The URL can be used to link to this page

APP0057193-Revised Application-2/12/2016 CIMID EB 1 2 2016 Joint Permit Application RECEITED S 33%c This is a joint application and must be sent to both agencies. who administer separate permit programs. DEPAFTMENT Of STATE LAW.: `• Alternative forms of permit applications may be acceptable contact the Corps and DSL for more information. 'J1 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , °' Oregon Department of State ,s, ; Portland District r--'+ 1 = Lands Corps Action ID Number NWP-2014-200 DSL Number 57193-RF (1) APPLICANT AND LANDOWNER CONTACT INFORMATION Authorized Agent(if applicable) Applicant Property Owner(if different) p Consultant ❑Contractor Name enture Properties AKS Engineering&Forestry, LLC ttn: Kelly Ritz Attn:Stacey Reed Mailing Address 230 Galewood Street 12965 SW Herman Rd to 100 Ste 100 City, State, Zip !Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tualatin,OR 97062 Business Phone 1503-387-7600 503-563-6151 ext 211 Cell Phone Fax Email kelly@ventureprop.com staceyr@aks-eng.com (2) PROJECT INFORMATION A. Provide the project location. Project Name Project Address/ Location Tax Lot# Heritage Crossing Subdivision 15435 SW Hall Boulevard 400 County 1 City (nearest) Latitude & Longitude' Washington Tigard 45.4081, -122.7662 Township Range Section Quarter/Quarter 2S 1W 11DA • Brief Directions to the Site • B.What types of waterbodies or wetlands are present in your project area? (Check all that apply.) O River/ Stream EJ Non-Tidal ❑Lake / Reservoir Pond ❑Estuary or Tidal Wetland 0 Other 0 Pacific Ocean Waterbody or Wetland Name" River Mile 6"' Field HUC Name 6'h Field HUC (12 digits) Wetlands A and B N/A Fanno Creek Tualatin 170900100502 River C. Indicate the project category.(Check all that appy.) ❑Commercial Development ❑ Industrial Development D Residential Development ❑ Institutional Development ❑Agricultural 0 Recreational ❑Transportation 0 Restoration 0 Bank Stabilization ❑Dredging 0 Utility lines 0 Survey or Sampling ❑In- or Over-Water Structure 0 Maintenance 0 Other: 1 February 2016 (2) PROJECT INFORMATION ' In decimal format (e g 44 9399. -123 02831 If there is no official name for the wetland or waterway. create a unique name (such as -Wetland 1 or Tributary A ) T name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report and drawings (3) PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Provide a statement of the purpose and need for the overall project. The project is located in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (attached Figure 1). The project proposes construction of 62-lot detached single-family residential units on the 9.10-acre site consisting of tax lot 400 of tax map 25 1 11DA (Figure 2). A recent aerial photograph of the site is included as Figure 3. Project Purpose: The purpose of this project is to construct detached, affordable, single-family residential homes within the City of Tigard that implement the City of Tigard's planning goals. The project site is adjacent to existing residential communities, major transportation corridors,and in close proximity to desired public schools and services, as well as employment areas, making it an ideal location for needed affordable housing. The City of Tigard Planning Commission recently approved a zone change for the site from R-12 Medium Density(3,050 square foot minimum lot sizes)to a split R-12 and R-7 Medium Density (5,000 square foot minimum lot sizes). They have also voted to approve the subdivision as proposed in this application. The R-7 zoning is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission has requested a condition of approval to have the R-7 zoning on the project site located immediately adjacent to the existing R-7 zoning(around the perimeter of the site). Project Need: The site is located in Metro's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and is zoned residential by the City of Tigard. According to the City of Tigard's 2012 Housing and Population Review Report (included as Attachment A),the City is experiencing an overall shortage to meet future housing needs. The 2012 Housing and Population Review report documents a need for over 6,500 new housing units by 2030. Of the new units needed, 53% are projected to be needed for affordable single family detached homes.This project proposes 62 detached single family lots providing a solution to Tigard's projected housing needs. According to the City's 2012 Buildable lands Inventory by Zoning Designation, only 72.13 acres of Medium Density zoned land exists within Tigard. Few of these available applicably zoned sites met the applicant's criteria for a residential development project; minimum size of 5 acres and proximity to schools and major transportation corridors.The subject site is located adjacent to existing residential development communities,within close proximity to Tigard elementary, middle, and high schools, and is located immediately adjacent to SW Hall Boulevard. Therefore, the project site is ideal for single family development. To achieve the project's purpose and need approximately 1.74 acres of unavoidable fill to a palustrine emergent wetlands is proposed for the construction of residential lots, access roads, and stormwater quality treatment/ quantity detention. (4) DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES IN PROJECT AREA A. Describe the existing physical and biological characteristics of each wetland or waterway. Reference the wetland and waters delineation report if one is available. Include