system Employment After Retirement • 83% of baby boomers intend to keep working after retirement • By 2010, 33% of labor force will be 'mature' workers (age 45+) • In 2004, only 5% of retiree income came from employment • 56% of working 'retirees' want to work in a new profession • 44% of retirees worked for pay at some point after retirement • 89% returned to work to stay active, not because of financial need • 14% of those currently working say they'll never retire • 28% of current working retirees will continue working as long as their health permits • Turbulent transition often accompanies retirees who leave work • By 2010, it's estimated that US corporations will experience a 10 million shortage in talent (76.4 million boomers replaced by 66.4 million replacement workers) • 1990's saw a 14% decrease in younger workers due to the lower birth rate • Workforce has increased only 1.5-2.0% over the past 20 years • 45% of US companies have special positions for mature workers • 50% of US companies are willing to negotiate special arrangements for older workers WhatsNextlnYourLife.com Baby Boomer'Retirement' Facts 1 of 2 I Expectations for Life after Retirement • Only 22 % of those 55+ see retirement as a 'winding down' or an extended vacation • Those surveyed shortly before retirement give their reason for retirement as 'to do other things' • 67% of boomers surveyed say their happiness and satisfaction in retirement will come from family, friends, and fitness • 39% of retirees find 'relations with family and friends' is most important to them compared to 19% reporting 'physical health' and 8% 'personal finances' as being most important to them • Most powerful predictor of life satisfaction after retirement was extent of person's social network, not health or wealth • Retirees who are socially, economically and civically engaged will live longer • Better educated and more affluent boomers are inclined to view retirement as a time to find new challenges • When 50-75 year-olds were surveyed, 70% saw retirement as a time to stay active and begin a new chapter'while 28% saw it as a time to take it easy • Greater sense of mastery (ability to influence events), led to greater productivity in aging • First two years after leaving a job is typically a period of marital strife Boomer Life Expectancy • Average baby boomer will live to be 83 • Today, a 65-year-old man has one in four chances to live to 92 • 65-year-old woman has one in four chances to live to 94 • Married couples that are 65, have one in four chance of at least one spouse living to 97 • Boomers will have 30+ years of retirement • When Social Security was established in 1935, retirement age was established to be 65 but life expectancy was only 61 I Boomer Relocation t • 59% of baby boomers plan to relocate • 21% of the boomers plan to relocate to Florida • 18% plan to relocate to Arizona • 26 % plan to stay in their current home immediately after retirement, and then move • 24% plan to move to their new location prior to retirement • 75 % of boomers want to live in communities offering age diversity Sources: 1. Bureau of Labor Statistics 10. HSBC survey 2. Corporate Executive Board 11. University of Michigan study 3. Social Security Administration 12, Hart study 4. Merrill Lynch survey 13. MacArthur Foundation study 5. Hudson Institute 14. Civic Ventures study 6. Cornell Retirement and Well-Being study 15. Cornell University Employment and Family 7. US Department of Census Careers Institute 8. Federal Reserve Board 16. Mercer Study 9. Del Webb survey 17. AARP Life Stage Survey WhatsNextlnYourLife.com Baby Boomer`Retirement' Facts 2 of 2 SIX COMPELLING REASONS WHY FINANCING THE VENUS HEIGHTS PROJECT IS A WISE INVESTMENT CHOICE ! 2015 ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE FACTS AND FIGURES I SE. TORS dies with Alzheimer's or another dementia. 3 L, ____________ , ,.. kit . 1 Alzheimer's It's the only cause of death ; disease is the in the top 10 in America that CAUSE OF DEATH ALMOST TWO THIRDS CANNOT BE PREVENTED, IN THE UNITED of Americans with Alzheimer's CURED OR SLOWED. STATES. disease are women. EVERY 67 SECONDS someone in the United States develops the disease 0 44, Only More than � , - III SIBS . , of people with of people with the ALZHEIMER'S four most common disease or their types of CANCER caregivers report have been BEING TOLD OF TOLD OF THEIR By 2050, these costs THEIR DIAGNOSIS. DIAGNOSIS. could rise as high as $1.1 TRILLION. in 2015, Alzheimer's and other dementias will cost the nation$226 BILLION. . alzheimer's 9,5 associations THE BRAINS BEHIND SAVING YOURS''' Current SW Portland Market Demographic Supply & Demand Study Current 3rd Party Market Analysis Supply& Demand Study Excerpt: (Entire 104-page study available) ;lie. below are numerically referenced to the Siiii Cor ridor Map on the next page - -4) Map Facility Name ALF RCF MCC Current Status I.D. Occup. Occup. Occup. 1 Elite Care at Fanno Creek 24 Fuli+Waiting List 2a Farmington Square (Tualatin)—SNF 18 Full+Waiting List 2b Farmington Square (Tualatin) -->--> 46 Full+Waiting List 3 Elderly Care Home 15 Full 4 Cedar Crest Alzheimer Care -->--> 56 Full+Waiting List 5 Emeritus at Oswego Springs- Brookdale 82 Full-1 6a The Springs at Carman Oaks 17 Full-1 6b Footsteps at Carman Oaks -->--> 16 Full+Waiting List 7a Emeritus at River Valley-Brookdale 90 Full+Waiting List 7b Emeritus at River Valley-Brookdale -->--> 24 Full+Waiting List 8 Woodland Heights 48 Full-1 9 Greenridge Estates at Mountain Park 79 Full-4 10 Markham House Retirement Community 63 Full+Waiting List 11 Oswego Place 72 Full-2 12a Avamere at Sherwood 55 Full+Waiting List 12b Avamere at Sherwood -->--> 24 Full+Waiting List 13 The Pearl at Kruse Way/Oswego Grove-Avamere -->--> 31 Full+Waiting List 14 The Stafford -Avamere 16 Full+Waiting List 15a Marquis Care at Autumn Hills 39 Full+Waiting List 15b Marquis Care at Autumn Hills - Friendship House -->--> 22 Full-2 16 Marquis Care at Wilsonville 50 Full-5 (SNF) 17 Willamette View Memory Care Community -->--> 22 Full 18 Avamere Rehabilitation of King City—SNF/No MCC 88 Full-2 (No MCC) 19 Legacy Hopewell House—Transitional ($865/d) 11 Full-8 (Very Costly) 20 1 Bonaventure of Tigard 59 I I Full-1 20 I Bonaventure of Tigard Memory Care ( , 23 Full-1 C-4b Venus Heights Residential Care(2"d&3`d Floors) 45-75 Now Available! C-4b Venus Heights Secured Memory Care Community -->--> 20-45 Now Available! = Basically Totals (prior to Venus Heights,' 559 267 264 "No Vacancy" Note: This is not an offer to buy or sell securities, and risk has been mitigated wherever possible. Copyright 2018 by Robert Ruedy& Progressive Development, LLC,All Rights Reserved Current SW Portland Market Demographic Supply & Demand Study ,,,(: Corridor . "5, ft a;_ — Paitrani C Cel ! r 15 19 .. .,_ I #{ w Sunset ..„. 4 A. -1 Z Ca3 � . Aloha ° * e 0 n r 0 P .Beaverton ,-,..,.,. Ratei h + 1 o r /1G�� '.`4,. .w. ' � Matt a« Hillid_ale .1t� nk .2 '.. C ; s, = _. /�i .f '.. .Washington west ... 1. E VI a_ri „ Square .. P.rtt=nd ` y l d 8 . __ , . 17...„ _....,, .... . +Murray/Schell ,, >. '_NS', +.„,„M 3 ,�- t t>,. s li .. a "�€ _ e r .. —. _.�._., talc -� 36,, /7S C+st2ego A VE'!?I1S + Grove fi , _ /'ei ..., ghts r.t -. t v tA N '� 18 ' ,. t q+. 4 --- ot , Toalatin i . - I, 14 .... r, .,. /- sr, _...„.. ____,/ ,. 11 12 . i 1 �rIt _ .-4 ,,,, t '. y� `t ;_ -_ __ -t_ _ • Southwest Corridor Existing Conditions/r 2 'Q a Cellrc;an .,y Trails 87up ne itghf Rai .... Cen on,f”Aa 4l Cenira!C4v !tam scree:. ► • nwat� ";ban Caowth Jn!Ral _... StrCtLaY:.�:. Bounta'y dr aegknne'Center Corodols C, 1 h es y Wan'ati -` -t ia.! b 1 i .rt Cwl 3;ry .000,51,5t e-s Unuaautryce oeTown CenterSnerwh + man,,i± —?Ra7 co ., r. • Merch 7,70%7 h 5{<r'*5(xstes Ra:r r,t:^•r Undtr tam4ru;:san r 1' , • ' 1 =' - 16 The "Venus Heights" Development Local Market Study Demographics Map Copyright 2014 by Progressive Development LLC.All Rights Reserved SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR �i/ -_a ? - O/ Carol Krager (DATE OF MFP TINCT From: MB <mbrewin72@wesleyan.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:28 PM To: John Cook; #Councilmail Subject: Zoning changes should NOT be made to allow cottage clusters, courtyard units, or quads in R3.5, R4.5, and R7. And the Parking Credit is FAULTY. Importance: High Note for City Recorder: Please include this addendum to my already submitted public testimony for the public hearing tonight, Nov. 27. 2018 (RE zoning code changes to Chapter 18). I will try and attend the hearing, and council should have my original letter and this one accessible on their screens. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Brewin Subject: 1. Zoning changes should NOT be made to allow cottage clusters, courtyard units, or quads in R3.5, R4.5, and R7. This will harm established residential neighborhoods— property values, quality of life, street parking congestion, environment, and negatively impact local resources. 2. And the proposed Parking Credit is flawed and should be rejected, as written. Dear Mayor and City Councilors: 1. On page 179 (of 933), the proposed changes to Chapter 18 are very significant, and could seriously harm the nature and quality of longstanding residential neighborhoods, negatively impacting street parking, lowering property values, and a host of environmental impact concerns. Current Code prohibits such housing in R3.5, R4.5, and R7. Zoning changes should NOT be made to residential zones R3.5, R4.5, and R7, which would change the longstanding single family detached home nature of these residential neighborhoods. Cottage Clusters should NOT be allowed in R3.5, R4.5, and R7 Courtyard Units should NOT be allowed in R3.5, R4.5, and R7 Quad Units should NOT be allowed in R3.5, R 4.5, and R7 Increasing density in pre-existing already developed residential zoned neighborhoods is a Mistake! Environmentally: Increasing Density will lead to the following: • Parking Congestion • Strain limited public potable Water Resources • Strain public schools,thereby increasing Taxes to support the schools • Remove tree canopy 1 • Create more carbon emissions • Create more Air Pollution • Create more Noise Pollution 2. The proposed Parking Credit should be REJECTED. It is faulty. How could someone accurately calculate whether a unit is < 2500 feet from transit? As the crow flies? That would be ridiculous. Or, by using the public streets? Example: On paper, my house is approx. 2500 ft [or 1/2 mile] from a bus stop (in a straight line), but about 3/4 mile+ to actually walk there, using the public sidewalk and streets! This parking waiver should therefore clearly be REJECTed. It's nebulous and subjective, and Not easily accurately calculated. Thank you for your attention to these Zoning, residential, property equity, and environmental concerns. Sincerely, Michael Brewin SW Morgen Ct, Tigard P.S. Please also NOTE: Regarding ADU abuses, it is easily verified (via internet) that numerous people in Tigard are already running prohibited nightly lodging rentals from their homes or ADUs. This problem will seriously increase with weakened zoning changes. If you go to vrbo.com (vacation rental by owner) and other lodging websites and type in "Tigard, OR", there are dozens of examples of bnb's and overnight lodging in Tigard being conducted from residential homes—all illegally. • 1 ADU allowed per residential property • Owner occupancy requirement • Limit of 2 occupants per ADU • No Parking Waiver; must provide 1 additional parking space for ADU Please NOTE: 1) Every City in our area has a stated limit of 1 (ONE) ADU per single family detached residential property!! No city near Tigard on the westside allows 2 ADUs. Allowing 2 ADUs would be EXTREME and unprecedented; it would turn single family detached home properties into potential Triplexes,thereby sabotaging and undermining residential zoning and building restrictions, and directly harming affected nearby property owners. 2)Also, removing the current'owner occupancy requirement'would essentially negate the falsely stated purpose[or pretense] of allowing people to stay in their homes at all stages of life. Not requiring the property owner to live in the primary or accessory dwelling would result in properties being converted to duplexes [and triplexes] by mercenary absentee landlords—thereby exposing as a blatant lie the very smokescreen cover excuse and alleged basis used to make these harmful code changes. 2 3)There needs to be a set limit of occupants per ADU—i.e. 2 [TWO]. Otherwise,you are more than doubling the human density for a property, perhaps even multiplying the density so it harmfully impacts neighbors,and street parking. With no set limit, persons will cram 10+people into an ADU! Some years ago, a small apartment at Bonita Villa was found to have 20-25 occupants [including fugitives from the law]. Accessory Dwelling Units — Comparison — Local Cities Number allowed: ADU! ONE ADU allowed! (NOT 2 !) Lake Oswego: 1 Sherwood: 1 Tualatin: 1 Wilsonville: 1 Beaverton: 1 Portland: 1 Hillsborc: 1 Owner Occupancy Required of primary unit or ADU:YES Tigard:Yes (Current) Lake Oswego:Yes Sherwood:Yes (+ NO rental of owner occupied unit). YES! Size: Tigard: (keep Current code) may not exceed 50%of primarvunit. unto max of 800 sq ft. Sherwood: not to exceed 40%of primary residence: Tualatin: not to exceed 50%of primary unit, up to max 800 sq ft. Beaverton: not to exceed 50%of primary unit(incl garage), up to max 800 sq ft. Wilsonville: maximum is 600 sq ft. Lake Oswe : not to exceed 800 sq ft. Hillsboro:detached ADU not to exceed 750 sq ft.; or 450 sq ft max. if 5 ft from rear/side property line;ADU height Not to exceed 10 ft. Number of ADU Occupants Permitted: needs clear limit! Lake Oswego: No more than two persons. 2 Tigard: Limited by state building code [sq ft] (Current) Hillsboro: Not to be occupied by more than 3 persons. Sherwood: Not to exceed household number, calc. by sq ft [other code section] Home Occupation Type II Prohibited on properties with ADUs: Portion, : NOT allowed (no customers, no employees) Parking: Must have additional off-street parking space[s]:Y sgaru:Yes. i street parking space shall be provide°tor the ADU. This space shall be paved or covered. (Current!) Lake Oswego:Yes Sherwood:Yes Hillsboro:Yes, Must have at least 1 additional off-street parking space. Tualatin:Yes, Must have 1 paved additional parking space, and NOT within 5 ft of a side or rear property line. 3 NO ADU front entrance, at ground level: Tigard: No ADU entrance located on front of primary unit, unless such door already exists. (keep Current) Tualatin: No ADU entrance permitted with street frontage, unless such door already exists. Hillsboro: NO ground floor entrance permitted on front of primary dwelling; NO front ground entrance permitted for detached ADU. Sherwoor:ADU entrance must be "unobtrusive" from front view of primary unit. Fees: SDC[System Development Charges for an ADU]YES!! Beaverton: Yes Permits Required for ADU: = Revenue+ Oversight All Cities:Yes Garage Conversions Prohibited: Tigard: NO Garage conversion[s], unless it is rebuilt as part of the primary structure. (Current) Tualatin: NO Garage conversions! City can impose conditions to protect neighbors: YES!! Lake Oswego re height modifications, sanascaping, ourering and orientation of the ADU to protect privacy of the neighbors. ADU Living Unit Separation from Primary Unit:YES! Beaverton:Yes NO selling ADU as separate unit: YES! i ualatin: ADU NOT to be sold, or as condo. Sherwood:ADU NOT to be partitioned or divided off from the parent parcel. 4 Current Tigard Code: updated 12/17 P. Chapter 18.410 ACCESSORY DWELLING Sections: 18.410.010 Purpose 18.410.020 Approval Process 18.410.030 Approval Standards 18.410.010 Purpose A. This chapter provides clear and objective standards for the in detached single-family residences to achieve the followin, 1 . Increase energy efficiency in large or older homes; 2. Increase the number of affordable housing units; 3. Increase residential densities with minimal impact ( neighborhoods; 4. Allow small households to retain large houses as resider 5. Permit young households to achieve home ownership; 6. Provide needed space for elderly family members, teena 22 §2) 18.410.020 Approval Process Applications for accessory dwelling units shall be processed th 5 3. The number of residents permitted to inhabit the access building code; 4. Either the primary or accessory dwelling unit shall be ON 5. A primary residence in which an accessory dwelling i. home occupation; 6. In addition to the number of parking spaces required i Chapter 18.310, Off-Street Parking and Loading, 1 1 accessory dwelling unit. This parking space shall be pay 7. The front door of the accessory dwelling unit shall n primary unit unless the door is already existing; 8. There shall be compliance with all development standar 22 §2) ■ 6 Page: 275 f f- — + Automatic Zoom Tigard CORRECTED Proposed Code 18.220410.030 Approval ProcessStandards Applications for accessory dwelling units are processed through a Type I Section 18,710,050. 