the list of items provided in the instructions. The wetlands on the site were initially delineated by Mears Design Group in 2013. The boundaries were revised by SWCA Environmental Consultants in 2014 The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) concurred with SWCA's delineation of 1.74 acres of two palustrine emergent wetlands (referred to as Wetlands A and B) under DSL File WDtt2013-0255 dated July 24, 2014. The DSL concurrence letter is included as Attachment B for reference. The location of the surveyed concurred wetland boundaries are shown on attached Figure 4 Existing Condition. Two separate wetland polygons were delineated on the site and are referred to as Wetlands A and B. Wetland A, located in the northern portion of the site is approximately 0.94 acres in size(41,149 square feet). Wetland B is located 2 February 2016 (4) DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES IN PROJECT AREA downslope of Wetland in the southeast portion of the site, and is approximately 0.80 acres in size (34,745 square feet). A stormwater catch basin is present near the southeast corner of the site. According to CWS sanitary sewer maps, the catch basin discharges into nearby Fanno Creek, providing a hydrologic connection from Wetland B to Fanno Creek. Upland conditions were documented between Wetlands A and B; therefore, Wetland A can be considered isolated. Wetlands A and B belong to the Slopes/Flats hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification and were generally dominated by a non-native grass and forb community [common velvet grass, toad rush (Juncus bufonius), perennial ryegrass, white clover(Trifobium repens), and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus protensis)J. The reference-based HGM assessment for the Slopes/Flats subclass was conducted to assess the existing wetland functions and values. The data sheets for the existing wetland functions and values assessment are included as Attachment C. The existing wetland scored low for most functions due to the lack of structural diversity, dominance by non-native vegetation species, and lack of surface inundation during the wet season. The existing wetlands were actively farmed for many decades and are completely surrounded by residential development, contributing to the low functional opportunity scores. There are no special wetland sites on or near the project area (special wetland sites include vernal pools, bogs, fens, mature forested wetland, seasonal mudflats,or native wet prairies). B. Describe the existing navigation,fishing and recreational use of the waterway or wetland. The privately owned parcel's existing natural resources have no navigation, fishing, or recreational use. (5) PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Describe project-specific criteria necessary to achieve the project purpose. Describe alternative sites and project designs that were considered to avoid or minimize impacts to the waterway or wetland. Project Specific Criteria: The goal of the project is to provide the minimum number of lots consistent with the split R-7 and R-12 zoning requirements to meet the growing demands for affordable housing in Metro's UGB. Specific project criteria included residential zoned buildable lots greater than 5 acres in size within Tigard's UGB and close proximity to schools, major transportation corridors, and existing utilities. For a project to be viable for a subdivision for Venture Properties, it should to be a minimum of five acres in size for net buildable area, and most importantly, on the market available for purchase Five acres is the minimum size developers like Venture can achieve a cost competitive development plan and sales team. Off-site Alternates:According to the City's Population and Housing Review report(Attachment A),all vacant buildable residential zoned land is needed to meet the City's capacity goals.According to the report,there is a modest projected shortage of buildable lands for single family detached homes. The applicant evaluated potential alternative sites within Tigard, but many of the identified sites in the Buildable Lands Inventory are not for sale. According to the RMLS at the time of the application, there was only one listing for land available for sale in Tigard for residential development that was over three acres; however, it was located within the Urban Reserves and could not be developed until completion of the concept planning effort. There were many sites identified in the Bull Mountain area that had an existing estate house that could be developed; however, it will be many years before redevelopment is possible. Some of the land shown in the buildable land inventory had also been purchased by the City of Tigard for Sunrise Park. The lands shown as available north of Sunrise Park have very steep topography and is traversed by significant drainageways (potentially jurisdictional resources). Venture Properties tried to purchase a four acre site (25104AD04100&4200)south of the fire station on SW Walnut Street, but was outbid for the property. The applicant evaluated the option of purchasing tax lot 25112C600900, which was 6 acres in size and located near major transportation corridors, but was recently acquired and approved for an assisted living facility. The Fred Fields property(251010001100, 25101CA00100, 25101CA00800)was proposed for 12 acres of residential development but was sold to Metro for development of a park. Therefore, there are no practical alternative sites with less resources that satisfied the applicant's criteria. 3 February 2016 (5) PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS On-site Avoidance and Minimization: The applicant evaluated three alternative layouts that minimized wetland encroachment (attached Alternative Site Layout Figures 9 -11). Alternatives that minimize wetland impacts were determined to be not possible as they do not meet City density requirements, cannot provide required stormwater quality treatment/quantity detention, do not meet transportation code requirements, and create unsafe street connections. Alternative #1 (Figure 9). Development on the site is required by the City of Tigard and the State Transportation Planning Rule to incorporate connections from the existing adjacent street stubs into the proposed subdivision. Encroachment into Wetland A for the extension of the existing SW Applewood Street stub is unavoidable. This extension is on the City's 2010 Transportation System Plan and is required to meet Oregon's Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule. The extension of SW Ashford Street in the west is also required under the City's and State's Transportation Planning Rules. The applicant researched alternative street alignments that avoid impact to Wetland B. Alternative 1 proposes a cul-de-sac to maximize the availability of developable land for the subdivision. According to the City of Tigard development code, cul-de-sacs are discouraged because they do not meet the intent of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, which requires a high level of roadway connectivity. Direct connectivity promotes walkability and spreads the transportation load across a broader street network. In addition, according to Section 18.810-16 of the City's development code, cul-de-sacs "shall be no more than 200 feet long". The length of the cul-de-sac in Alternative #1 is approximately 260 feet long. The City has also indicated that connectivity to SW Hall Boulevard is recommended for this project. Therefore, the street connectivity layout option with a cul-de-sac does not meet the City of Tigard code. The layout proposed in Alternative #1 significantly reduces the available area for lot development (allows for 26 lots versus current proposal of 62 lots). According to Clean Water Services District Design and Construction Standards, 50-foot wide protective buffers are required adjacent to wetland areas that will remain as part of site development. According to CWS code, encroachment into the protective buffers are not allowed to accommodate residential lots, further limiting the developable area on the site. The split R-7 and R-12 zoning for the property requires a minimum density of 31 lots per the City's development code. Therefore,Alternative#1 does not meet the density requirements. The table below provides a breakdown of the minimum lot density requirements for Alternative#1. R-7 ZONE Gross Site Area(sf): 317,380 Public ROW Dedication (sf): 73,400 Vegetated Corridor Setback Area (sf): 46,719 Wetland Area (sf): 42,540 Net Developable Area (sf): 154,721 Minimum Average Lot Area (sf): 5,000 Maximum Lot Density(Net Area/Avg. Lot Area): 31 Minimum Lot Density (Max. Density x 80%): 25 R-12 ZONE Gross Site Area (sf): 79,143 Vegetated Corridor Setback Area (sf): 30,456 Wetland Area (sf): 24,771 Net Developable Area (sf): 23,916 Minimum Average Lot Area (sf): 3,050 Maximum Lot Density(Net Area/Avg. Lot Area): 8 Minimum Lot Density(Max. Density x 80%): 6 ALT# 1 SPLIT ZONE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS 4 February 2016 (5) PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Total Maximum Density: 39 Total Minimum Density: 31 The location of the stormwater facility in Alternative 1 (Tract A) is located at the grade necessary to support gravity flow discharge toward the existing storm drain located in the southeast corner of the site. However, this location precludes draining the southerly portion of the site (Lots 10, 11 & 12) to the stormwater facility and is therefore not a feasible option. Alternative#2 (Figure 10): This alternative explores the option of looping the required SW Ashford Street extension through the site to avoid impacts to wetlands(and the associated CWS vegetated corridor)while providing connection to SW Hall Boulevard and eliminate cul-de-sacs. However, the City of Tigard's access management standards require minimum driveway setbacks of 150 feet from arterial or collector intersections (SW Hall Boulevard is classified as an arterial).The driveway approaches for Lots 18-21 and 25-28 would all be located within 150 feet of SW Hall Boulevard. This City standard for access management is intended to reduce conflicts between residents backing out of their driveways and vehicles entering the subdivision.Alternative#2 creates unsafe intersection situations due to driveway approach proximity to the SW Hall Boulevard intersection and would increase the likelihood of future accidents. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the City access management standards. The lot layout for this alternative also does not support the minimum lot density requirements for split R-7 & R-12 zoning per the City's development code (provides 28 lots versus the minimum density of 34 lots). The table below provides a breakdown of the minimum lot density requirements for Alternative#2. R•7 ZONE Gross Site Area(sf): ' 217,380 Public ROW Dedication (sf): 72,935 Vegetated Corridor Setback Area (sf):I 13,649 Wetland Area (sf): 8,527 Net Developable Area (sf): 122,269 Minimum Average Lot Area (sf): 5,000 Maximum Lot Density(Net Area/Avg. Lot Area): 24 Minimum Lot Density(Max. Density x 80%): 20 R-12 ZONE Gross Site Area (sf):. 