18.2.20.04.0 Standards Owner Occupancy: The property owner, which shall include the A. Number of units.occupy either the principal unit or the ADU as their permanent months out of the year, and at no time receive rent for the ow 1. A maximum of: accessory dwelling units,c'e allowed per single deti 2. A maximum of 1 detached accessory dwelling unit is allowed per s ond-a -essot°Tdw ling=twit=rr st- -a a -t ' -timitt 3. The number of occupants is limited to no more than two persons in the accessoir% unit. B. V.IyV• 1. The maximum size of a detached accessory dwelling unit is 800 squc 2. The square footage of attached accessory dwelling units may not ea the primary unit. C. Height. 2211 1. The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit is 25 fee Furthermore, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall NOT exceed the heic 2. A structure containing an attached accessory dwelling unit may height for a single detached house in the base zone. D. Setbacks.Accessory dwelling units must meet the setback standards for the base zone, with the exception that a detached accessory dwelling a feet fromthe rear property line if the accessory dwelling unit is less than E. Entrances. Onlylne-attached accessory dwelling unit may have an e facade. --entratwe-to--a-sec rrsd-attaehed ease -e warunit-rna rear te. ‘11 .kin must be cuuipletel;h separate from the primao .. a o-: F. Parking. 1. In addition to the number of parking spaces required for the primar street parking space must be provided for each accessory dwelling ui a-right-ef ay-that-indoles-transit=serviceare--ex-empl-from-the-addi H. The reviewing authority may impose conditions regarding height modifications, landscaping. buffering and orientation of the accessory dwelling unit to protect privacy of the neighbors. IL Accessory dwellin2 units in accessory structui es. Accessory dovfilin2 units may be added accessory structures such as Raragessubject to the maximum square footage and hell, restrictions for each, as measured using the method provided in Section 18.40.130. A. Locution As-provided-in the-use-aml-hotising-types-tables-in-Chapter---1-4,1-1-0i-Residential-Zones 8i Ghfkpter- A420- ; " • : ; : ° ; - -a are - - ; ;S: ;.-; • B. Standards. The approval authority shall approve an application for an accessory dwelling unit whi all-ofthe-following are met 1. An accessory dwelling unit may-be-created within-or as 811-addition-to-a detached single-fat/1i ; - • '; - ; -;; - - ; - ; - ":.; ; ; •" - ;,-- - ; °• ; ; • ; ; ' rebuilt as part of the primary structure; - S ; e ; buildingcode; • - ; -- ;,- - ; - . - ; ; ;- ; - ;; heflie-oeetTetient J. ;.; ; ' ";- ; " . ; ' ; - ; . ' - ; ; ; ; '; • ; ; S e • ; - : ' ; ; accessory dwelling-unit.-This parking space-shall-be-paved-or-eovered; 7. -T-11.--fTont door-of the- ; = : : = --facadc--o -t1 primaty unit unless4he-deer-is already-existing, 1. The property owner must pay System Development Charges for an accessory dwelling unit. J. An accessory dwelling unit shall NOT be sold separately from the primary unit, or as a condo. 9 Current Tigard Code: Table 18110/ Housing Types Housing Types R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 Single-Family Units, Detached P p P P P P Single-Family Units, Attached N N N R[1] R[2]/C P : Accessory Dwelling Units [3] R R R R R R : Duplexes N N C C P P Multifamily Units NNN N N I P Manufactured Homes P P P P P P Mobile Home Parks N N C C P P P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Prohibit [1] Attached single-family units permitted only as part of an approved planned development [2] Permitted by right if no more than 5 units in a grouping; permitted as a conditional use units per grouping. [3] Permitted subject to requirements in Chapter 18.410, Accessory Dwelling Units. (Ord. 1- Proposed Tigard Code: io D. All allowed housing types may be built on site or brought to the site as a manufacti houses are prohibited in all zones. Table 18.1103 Housing Types i Housing Tunes R-1 R-2 R4.S i R-43 R-T R-1. Detached Dwellings �. Accessory Dwelling Units (182201 Y Y Y ' Y Y Y Cottage Clusters (18.240) N N Y Y Y Y Mobile Home Parks (18.260) N N L[11 L411 Y Y Single Detached Houses (18.2901 Y Y Y Y Y Y Attached Dwellings Accessory Dwelling Units (18.2201 Y _Y _Y Y Y Y Apartments (18.230) N N N N N Y Courtyard Units 18.250.1 N N Y Y V Y Quads 18.270 N N Lai Lai Y Y Rowhousesi 18.2801 N N N N Lai Y Y=Yes&Allowed L=Limited see footnotes N=No,Prohibit [11 Allowed only through a conditional use application. Residential Zones 18.110-6 Cc 11 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR (DATE OF MEETING) My name is Elise Schaff Laubach. My address is 9370 SW OMara St, Tigard, OR 97223. I am a board member of the developing affiliate, Family Promise of Tualatin Valley and we hope to open in early 2019. I came to Family Promise because of my involvement with my local elementary school's weekend food program. We serve 60-100 children in our school alone. What I learned when I became involved with Family Promise was heartbreaking. In the Tigard-Tualatin, Sherwood and Lake Oswego school districts there were 291 homeless students in the 2017-2018 school year and that does not include children under 5, who make up 50% of homeless children. This October were already 216. Rose Money, is another board member and works at the Caring closet, which is a clothings resource for the Tigard Tualatin school district. She sees the need every day as families come to their shopping appointments who are clearly living in their cars, or who share with her that they have lost their housing. My active role as a volunteer with Family Promise has been host development. I work with churches and explain the program. I tell them about these children and about how they can help in a direct way. Most congregations want to serve the homeless in their community, but don't know how to make an impact. Family Promise gives them a straightforward way help. Family Promise is heavily volunteer based. It doesn't just provide a temporary place to stay, it connects community members in need with their neighbors. Pastors I have spoken to are thrilled at the prospect of bringing mission inside their walls and of having a program that can involve everyone from young families to senior members. It is absolutely their idea of fulfilling their mandate of loving their neighbor. Family Promise is a wonderful program, but it is not a program for everyone. We screen participants for active substance abuse and we conduct criminal background checks. Additionally our families need to set and meet goals and agree to the guidelines of the program. The guests are 3-4 families at a time, 14 people maximum, many of them children. Our hosts and volunteers know this and understand who they will be hosting. Some of the churches I have talked to have big, beautiful facilities that go largely unused because of the size and age of their congregation. They feel that it is part of their calling as Christians to use these resources to minister to their neighbors. They are willing to open their doors and do what they can by making their spaces available to the community in this way. We currently have the support of five churches in Tigard and six churches from the surrounding communities to support homeless families. Chapter 18.440 Section C2 will perfectly support this critical service and allow Family Promise to be a piece of the solution to homelessness in our community. We fully support the proposed language of the code as written. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR (DATE OF MEETING) My name is Elise Schaff Laubach. My address is 9370 SW ()Mara St, Tigard, OR 97223. I am a board member of the developing affiliate, Family Promise of Tualatin Valley and we hope to open in early 2019. I came to Family Promise because of my involvement with my local elementary school's weekend food program. We serve 60-100 children in our school alone. What I learned when I became involved with Family Promise was heartbreaking. In the Tigard-Tualatin, Sherwood and Lake Oswego school districts there were 291 homeless students in the 2017-2018 school year and that does not include children under 5, who make up 50% of homeless children. This October were already 216. Rose Money, is another board member and works at the Caring closet, which is a clothings resource for the Tigard Tualatin school district. She sees the need every day as families come to their shopping appointments who are clearly living in their cars, or who share with her that they have lost their housing. My active role as a volunteer with Family Promise has been host development. I work with churches and explain the program. I tell them about these children and about how they can help in a direct way. Most congregations want to serve the homeless in their community, but don't know how to make an impact. Family Promise gives them a straightforward way help. Family Promise is heavily volunteer based. It doesn't just provide a temporary place to stay, it connects community members in need with their neighbors. Pastors I have spoken to are thrilled at the prospect of bringing mission inside their walls and of having a program that can involve everyone from young families to senior members. It is absolutely their idea of fulfilling their mandate of loving their neighbor. Family Promise is a wonderful program, but it is not a program for everyone. We screen participants for active substance abuse and we conduct criminal background checks. Additionally our families need to set and meet goals and agree to the guidelines of the program. The guests are 3-4 families at a time, 14 people maximum, many of them children. Our hosts and volunteers know this and understand who they will be hosting. Some of the churches I have talked to have big, beautiful facilities that go largely unused because of the size and age of their congregation. They feel that it is part of their calling as Christians to use these resources to minister to their neighbors. They are willing to open their doors and do what they can by making their spaces available to the community in this way. We currently have the support of five churches in Tigard and six churches from the surrounding communities to support homeless families. Chapter 18.440 Section C2 will perfectly support this critical service and allow Family Promise to be a piece of the solution to homelessness in our community. We fully support the proposed language of the code as written. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET November 27, 2018 FOR j( - a - a 6/g To Members of the Tigard City Council (DATE OF MEETING) From Marilyn Manson My name is Marilyn Manson, wife of Wayne Chapman who has spoken in support of the proposed Tigard housing options. I also support the proposed housing options because they provide opportunities for more people to buy homes in Tigard. For some forty years, I have become acquainted with Tigard and the community here through Chapman family members and their friends and neighbors. My family and friends really support the community that they have created here. I have gotten to know folks, who like my parents-in-law Ken and Rachel Chapman, made their home here because they wanted to spend the rest of their lives here and hoped that their children and grandchildren might do the same. Rising home prices worry many members of this community that housing is becoming unaffordable for their children—a concern that my father-in-law had decades ago. Some of the Chapmans' neighbors in the Greenburg Road area have lived there all of their lives and would like to have their children and grandchildren live nearby. These folks are teachers, office workers, construction workers, small business owners, etc.—people who need housing they can afford. The proposed housing options would ensure housing which would strengthen Tigard neighborhoods and communities. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR ' -a i (DATE OF MEETING) Wayne K.Chapman,Tigard property-owner(11850/11900 SW 95th Avenue,Greenburg Neighborhood) My sister and I own a two-acre parcel that has been in our family since 1950.Though we intend to keep a piece of it,we'd also like to see the whole blended with the best features of the locale as it is today.To enhance community is the main reason I support the proposed housing options that apply to our Zone R-7 property. In our case, cottage clusters and adjoining common greenspace seem best since we want a neighborhood in which natural features of the environment such as existing mature oak trees enhance livability and in which affordability is achieved by housing diversity laid out thoughtfully. Walkability is already a benefit of residents who stroll down to a revitalized Main Street via Commercial. Our green patch of 95th is quiet and should remain peaceful with eventual construction of housing on our lot.Thus I urge the City Council to approve such housing options that will allow a pocket community to develop in our neighborhood.Thank you. Attachment 5 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, October 1, 2018 Location: Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Roberts Alt. Commissioner Whitehurst Absent: Vice President Feeney; Commissioner Brook; Commissioner Schmidt Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Schuyler Warren,Associate Planner COMMUNICATIONS —None. CONSIDER MINUTES President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the September 17 minutes; there being none,President Fitzgerald declared the minutes approved as submitted. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2018-00003 - PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The focus of the amendments is on: 1. Policy changes to allow missing middle housing types as recommended in the 2013 Housing Strategies Report and under Goal 10 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; 2. Reorganization of residential and commercial design standards; 3. Policy changes related to group living, transitional housing, and emergency shelter to meet federal requirements; 4. Provision of an on-street parking credit; 5. Clarifying process and standards for small cell wireless installation in the right-of-way; October 1,2018 Page 1 of 5 6. General housekeeping to increase consistency and remove redundancies; 7. Miscellaneous code fixes identified by staff; 8. Replacing and removing outdated and ineffective regulations; 9. Streamlining existing processes and procedures;and 10. Addressing minor deficiencies in the code. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Schuyler Warren introduced himself and went over the staff report. (Staff reports are available on-line one week before each public hearing.) He said they would be considering the Phase II policy procedures development code amendment proposal and he distributed a memo dated Sept 27 detailing some additions to the proposed code amendments (Exhibit A). Additionally, he distributed a copy of comments that had come in prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 1st for the commissioners to consider (Exhibit B). He reminded them that last year the Commission and City Council had considered the Phase I Code Amendments. He explained that the set of amendments in Phase I was the major restructuring of the code; there were not a lot of policy changes. There were some language changes, but mainly it was reshaping the way the code was organized. He explained that this evening they would be looking at Phase IIA which includes housing, some minor reorganization, and some omnibus changes. This same Phase IIA would be looked at by City Council in November. Phase IIB,which will include Apartment and Commercial Standards plus Land Use Review will come before the Planning Commission in November—and on to the City Council in December. He pointed out that in each of these phases they will be progressively implementing the Strategic Plan - so there's a big focus to make sure they're including walkability and interconnectedness in the work they're doing. He explained that Phase IIA and Phase IIB will have the same effective date. So even though they're in two different packages, they'll take effect at the same time i.e.,January 2019. He then went over items detailed in a PowerPoint (Exhibit C). Afterwards, he noted that Commissioner Hu's comments hadn't been included in the additional comments group —but that they will be. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed development code text amendments with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Can you give me an example of a street in Tigard where we'd be allowing quads — on a street, not a corner? Not offhand. I'm curious because quads don't fit well with a regular residence in a 3.5 as I view them in my head. I'm worried about character change. That's one of the reasons why it's limited to arterial and collector streets which are higher traffic streets. The other thing about them is they're not from the façade distinguishable from any standard larger single-family detached house— and we do require the parking be placed on the side of the rear. So, if you come to the end of Bonita Road on Hall Blvd you're sitting at that traffic light - you're looking at a quad right in front of you there on the left. October 1,2018 Page 2 of 5 That doesn't really fit in most neighborhoods that I can think of—but that's a major street too... I'm not familiar with that particular development, so I can't speak to whether it would quay as a quad under this code, but it's certainty something I can look at. There were some questions regarding "tiny houses" on wheels. Schuyler explained that our code would allow a tiny house to be constructed off-site,brought in on wheels —then taken off the wheels and put on a permanent foundation, but that the code doesn't allow a tiny home to remain on wheels;that would make it essentially a recreational vehicle. That's in line with our current code. We don't allow occupation of recreational vehicles. There was a discussion regarding transitional housing. The question was "I think the way it's written is to say that only religious organizations can do this. Is that true? Is there an opening for non-religious charities to do transitional housing?" Schuyler said he hadn't really gone into a lot of depth on the transitional housing changes so he took the opportunity to provide more depth on that at this time. After that conversation Commissioner Roberts said, "So that doesn't preclude say, the Red Cross from having a building where they provide temporary housing for people who have had their apartment burned down or something like that?" Exactly. Commissioners Jackson, Roberts, and Hu were concerned that only religious institutions would have preferred temporary shelter use, and they would prefer that it would be open to other organizations as well—not just to religious ones. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Wayne Chapman — 11850 & 11900 SW 95th in the Greenburg Road neighborhood - read through his testimony (Exhibit D). Rich Roche —with AT&T, Director of Statewide External Affairs was complimentary of the proposed code changes and informed the Commission that they are successfully working with staff on some of the code language regarding small cells in the right-of-way. Marilyn Manson— 11850 SW 95th supports the proposed changes because they provide for affordable housing in Tigard. Rising home prices worries some people that their children and grandchildren may not be able to afford living nearby. These people are working people — teachers, construction workers, office workers, small business owners, etc. People who need affordable housing. The proposed zoning changes would ensure affordable housing and the missing middle range which would strengthen Tigard neighborhoods and community. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF If we wanted non-religious/non-profits to also share the temporary use without a permit -what part of the section would have to be updated? That would be in the beginning of the temporary uses chapter. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — None. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING October 1,2018 Page 3 of 5 DELIBERATION President Fitzgerald complimented staff on a job well done. Commissioner Hu said he and at least two other commissioners wanted non-profit/non- religious organizations to see the code be further amended to include provisions so that non- religious/non-profits could also set up a temporary shelter like a religious organization can, without a permit. There was a lengthy discussion regarding temporary use permits. Schuyler explained that religious institutions already have facilities. The key difference in some of these use categories is that a religious institution will already have classroom spaces and that kind of thing that a social fraternal lodge or a community service use may not have. To clarify, he said there's no permit process. This is an allowance by right provided that they meet these standards. The idea is — the organizations that do this type of work—work with municipalities in good faith and so we also know that if a primary use is violating the terms of this,it becomes more of a code compliance issue rather than on the other side going through a permitting process. So this is a temporary use like some of the other temporary uses - like garage sales, or events held for non-profits that don't require a temporary use permit because they serve a public purpose or the scale is of a different type. The idea behind that for this particular accessory use is that going through a permitting process is cumbersome and the idea is that the City would work to allow it provided certain provisions are met. He thinks that's in line with the recommendations from the task force for the homeless last year who provided a long list of recommendations to the City Council with regard to housing provisions for unhoused individuals. There was a lengthy discussion about whether to add the wording to allow the social, fraternal, and lodge use as well. President Fitzgerald said someone could make a recommendation regarding that and they could vote on it, making the choice as to whether to approve that or not. MOTION Commissioner Roberts made the following motion "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for application Development Code Amendment DCA2018-00003 and adoption of the findings based on the testimony received today and the memo of Sept 27 from Schuyler Warren to the Tigard Planning Commission; and including modification of Chapter 18.440 C2 to include the language "social, fraternal, and lodge use." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jackson. VOTE All in favor, none opposed, none abstained. RESULT OF THE VOTE Motion to recommend approval to Council passes unanimously (6-0). October 1,2018 Page 4 of 5 President Fitzgerald announced that this will be going forward for City Council's consideration on November 13. OTHER BUSINESS—None. ADJOURNMENT President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. cgs fl�. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Co' m ssion Secretary A'1"TEST: . - :<, • ; ald V.`i. ymerpro %an %Zey,Z: October 1,2018 Page 5 of 5 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET ? City of Tigard (DATE OF MEETING) TIGARD Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Schuyler Warren, Associate Planner Re: Staff Recommendation to Modify Phase II Policy and Procedures Proposal Date: November 21, 2018 On November 6, 2018,the city received comments related to the wireless facility standards from Alan Galloway of Davis Wright Tremaine, representing T-Mobile. On November 21, 2018, the city received additional comments from Meridee Pabst of the Wireless Policy Group on behalf of AT&T. Both of these comments were received after the publication of the City Council draft of the proposed code changes. In the case of Mr. Galloway's comments, staff recommends modifying the proposed code amendments as shown in Exhibit A of this memorandum to address issues raised in those comments. In the case of Ms. Pabst's comments, staff did not have adequate time prior to the hearing to address most of the comments. However,two small changes were added and incorporated into Exhibit A. There are five areas of concern that are raised by Ms. Pabst: • Thresholds for planning review of small cell towers in the public right-of-way, • Procedures and standards for siting of new small cell towers in the public right-of-way, • Definition of a small cell facility, • Definition of public infrastructure, and • Clarification of authorization required for siting. These are addressed below. Thresholds for Planning Review The threshold was changed after Mr. Galloway's comments, and now allows a height increase of 10 percent or 10 feet, whichever is greater, except in residential zones, where the total height limit is 35 feet to prevent oversized infrastructure in these zones. Procedures and Standards for Siting New Towers in the Right-of-way The spacing requirements were changed after Mr. Galloway's comments. Small cell facilities in the public right-of-way are now exempt from spacing standards of the development code, but must meet any applicable spacing standards in the engineering standards. With regard to the distinction between towers and monopoles in the right-of-way, a monopole is considered a subset of a tower (see 18.30.020 Definitions) and is the only allowed new tower type for small cell facilities in the right-of- way. Definition of Small Cell Facility The definition of small cell facility has been updated to include the dimensional standards from the FCC order of October 2018. Definition of Public Infrastructure Staff has reviewed the definition of public infrastructure and does not recommend any changes. Clarification of Authorization Required for Siting The language was updated to include license agreements. EXHIBIT A 18.30.020 Definitions D. "W"definitions. 