179,143 Vegetated Corridor Setback Area (sf): 65,559 iv" Wetland Area (sf): 59,054 Net Developable Area (sf): 54,530 Minimum Average Lot Area (sf):l 3,050 Maximum Lot Density(Net Area/Avg. Lot Area): 18 Minimum Lot Density (Max. Density x 80%): 14 ALT # 2 SPLIT ZONE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS Total Maximum Density: 42 ( Total Minimum Density: 34 The location of the stormwater quality/quantity detention facility shown on Alternative #2 also results in feasibility issues for stormwater collection and treatment. The elevations for location of the stormwater facility in Alternative u2 precludes the collection and treatment of stormwater runoff from impervious pavement and roof areas along SW 5 February 2016 (5) PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Hall Boulevard. This alternative would require routing the stormwater pipes from the SW Hall Boulevard and SW Ashford Street intersection southwest towards the stormwater facility (Tract A) and then to the east toward the existing stormwater connection point located in the southeast corner of the site(along the west side of SW Hall Blvd). The existing storm system connection point in the southeast corner is not deep enough to serve the stormwater facility and cannot be modified because the existing underground pipe system within SW Hall Boulevard is already constructed at the minimum slope requirement.Therefore,the location of the stormwater facility in Alternative#2 is not practicable. Alternative#3(Figure 11):This layout evaluates whether the site can be developed while meeting all of the necessary site criteria (extension to SW Applewood Lane and SW Ashford Street, connection to SW Hall Boulevard, the stormwater quality facility located in the southeastern portion of the site, and meeting split R-7 and R-12 density requirements) while avoiding impact to remaining portions of Wetlands A. Under this layout, City of Tigard minimum density requirements are met; however, the layout results in the loss of 14 lots and Wetland A being divided into three individual isolated areas. The existing functions associated with Wetland A scored low. The wetland has a seasonal hydrologic regime and was dominated by non-native grasses. It lacks a surface water connection to other nearby features. Therefore, preservation of three small isolated segments of Wetland A would not provide any functional value to the local watershed. It is likely wetland conditions associated with these isolated areas would eventually go away with surrounding development. Therefore,Alternative#3 was determined to not be practical. Full development on the site to meet the community housing needs and the purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits for the entire wetland area will ensure the no net loss of local functions and while providing the public the best use of state waters. Preferred Alternative(Figure 5): As shown in Alternative Site Layouts#1,#2 and#3, no practical alternative exists that would avoid or minimize impact to wetlands. The proposed site layout meets the density requirements, provides complete street connectivity meeting City code, and minimizes vehicle conflicts and safety issues. The table below provides a breakdown of the maximum/minimum lot density requirements for the Proposed Alternative. R-7 ZONE Gross Site Area (sf): 263,667 Public ROW Dedication (sf): 66,855 Net Developable Area (sf): 196,812 Minimum Average Lot Area (sf): 5,000 Maximum Lot Density(Net Area/Avg. Lot Area): 39 Minimum Lot Density(Max. Density x 80%): 31 R-12 ZONE Gross Site Area (sf): 132,856 Public ROW Dedication (sf): 46,717 Net Developable Area (sf): 86,139 Minimum Average Lot Area (sf): 3,050 Maximum Lot Density (Net Area/Avg. Lot Area): 28 Minimum Lot Density(Max, Density x 80%): 22 PREFERRED ALT. DENSITY REQUIREMENTS Total Maximum Density: 68 Total Minimum Density: 53 February 2016 (5) PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The preferred alternative provides 62 lots for future home development which meets the maximum and minimum density requirements for split R-7 and R-12 zoning per the City's development code. City of Tigard pedestrian and vehicle connectivity requirements are met by connecting to SW Hall Boulevard (east connection) and by utilizing the existing street stubs at SW Applewood Avenue (north connection) and SW Ashford Street (west connection). The proposed connections meet City development and transportation code requirements and vehicle safety is addressed by maximizing the setbacks between driveway approaches and the proposed SW Hall Boulevard—SW Ashford Street intersection. As documented in the HGM function assessment (Attachment C) the existing on-site wetlands provide low quality functional value. The existing wetland condition of these features is degraded, as these wetlands lack native vegetation species and do not have any structural diversity(i.e., there is no woody vegetation). Wetland A also lacks a direct hydrologic connection other nearby features. Access roads requires severing these wetlands. Preserving small, isolated wetlands on the site was determined to provide very minimal function; therefore, since the existing condition of the wetlands on the site are low quality,the purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits was determined to provide an overall net benefit to the local watershed over preserving the on-site low-functioning severed pieces of wetland. The natural topography of the site and general area flows towards the southeast corner. The proposed location for the stormwater facility is ideal since it will be located in the lowest elevation point on the site and the existing storm infrastructure is currently in place to collect and discharge runoff downstream. All surface water currently flows towards the SE corner of the project and discharges into the existing storm drain system along SW Hall Boulevard. The stormwater treatment/water quality detention facility will be planted with native vegetation per Clean Water Services. The construction of the water quality facility will improve the overall functions and values of the existing conditions associated with Wetland B. The proposed storm drain system with the subdivision is designed to convey flows for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event (3.90 inches) directly to the water quality/quantity facility. The stormwater facility utilizes the Clean Water Services (CWS) 2-year, 24-hour design storm (2.50 inches)for design. This design storm exceeds the 2-year, 24-hour storm intensity identified for the project site according to NOAA's Atlas 2 map (2.39 inches). The stormwater quality and quantity detention facility is designed to limit the post-development discharge to "match" the pre-development flows for the storm recurrence intervals between 50% of the 2-year to the 25-year storm event (meets CWS and SLOPES standards). (6) PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Briefly summarize the overall project, and describe activities within waters and wetlands as well as sources of fill material and disposal locations if known. Project Overview: The purpose of this project is to construct detached single-family residential homes that implement the City of Tigard's planning goals. The project proposes 62 residential lots, on-site stormwater quality treatment/quantity detention, and provides access roads that implement neighborhood connectivity. The proposed site plan is included as Figure 5. Proposed Wetland Impacts:The entire 1.74 acres of degraded emergent wetland on the site is proposed for permanent impact to facilitate the development of connector streets,residential lots,and a stormwater quality treatment/quantity detention facility. A total of approximately 2,600 cubic yards of imported fill material will be placed in Wetlands A and B for the development of the access roads and lots. A total of approximately 2,180 cubic yards of native soil will be removed from Wetlands A and B, mostly for the construction of the stormwater facility. The proposed cross-section drawings are included as attached Figures 6 and 7. No temporary wetland impacts are proposed. 7 February 2016 (6) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Changes to hydrologic characteristics: The existing hydrologic regime of on-site wetlands is seasonally saturated. Wetland A is isolated; therefore,fill to this wetland is not expected to have an adverse effect on potential upslope o downslope flooding.The excavation within Wetland B for the stormwater quality treatment/water quantity detention facility will change the hydrologic regime of Wetland B from seasonally saturated to seasonally ponded. Outflow will continue to leave the site through the catch basin located the southeast corner of the site. Therefore, the project will not result in significant adverse changes to the existing site's hydrologic characteristics. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species: The wetlands on the site lack woody vegetation and a native plant community.The project site has been farmed for hay products for many years.The site is located in a highly urban area and is not located adjacent to any large forested or natural areas. Therefore,the site does not provide suitable habitat for most rare,threatened or endangered plant or animal species known to occur in Washington County,Oregon. Cultural Resources:A cultural resource survey was conducted by SWCA Environmental Consultants(SWCA)on February 26, 2015.The field survey failed to identify any cultural resources and/or sites included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The cultural survey report findings were concurred with by Oregon State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)under SHPO File 15-0209. If cultural remains are encountered during the project,all construction activities will cease and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)will be notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend subsequent courses of action. Is any of the work underway or already complete? If yes,describe. ❑Yes Q No B. Fill Volumes and Dimensions (if more than 3 impact sites, include a summary table as an attachment) Wetland t Waterbody Fill Dimensions Duration of Length Width Depth Area j Volume Material"' Name • (ft-) ` (n) (ft.) (sq.ft.or acres) (c.y.) ImpacY. Wetland A 200 200-250 1 41,149 SF 2,095 Permanent Imported fill Wetland B 200 270 1 34,745 SF 505 Permanent Imported fill Total Fill impacts Stream length(if applicable) Area(sq.ft or acres) Volume 75,894 SF 2,600 cy C. Removal Volumes and Dimensions (if more than 3 impact sites, include a summary table as an attachment) Wetland/Waterbody Removal Dimensions .Duration of Name' Length Width Depth Area Volume Impact" Materiar— (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (sq.ft.or acres) (c.y.) _ Wetland A 200 200.250 1 41,149 SF 10 Permanent Native soil Wetland B 200 270 1 34,745 SF 2,170 Permanent Native soil Stream length(if applicable) Area(sq.ft or acres) Volume Total Removal impact* _ 75,894 SF 2,180 cy If there is no official name for the wetland or waterway. create a unique name (such as -Welland 1" or -Tributary A') The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report and drawings " Indicate the days. months or years the fill or removal will remain Enter "permanent" if applicable For DSL permanent removal or fill is defined as being in place for 24 months or longer. "• Example soil. gravel. wood, concrete, pilings, rock etc. D. Construction Methods. Describe how the removal and/or fill activities will be accomplished to minimize impacts to waters and wetlands. 