3. Wireless Communication Facility-related definitions: g. "Small Cell" - A low-power wireless communication facility used to increase capacity to wireless communication demand areas or provide infill coverage in areas of weak reception, including a separate transmitting and receiving station serving the facility. Small cell wireless facilities must: i. be mounted on structures less than 50 feet or less in height,including all antennas ii. not include any antenna morebe-less than 3 cubic feet in volume, and iii.include no more than 28 cubic feet of accessory equipment, including pre-existing associated equipment. i. "Non-tower • - - - • • - • , •" • • • •" — Any existing structure wireless such a •_ a building wall or roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water tank, utility pole, or light pole, to which 44- -- - .4- .-. -•. wireless communication equipment is attached, but which does not have the primary purpose of supporting such equipmentsuppert structure. j. "Tower ' • • ••• • " - A new structure, tower, pole, or mast erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. For the purposes of Chapter 18.'150, such a support structure will be referred to as a "tower." Support structure types include: i. "Guyed tower" - A tower that is supported by the use of cables (guy wires) that are permanently anchored; ii. "Lattice tower" - A tower characterized by an open framework of lateral cross members that stabilize the tower; iii."Monopole" - A single upright pole, engineered to be self-supporting and requiring no guy wires or lateral cross-supports. 18.450.030 Uses Allowed A. Collocation on existing towers. Installation of an antenna on an existing communication tower of any height is allowed, provided the additional antenna is no more than 20 feet higher than the existing tower, the tower is not in the public right-of-way,•. • - • -- • - •- . - - - • -- tewer7 and the color of the antenna blends with the existing structure or surroundings. B. Collocation on existing non-tower structures. Installation of an antenna on an existing structure other than a tower, such as a building, water tank, sign, light fixture or utility pole, is allowed provided the supporting structure is not in a public right-of-way, the additional antenna is no more than 20 feet higher than the existing structure, •. • - . .- • - - • - - - . _ • - • • -, and the color of the antenna blends with the existing structure or surroundings. Collocation of small cells in a public right-of-way is subject to the standards of Paragraph 18.450.030.EIi. C. Installation of accessory equipment shelters. The installation of accessory equipment shelters and related equipment is allowed at or near the base of a tower or structure where collocation is allowed as provided in Subsections 18.450.030.A BE of this section subject to the following: D. Towers in the I-L and I-H zones. Locating a tower of any height, including antennas, other supporting equipment and accessory equipment shelters, is allowed in the I-L and I-H zones,provided that such a tower is set back from any existing off-site residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower. Any accessory equipment shelter must comply with the development standards of the base zone. Towers in the right-of-way are subject to either the small cell standards of Subsection 18.450.030.EF or the site development review process of Section 18.450.040. E. Small cells. The following small cell facilities are allowed in a public right-of-way: 1. Small cell antennas and accessory equipment mounted to existing public infrastructure or small cell monopoles, when all of the following are met: a. A valid lease, license, or franchise agreement is in place for the use of the right-of-way and any public infrastructure; b. A right-of-way permit has been issued by all appropriate agencies for the installation of the antenna and accessory equipment in the right-of-way; and c. The color of the antenna and accessory equipment are of similar color to the supportive infrastructure. d. The small cell facility does not increase the height of the infrastructure by more than 10 percent or 10 feet, whichever is greater, and the total height is not more than 35 feet in any residential zone or 50 feet in any other zone or to more than 30 feet. 18.450.040 Uses Allowed Subject to Site Development Review A. Uses allowed. The following uses are subject to approval through the Site Development Review process of Chapter 18.780,using the standards of 18.450.040.B as approval criteria: 5. Towers and-in public rights-of-way. Installation of a tower exceeding 30 feet in height within any public right-of-way, provided that such tower is set back from any off-site residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower and the tower does not exceed 50 feet in height. 6. Small cell facilities. Installation of any small cell facility in a public right-of-way that increases the height of the infrastructure it is attached to by more than 10 percent or 10 feet, whichever is greater, provided that the total height does not exceed 35 feet in any residential zone or 50 feet in any other zone above its preexisting height. B. Standards. Any use subject to site development review is reviewed using the following standards: 2. Setbacks. a. Towers designed to collapse within themselves must be set back in compliance with the setbacks of the applicable base zone, except that all towers must be set back a minimum of 35 feet from any adjacent residentially zoned lot; b. Towers not designed to collapse within themselves must be set back from the property line by a distance equal to or greater than the height of the tower. 3. Tower spacing.No new tower is allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower.Small cell facilities in a public right-of way are exempt from this standard, but must meet any spacing requirements of the city's engineering standards. 4. Tower height. a. The maximum height for a tower not in a public right-of-way is 100 feet. If the tower includes antennas owned by multiple providers,the maximum height is 125 feet. b. The maximum height for a tower in a public right-of-way is 50 feet, except that the maximum height in residential zones is 35 feet. 5. Lighting.No lighting is allowed on a tower except the following:as required by the FAA. a. Lighting required by the FAA; and b. Streetlights mounted on provider-installed small cell monopoles in a public right-of-way when approved by the city engineer. 6. Fencing and security. Towers and ancillary facilities must be enclosed by a minimum 6-foot fence.Small cell facilities in a public right-of-way are exempt from this standard 7. Landscaping and screening. Towers and ancillary equipment not within a right-of-way must meet the following: a. Landscaping must be placed outside the required fence and must consist of evergreen shrubs that will reach 6 feet in height and 95 percent opacity within 3 years of planting; b. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, freestanding towers and accessory equipment facilities must be screened by the planting of a minimum of 4 evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. These trees must effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the applicant demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. 18.450.050 Uses Allowed Subject to Conditional Use Review A. Uses allowed. The approval authority will review the uses subject to conditional use review, using approval criteria provided in Subsection 18.450.050.B. The following uses are subject to approval under this section: 1. Towers in residential zones. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment= or accessory equipment shelters, in any residential zone, with the exception of small cell facilities in the right- of-way; 2. Towers within areas with historic overlay designation. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment or accessory equipment shelters, in areas with historic overlay designation; 3. Towers in excess of 100 feet for a single user and 125 feet for multiple users except those located in the I-L and I-H zones,which are allowed as provided in 18.450.030.E. Carol Krager From: Meridee Pabst <meridee.pabst@wirelesspolicy.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:36 AM To: #Councilmail; Schuyler Warren;Tom McGuire Cc: Ken Lyons; Karen Manske; Rich Roche Subject: Small Wireless Facilities - Process and Standards (Chp. 18.450) - Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2018-00003 Attachments: ATT Tigard Comments - FINAL - 11-21-2018.pdf Good morning, On behalf of AT&T,we have attached a comment letter regarding the City's proposed revisions to Chapter 18.450, regarding small wireless facilities. We find that numerous revisions were made since the Planning Commission hearing on the draft code,and we ask that you consider further changes and clarification as described in our letter. Thank you very much, Meridee Pabst Vice President, Land Use Wireless Policy Group LLC 113 Cherry St.#75604 Seattle,WA 98124-2205 meridee.pabst@wirelesspolicy.com 425-628-2660 Direct 360-567-5574 Wireless 1 WPG WIRELESS POLICY GROUNovember 21,2018 The Honorable Jason Snider,Mayor Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 SENT VIA EMAIL: CouncilMail@tigard-or.gov Re: Small Wireless Facilities-Process and Standards(Chp. 18.450) Development Code Amendment(DCA)2018-00003 November 27,2018 Hearing Dear Mayor Snider and Councilors: Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the proposed small wireless facilities code for the City of Tigard(the"City"). We submit these comments on behalf of AT&T. AT&T supports the City's efforts to revise its wireless code for consistency with the latest in wireless technology, small wireless facilities. AT&T further supports the City's general regulatory approach,through which it will permit certain small wireless facilities outright, subject to review according to Public Works standards. In addition, AT&T appreciates several changes staff made to the proposed code since it was heard by the Planning Commission, in order to clarify ambiguities and add language consistent with a new Order' released by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), which addresses small wireless facility deployment. AT&T supports the City's use of the FCC's definition of"small wireless facility" and the FCC's dimensional standards. AT&T is concerned about a substantial policy change that has been made since the Planning Commission hearing and suggests several revisions in response to that change and to further clarify the proposed code: • Threshold for Exemption. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the draft code has been revised to set a threshold for those small wireless facilities exempt from planning review, at 30 feet in height(or an increase by 10 percent). Compare TMC 18.450.030.E with -.040.A.5-.6. This threshold will make many new small wireless facilities subject to planning review, which we understood was not the City's intent. For example, a typical Portland General Electric ("PGE") utility pole is already more than 30 feet tall, and in 'Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order,WT Docket No.17-79,WC Docket No.17-84,FCC 18-133(rel.Sept.27, 2018);83 Fed.Reg.51867(Oct.15,2018)("FCC Order"). PO Box 34628 476604 (fax)206.219.6717 Seattle,WA 98124 www.wirelesspolicy.com November 21, 2018 Page 2 order to meet required vertical safety clearances, the installation of small wireless facilities typically necessitates an increase in height by more than 10 percent. The proposed threshold thus makes nearly all PGE pole attachments subject to planning review. AT&T suggests that all small wireless facilities meeting the FCC definition be exempt from planning review. This change may be made by deleting TMC 18.450.040.A.6 and including all small wireless facilities that are consistent with the FCC's definition in TMC 18.450.030.E. (See also comments below regarding the FCC definition). AT&T's suggestion is consistent with the new federal shot clocks for consideration of proposed small wireless facilities, which allow 60 or 902 days for all authorizations to be completed, depending on the type of facility proposed. • Clarify the requirements for siting a new pole supporting small wireless facilities in the right-of-way. According to the City's current code, a tower(which is defined to include a new structure or pole) is permitted in the right-of-way with a Site Development Review. TMC 18.450.040.A.6. Because small wireless facilities are smaller and need to be placed closer together, AT&T had previously suggested that any towers supporting small wireless facilities be exempted from the minimum spacing requirements of TMC 18.450.030.B.3 and the collocation protocol of TMC 18.450.060. In addition, because the height of the support structure for a small wireless facility will be in line with other poles in the right-of-way, AT&T suggested that such towers supporting small wireless facilities be exempted from the setback provision of TMC 18.450.030.A.6. Since AT&T last commented, the proposed code was changed somewhat to describe "small cell monopoles," in listing the wireless uses permitted outright in TMC 18.450.030(E)(2),but does not define this term. Further, the code appears to still refer to "towers" in the right- of-way elsewhere. Compare with TMC 18.450.040A.5-.6. AT&T suggests further refinements to TMC 18.450.030-.040 to allow "small cell monopoles" subject to height limits consistent with the FCC Order(not exceeding the greater of 10 percent taller than adjacent structures in the right-of-way or 50 feet) and without minimum spacing requirements, compliance with the collocation protocol, and tower-height setbacks. • Definition of small wireless facility. AT&T appreciates the City's efforts to use the FCC's definition of small wireless facility; however, we note that the language proposed on page 18.30-28 is not completely consistent with the FCC rule. In particular,the height limitation is not accurately or completely described (subsection–(g)(i)), and subsection– (g)(ii) should refer to "each antenna." AT&T suggests the definition be clarified for consistency with the new FCC rule. See FCC rule to be codified in 47 C.F.R. §1.6002(1)(1)(2) & (3). This change may be done by copying the FCC's criteria, as follows: (1) The facilities— (i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or (ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; 2 FCC rule to be codified in 47 C.F.R.§1.6003(c). November 21, 2018 Page 3 (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no more than three cubic feet in volume; (3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. • Clarify/revise definition of"public infrastructure." AT&T appreciates that City staff has expanded the definition of"public infrastructure" since it was originally proposed, but it is still concerned that the definition is unclear and limiting. AT&T suggests that the definition be simplified to "right-of-way infrastructure" and defined as "infrastructure in the right-of-way, including utility poles, light poles,traffic signal poles, and other, similar vertical infrastructure." • Clarify authorization needed for right-of-way placement. We understand that the City Council will hear a proposed new utilities code on December 4th, and the new code adopts a license process for authorizing use of the City' right-of-way (in lieu of a franchise agreement). AT&T suggests that the zoning code's references to a franchise agreement for small wireless facilities be revised to "franchise agreement or license." Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Karen Manske will be attending your hearing on AT&T's behalf. Sincerely, /1 1cif / eridee Pa. meridee.pabst@wirelesspolicy.com cc: Schuyler Warren,Associate Planner Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director 11110 Zmii 'i .,.:. 0Ps) --• -*,, -7 oM••4 Y 3 3 M••4 (D 'I'd 0 N (,) 0 cm o D a 3 r) 0 = o O z c 0 = = g'i 43 o toto m = 3 UJ P. Cr c P m ET O s n5. o CD O �. Ow y0000 Oa: = A _ CO r•I F Ei P N I 0 = D N " V) n M F.r. H cr4 P a, 70 I 70 Q ma cn D 3 co z' I n —. _ o �' D ` D + -% CD N z ,.,:._.-,''' :11./ 0 - Oo m D . ...---- r-t. .r, C = n E z 3 I 0 z rD w a 3 3 D ; —I C. -sD rn Q co co 00 z = 1•11111111111 D C n -0 o c ms c7,1 o 3 r+ I 3 v:RI _ —• ' c/, n rD < �' r(1)= m 0- Nv + M CD + (7,:;5 rt _ C r-t - o 0_ + - 1 l ) 1 -0 i C ) 1 Cr rt) 0 rt) D ro 0 o =• cm rb cm ofIL 0 0 3 o oo 3 rt FA. 00 00 —• 00 N o o 0 Cld e rit m 0....g ■ CD 1.i0 N O v� N rt . Iad i ' 0 ' n 's _ ' _ o v,-• z o n o o _ V .c ,—, + C co N• C N• —.. o s-.) (1). .,‹ m 1-4 crQ0 r0 0 et V6'f n Q W 4-4 0 = � cr v � � 133 5 5 Crg (1) f7+I4 (,) M = Z = 4) em* (1) cm 0 --I CrC1 , ti) ID CD rti M 5 n cz crQm = 'zs 1-4 -n -• n I Oo O CD ''—'{ r fu oI n m m r-ii r-t. co .., rb z f".* 0 o o o �o n f c Z0- a n • n 1 i = ) , O -. 1 I Io = n T. ro Do C = Clow, v,' o Oji Z Q :-4• CI. (/) CM) P rt cb CI n U Q n O * n —• n (n ro Z. ro 44 = LC) 0 Z- Z P3 5 -, , 0 m r„. N‹ z Q .0 C'D CX, z • 0 P. = -. rt) _ (4 ut � ' ^* Z wi O rt LQQ n 1-1 'IX4 w z g z cr co) z Q 0-1 els' a. CD E. Q g Cld C) O n co 0 C.) Z M = Z Z a) Om P.. = ,Th ' E � O = P a. E N O Z 0 t O � Q n �, O Q co n C) (1) 1\J = o O I-1 5 _ ,. (i) CD , , ....-- = tC, ( — cis., ro — fmti W Z CA r) ......... rts Lc) 'X'd C) Z Z Crcifo Z � p O �- N C r � 0 40 n I I I T 1 Z �. o ro .5 f:li ,, , = -1 rt) CD p PICliVC)rts Z O C3--rtr) _. o = r* 5 pp,� _ I' z CD z o C = tu.,:) C) Z o '" � ...., 0 CA n --1 rb ....) 1--% Z" ( - Z 8 CrQ rt) 0r/ 0 o '' Z (/) LC) CL g (ro Q � . 4-1) --c `:-.--.1,1 z.-- N r) = iiii (f) Cli <r • n rb n z° . -Pt ,Mi 0 0 r0 r0 rb ry. C) LQ -.4 r% = t :I:. C:1:. Z.'. - e) `C %-• m Crgl Z Z `Qt. C) 1 = 2_, LC) LQ LC) 0 r0 V) = 0- ,i, 0 (-1 -1 (4 (1). (1) r* • sr = ....... (1\ (z) `Zt = E n L00 res +n n (1) ry, `h co r*Q (,) `C I �+' p OCD fu MI LQ• S_F• g . = (- 4 P‘) Z (-7) ° CA (6) cn � O N Zind O CM r0 Q w - rb "ml SZ 0 C) ;to r0 rt, %Z. ,(i) Z o Ci Q 0 cn rb z vi = ow• p .-% tu ,c). 1 I I 0 4 ro rol. = z r-t. cp cD p n Z Z , C) (1) 1 ,,,---- el- r* "V (ICI a rt CI c Ln aT c is C O O `C cr p (1) '-"*"" --- 0 cn cD O ........ 1_% = r.,* RI r) ......„ 5 Q LI) .7...,e° 0 o CD - el:, .....7........: z ‘...,„+) z MI ;1.) ., Z CA r) .c ; °X"rti Q •oQ`n SQ g n C......._. n (o 4 0 0 MI 6") m 0 ma I 1) 7> 0 M 12 X c m I ''I I Z -0 z --1 otz 11) f,D, 5.,) cl. 5- -a t ) ' ' .c7. al CD CD m• * O -1-I n = Ei, m C2. = 0 FDP M = 74 8 M 1m < (A = 0 73 Cli ti":. fD ri• 0 n E. ,:f." c CU ...h m 3 __,•71.8 m 6. z 5 = z n N vsf-P s -h fu =C") m O r+ O m .0 O cD O N, = O -. _• v N m 45 FD a- VI s n -. = " c . CrC1 0 0. w Crg =. 3" Se Erp. <• y •-i.. _. NSO r t•ii z ftim Si". (I) t-g: E ot c•-) < ,.., n CD a a) rim © -,4 0.) 2 5 3 < 3 °I= CD CL) = Zi. 'i W Z- =' = m 7. a, 0 �"�' 0 a• rZ C = CA c S. , =0. = fD s Citi O (fD OV .0, CL — 0 v) O v' ' O • v) a) CD • P47, n t'D (1,7 =id I I I I co Z .e...1; la 3 0.— c'D ei. fu s-...) cl. rim < = rim 0• N OMI a. 0 r-g W. Nn 01 Ga CD $5.) - CD e.,t —. 011 M°. r7 a) - s 0 <3 <D -. CD ., N .. cA Z' in= O. tZ Cr C") 0 CO tb N61) W �, _. N co O o' 3 0 �. `0 N' o . co (A tn 3 I -0 -t rt, M■■r■ C ) fpCM o OCI = 3 p• Amin : • CD fu e y a a Pit M = O -0 t I I I < — (, ries til 0 n I o C ,i ' . ii. . z..... z- 5 si ......• c, O = rr °•-.1 M 0. (1) c17 N o :Diii 2 rD 0- g ° 0 ria a) <_. ° ‹ al en n0//) a .2 ° - cin 4n 14 N o ° 0 a) O ..,,, Cr e = , no ei. �a Z _ '0 CD -• 2 < � •v OCACm) �q13 CD ; -. r"M' — — v 0 fD CU 2 iv = W CL (1:4 3 et ci) = m 3 ma _ im. = cD = el c�D O EU C —. -' = CD OCI N C P.C:: I I I I I I 13 )0 701>6 )>• )>, 0- gli n O O O •-P 211) ,Th ' . ""N. iii) CDcm r) nr ) r* r-1- 0 Z nEL p cn cn Z " O n S CD r'+- o �0LiS• o o O o 0 k."""i'l rift L'h rb Z on = G/1 r-�. O -. Q o p0 * CD = CrC1 ,- ' rtoC) ro — C) 2.- C), cl. ro Cfcl . Z PutO O )' �- pm-U - C C 0 �* et 0 r-,. rte, Ln N cC C p r0 r+ r-+• 11) oo o 0 o 0 0 S 0- CA n iv O O r0 Cu _, Pii) S kfi (i) Z O._ a �, r0 N 0 Z cZi� (/) rt) = PIZ1 1 1 1 1 1 00 (- rn n n Z 3cn gli z. O ke, rt• Oca. O Oei. O A) o emlli z z Z 0_ 'ii r0 O O 0 CD ,........ a n r0i 73 0 O �. cn cn n' mom O O O r* r* r"1. S rts n CA �• O cl. 0 = fti m CM ro �' _ O S r , cm 0 O O m ii. V . O °it, —. z•-• st Q m z z n 0 ro z cC °I7.5 CD r0 0 0 • C PA) (1) C ti, rt Q Z N, LQ no (to cn (y) N' rp * = (i) 1 I I I I I D oc: n (in ..... o ill )o nil rad ro co z rp 0 • ro ‹ si- _Q 0 z 26) ,t ' ,,,. z (1)...s.., 6. Q �' S O't, r) (Als -44 L4 --1 'pCD A. . Lb r0 a = a. Gq O � n O O � m 0 C:), 1-.1. z Z rt) I =CI Et. O rim GA z c . � � CD Q Z 0 (f) (1) " = �, Ori. cnCM � • O z O O "I'll Z-- -I 0 r z' O r0 rp (-. °it' r0 n Z O 2 (-1 'C - M"'� Z o...., ., o o Z- et 0 0 cC07-i (1) LQ g rb = 0 O 6..... 0 � �' �. cn O —• Pii) Z cry r + N DPit:: O c_ O — CLi ,C.7. r0 r0 r-+ O Z o 0 MI ▪ O �• O C CD cia n r0 - aC)z-- ....% a) • (4 (I)O (4O O r0 v Z Z h'h r\) 0 0 �'1.1 �. rift ...... O 0V1 n O p0 �, 3 ..• , , -,:, rb Z = crz , cn O r0 N rt) t,,‘ St° Z s:" -"'" 0 PIZ (1) . (I) Z -""c t...* 2 0 °It, z Si. Lc) Z ro n Q os• ticl- C °I11::i -ts -"Cs 0 fD 0 c) -6— fD • Z ro5 Z W � ' 6 0 70 O W NJ 0 C pQ I I I I I I �, 0 n n n g g z0 rrPi) ,z, 0rti 67 CD mit Q o rt) a ....... _ ? r't- 0 0 rb rt4 qz 2 0 z z .iii e 0 o OY) Z1* rts z rf = � - , = CleCI .,_ O n n ° n (..) (i) a) °V z- (i) C) 0 °It,o Q co v� 'i' Q 0 n 0 Q —. Z °I.C.i n `c 2 Q (,) (z) Q Pi.) Q , , o , . e) CD I I I I I m O P P a) r0 r0 O n O F61. o O 0 < o < c fts (1) O o rp P Z o n < = a. o r(ib) Z o n M -u o v O N ro co n -o CD Q q O 3 "S.. CD en r 0 C:) Ca• 0� . r+ CINI . MI o n zmi.(/' g 'El- = ro Es- -t -t3 � � o o �d -.% E. O ri LQ Z Om ....• °I.C.N5 ro (n �,. o <_. Q N O • 4 0_ z = W O O VIZ a Q _ Q- O • IV C Pa) Z a) Aml ,, #. cnO 1 1 rb rr ow. 0 = Crq W 0 v' r0 O O N %S Irim 4 r) r--1- h .1 O c•p 0 2 O Cz D 70 � O � � el. O .13 IV 0 r0 cn Co O O n (I) ►-1 rb 0 — CD ems. —. cl rts CL01 0 Z Z v, • �. Gq CA o ro 0 N Pi) N 0 C 1 -. C2 CI 13n `C 0CD o rrl 422 Z al �; O1 . ..... ••■.... Z 0 'I c.3. ••••• �. G/) :10) n in ii.i • r0 to r0 ~ 0..i. 0 CD el Con, 0 Q. ,n = ::J `71; '"F 0 1:3 1:5 ..,, rt) rt) d • (A) n • Ct. 6 • n c o , , ....‘ , , . , -0 glii , , fcb (,) , 1,, Li., 0_ ..c.:). ......,, z co Z-- 0, er) ,. -4, Q... ...., , c) ,... c, rt, , ........ A. re?„. co , , CU cn = `,, J, Z p 40Q Iv 0. z el — 2.) ri. ...I ''', ""--- ?....)-- \l/ (/) = rt) = _. f-)o o _ ° < o u) o _ /17::: ro rt am CU CSI o m ~d sz.. O 1:5 0 • Cli) o --ri r) ci) co T. Ow 0 O O Z. ti. CD :1'.::'') rb 2 z p4 v, 13 (...t. �. e+ CA ° i'n Q ...,,,trb 0- 4 z O0CD Lc) , co 3 P-Mri. Z 0 Nii = I cup o A Ow Cld O O O g • en el 0 CI , .+., rof 116 ..0 ) 1, rn ...,0 oj 0 C omiii o `,in nc oanO' O • =Z Z rt o. eD 0 LC ri. St • rp - pC)... "(:1"3 v) gl CA co cb rti toz-si.. ._... +, 6-ft E3- 0. �o O PZ �o rti rD 0. ftC3 *7Z3 cl �D 0 0 ::li CD vim, �- c v O CD Co �,. n a C z e-i rto o 42 o `° CA �• rD i.ldO CArim0 3 ' Cp rb v' MN ro `. ellilli) iti CD 0 Pe. $11:11.11� IL ' = Crq . rt X CID o rt) CA o o CD �. O. CliII)z ‹ rt iimil O x _' ".....•• , V ~' CD O Z- `--h X Q.rt) O� O O -'Cr CD • -r-i -. Mimed 11.4rot 0 `Cr-la 12) r 0 rr rt) • Imil M 0 ;° Q 1° (r) el n ""1 r'lm 0 = -.. -§. ,_„ n . O rim N• �, C Q CD P rl, rt) S r0 - - r n rb n (f) Iffirif? Z (r) 0 0. *0 CD ro rp c r0 n rt) r0 CIL -. Q cr, • Q ii.....+, p rD 1■ Q Ln = 4) O ........ ............: Lc) — = 40 SL = CA Q ...... Z • MEM '71 = 1 1 1 1 1 C et NI 'ci 0 E+ 1-1 m _ a z- -I fp . ---• LQ (5 5 ).4 ,a) ..... , rb _ . gyp' CD a, = = S O `ish 0 et CD r-IN ( 0, e-t. ..1 o_ A) toC" r* O+ ris c. S. O = en Zall e't- CT >4. . O 0Z VI :11) O rt) �, ca. rb Z rb Crq n O O ....... z, CD 0 ro (Z) o p _. ro r:ld < Q CA `C S r0 r0 v , t ,L,,r,,--,,,, -: __ - ___ , :. ,„,. , ,,,,,, 0IFL %MEM ',01. . '\ -• I - ••t. i �. i 1 O CM ‘‘‘ '. 411:4) ib .:aro V•7••'",r1F14.1 ,-. th a ....,,,-.... 4., , _ I o) ,.iii 1,- .1-11 IL/ !i:i.',1': .,/Or1 ,_ ..., asp- -, ) r:il b. �ry .. - -., : - �� ,..,,,... oNsi • +� f C ‘iimid • CAK 4 new y, _p 4 v s'( t• w AR v .. r'.. v, -7 , t • = S , `' I lii tr 1 1:, . t .: 4 :::.a r AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: November 27, 2018 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Legislative Public Hearing - DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2018-00003 - PHASE II POLICY AND PROCEDURES - This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: November 27, 2018 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. qeCk y� I\' l — � . .> t 4 1115C/Iticb %k fit-A A-0-c c (14:43t:7 (11 q)50/54 117 -1- (563) 2,03-81q.1 Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. ee .1i1/4f19, 47 )1 i - `�SGIi� G�''u ICC. Sv3 Poeep( ( -1931 /- 7 ( - arf\ , 6.2))1(04c-liAL- Name,Address&Phone No. Mame,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. f/ 1 .V / . Va2- Z5Nwi ---t f3 o f.)E I2214° PN PO ' Pp()) P( TI N of-q-2X30 X25-ctci- a1W u ks-Lota, 2101' bav \,ev1iur\wIreieq CA"— Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. RIfi+J Co SLiLi 2-C.7.1 si E-r-ANT- •f. OA 17L23 25; oc Osi.} 1-7"-le-t". C u . 14,S Q 3 Name,Address&Phone,No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No.