8 February 2016 (6) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction Access and Equipment: Construction equipment on the site will be specific to the selected contractor but will most likely include dump trucks, backhoes, graders, roller compactors, excavators, water trucks, cement trucks, paving machines, and end loaders. All necessary construction stockpiling and access will only occur in upland areas. Proposed construction staging areas and access routes are shown on attached Figure 8. Erosion Control: Erosion and sediment control measures are shown on attached Figure 8. Throughout construction best management practices will be used to minimize erosion and siltation associated with site runoff.Practicable erosion control measures such as silt fencing installed down gradient of impact areas, bio bags, straw wattles, and erosion control seeding will be used. Erosion control measures will be installed prior to the commencement of construction and will be properly maintained throughout the duration of construction. Stormwater Management Plan: Most of the site currently drains toward the southeast corner of the site with an approximate slope of 10% to 15.0%. The stormwater for the new impervious surfaces created by the project will be routed to a new stormwater facility located in Tract A in the southeast corner of the site. The proposed stormwater facility is designed to meet Clean Water Services (CWS) design criteria for detention, conveyance, and overflow. The treatment facility is designed to provide detention for the 2-year post developed stormwater event to half of the 2-year pre-developed release rate. Treatment is provided by releasing the water quality storm event over a 24-hour period. The slow release rate provides time for particulates to settle out of the stormwater runoff and into the stormwater facility prior to being released.Slopes on the facility will be no steeper than 3:1. Beyond the top of the pond,the ground will slope at 2:1, and daylight at existing ground surface or a retaining wall will be installed. Stormwater will discharge from the stormwater facility into the existing catch basin near the southeast corner of the site. The low impact development (LID) method for the project includes the vegetated extended dry detention basin (pond). The detention pond will be densely vegetated with native woody and emergent vegetation species in accordance with CWS design standards and will effectively treat the area's pollutants of concern (phosphorus and bacteria). The stormwater management plan is shown on attached Figure 8. Estimated project start date Estimated project completion date. July 2016 September 2017 Number of drawings included with this application: 11 (7) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Are there any state or federally listed species on the project site? El Yes p No ❑Unknown Is the project site within designated or proposed critical habitat? ❑Yes p No El Unknown Is the project site within a national Wild and Scenic River? 0 Yes a No ❑Unknown Is the project site within the 100-year floodplain? ❑Yes E No ❑Unknown •If yes to any of the above, explain in Block 4 and describe measures to minimize adverse effects to these resources in Block 5. Is the project site within the Territorial Sea Plan (TSP) Area? ❑Yes ❑No 0 Unknown If yes, attach TSP review as a separate document for DSL. Is the project site within a designated Marine Reserve? ❑Yes p No ❑Unknown •If yes,certain additional DSL restrictions will apply. Will the overall project involve construction dewatering or one acre171 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown or more of ground disturbance? •H yes,you may need a 1200-C permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEG) Is the fill or dredged material a carrier of contaminants from on-site ❑Yes 0 No Unknown or off- site spills? 9 February 2016 (7) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Has the fill or dredged material been physically and/or chemically ❑YesID No ❑Unknown tested? "If yes,explain in Block 4 and provide references to any physicallchemical testing report(s). Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on E Yes Q No 0 Unknown the project area? `if yes,provide a copy of the survey with this application. Do not describe any resources in this document. Identify any other federal agency that is funding, authorizing or implementing the project. Agency Name Contact Name Phone Number Most Recent Date of Contact L s�t other certificates or approvals/denials required or received from other federal, state or local agencies for work described in this application. For example, certain activities that require a Corps permit also require 401 Water Quality Certification from Oregon DEQ. Approving Agency Certificate/approval/denial description Date Applied Clean Water Services Service Provider letter October 24, 2014 Other DSL and/or Corps Actions Associated with this Site (Check all that apply.) ❑Work proposed on or over lands owned by or leased from the Corps 0 State owned waterway DSL Waterway Lease# 0 Other Corps or DSL Permits Corps# DSL # 0 Violation for Unauthorized Activity Corps# DSL # CI Wetland and Waters Delineation Corps# DSL# OA wetland /waters delineation has been completed (if so, provide a copy with the application) CI The Corps has approved the wetland /waters delineation within the last 5 years DSL has approved the wetland /waters delineation within the last 5 years (8) IMPACTS, RESTORATION/REHABILITATION, COMPENSATORY MITIGATION A. Describe unavoidable environmental impacts that are likely to result from the proposed project. Include permanent and temporary and direct and indirect impacts. The project results in 1.74 acres of permanent fill to PEM wetlands B. For temporary removal or fill or disturbance of vegetation in waterways, wetlands or riparian (i.e., streamside) areas, discuss how the site will be restored after construction. No temporary wetland impacts are proposed. Compensatory Mitigation _ C.Proposed mitigation approach.Check all that apply: Permittee- Permittee- Mitigation Bank or Payment to Provide ❑responsible 0 responsible Offsite p in-lieu fee 0(not approved for Onsite Mitigation mitigation program use with Corps nn►m ifcl D.Provide a brief description of mitigation approach and the rationale for choosing that approach. If you believe mitigation should not be required, explain why. 10 February 2016 (8) IMPACTS, RESTORATION /REHABILITATION, COMPENSATORY MITIGATION j, 7 J�Lo --'D 1.-7 it 44Z. To compensate for the 1:4.7 acres of palustrine emergent wetland impacts, the applicant will purchase7.:4,7 credits from the Tualatin Valley Environmental Bank, which offers mitigation for the same Cowardin class as the impacted wetlands. Purchase of mitigation bank credits will meet DSL's principal objectives as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 141 - 085 -0680 (2), as described below. Development is maximized on site; therefore, there are no options for on -site mitigation opportunity. In -Kind Replacement of Lost Functions and Values Wetland mitigation will be in -kind with respect to Cowardin classification. The impacted wetlands are categorized as palustrine emergent wetlands in the Slope /Flats class. The Tualatin Valley Environmental Bank contains wetlands in the Slope / Flats HGM class, as well as wetlands in the emergent Cowardin class. Local Replacement for Locally Important Functions and Values Wetland mitigation will be conducted in proximity to the impacted wetlands. The impacted wetlands and proposed mitigation bank are both located in the Fanno Creek- Tualatin River 6th field HUC (170900100502). The mitigation bank site provides local replacement for locally important functions and values by restoring and enhancing wetland habitats that have been disproportionately lost in the region. In addition, the wetlands proposed for impact provide low functional value to the local watershed. The mitigation site preserves high functioning wetlands. Therefore, the purchase of mitigation bank credits will more than replace the minimal wetland functions lost at the project site. Mitigation Project is Self - Sustaining and Minimizes Maintenance Needs The mitigation bank site is located appropriately in the landscape with respect to topography and natural hydrology sources. These factors ensure the mitigation is self- sustaining with minimal maintenance needs. Mitigation Project is Sited in an Ecologically Suitable Location The mitigation bank site is sited in an ecologically suitable location to meet local needs and priorities by providing replacement for locally important functions and values including water quality function, fish and wildlife habitat, native plant communities, and plant species diversity. The large size of the mitigation bank contributes to meaningful mitigation in the landscape context and provides connectivity to other habitats, while the wetlands proposed for impact are isolated features that lack connectivity to other habitats. Minimizes Temporal Loss of Wetland and Waters Functions and Values The purchase of mitigation bank credits will occur prior to project construction, which will avoid temporal loss in local functions. Mitigation Bank / In -Lieu Fee Information: Name of mitigation bank or in -lieu fee project: Tualatin Valley Environmental Bank Type of credits to be purchased: PEM If you are proposing permittee - responsible mitigation, have you prepared a compensatory mitigation plan? ❑ Yes. Submit the plan with this application and complete the remainder of this section. ❑ No. A mitigation plan will need to be submitted (for DSL, this plan is required for a complete Mitigation Location Information (Fill out only if permittee - responsible mitigation is proposed) Mitigation Site Name /Legal Mitigation Site Address Tax Lot # Description County City Latitude & Longitude (in DD.DDDD format) Township Range Section Quarter /Quarter 11 February 2016 (8) IMPACTS, RESTORATION/REHABILITATION, COMPENSATORY MITIGATION (9) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PROJECT AND MITIGATION SITE* See Attacnrncr 0 Pre-printed mailing 0 labels of adjacent property owners attached separately • Attach pre-printed labels if more than 5 adjacent properly owners I 12 February 2016 (10) CITY/COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE AFFIDAVIT (TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL PLANNING OFFICIAL) _ I have reviewed the project described in this application and have determined that: ❑This project is not regulated by the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. ®This project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations This project will be consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations when Lithe following local approval(s) are obtained ❑Conditional Use Approval ❑Development Permit ❑Other Permit (see comment section) 0 This project is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Consistency requires. ❑Plan Amendment ❑Zone Change O Other Approval or Review(see comment section) An applications ['has not been filed for local approvals checked above. Local planning official name (print) Title City/County John Floyd Planning City of Tigard Signature Date February 10,2016 Comm Project approved by Tigard Planning Commission on February 8,2016 as the Heritage Crossing Quasi- Judicial Zoning Map Amendment,Subdivision,and Special Adjustment to Street Standards (local file numbers ZON2015-00006,SUB2015-00015,and AD12015-00003). Appeal period ends February 25, 2016. For further information: 503-718-2429 or johnfl@tigard-or.gov. (11) COASTAL ZONE CERTIFICATION If the proposed activity described in your permit application is within the Oregon coastal zone, the following certification is required before your application can be processed A public notice will be issued with the certification statement, which will be forwarded to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for its concurrence or objection. For additional information on the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program, contact DLCD al 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150.. Salem, Oregon 97301 or call 503-373-0050. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that. to the best of my knowledge and belief, the proposed activity described in this application complies with the approved Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program and will be completed in a manner consistent with the program Print/Type Name Title NOT APPLICABLE Signature Date 13 February 2016 (12) SIGNATURES Appli,;,,;,on is hereby made for the activities described herein. 1 certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this information is true, complete and accurate I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. By signing This application i consent to allow Corps or DSL staff to enter into the above-described property to inspect the project location and to determine compliance with an authorization, if granted 1 hereby authorize the person identified it,the authorized agent block below to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish supplemental information in support of this pen-nit application. I understand that the granting of other permits by local, county, state or federal agencies does not release me from the requirement of obtaining the permits requested before commencing the prniect I understand that payment of the required state processing fig does not guarantee permit issuance. To be considered complete, the fee must accompany the application to DSL. The fee is not required for submittal of an application to the Corps. Fee Amount Enclosed r $876 - $843 paid 01!09/2015 - $33 remaining balance due Applicant Signature Print Name Title Date }f —Ib is►uthorized Agent Slgnatur - '` Print Name Title `~ Stacey Reed Wetland Scientist Signature Date JIG Tin-downer Signature s) Landowner of the Project Site(if different from applicant) Print Name Title Signature —Date Landowner of the Mitigation Site (if different from applicant) _ _ ;7at.r_• Print Name Title Signature Date Department of State Lands, Property Manager (to be completed by DSL) _if the project is located on state-owned s+thmerged and submersible lands, DSL staff will obtain a signature from the Land Management Division of DSL A signature by DSL for activities proposed on state-owned submerged/submersible lands only grants the applicant consent to apply for a removal-fill permit A signature for activities on slate-owned submerged and submersible lands grants no other authority, express or implied and a separate proprietary authorization may be required, - Print Name Title Signature Date 14 February 2016 INCUMBENCY CERTIFICATE v.1- e �"JU4�,�-t tied -,A • (entity name as recorded with the Secretary of State, Oregon) do hereby certify that: 1. I am the duly -lected and acting Tr(,)0_,Q_ t�� (position) of a.,‘}W ,iOfl.L44.,es"`(entity name as recorded with the Secretary of State, Oregon), a Lv,rpo,r-cl 4✓1 (entity type) organized and existing in good standing under the laws of the State of Oregon (the "Entity"). 2. I certify that I have the authority to submit, on behalf of the Entity, this application for a permit to conduct removal fill within waters of the state (as evidenced by my signature on the application) and to commit the Entity to comply with all resulting permit conditions, including any mitigation obligations, resulting from the issuance of the permit. 4-1 Witness, my signature of the Entity this `-I day of r‘Ac,r(.k, 20 t-S _ _ Signature Name: 2r.Lt Title: (13) ATTACHMENTS [J Drawings (items in bold are required) El Location map with roads identified U.S.G.S topographic map EJ Tax lot map El Site plan(s) 0 Cross section drawing(s) El Recent aerial photo El Project photos ❑Erosion and Pollution Control Plan(s), if applicable O DSL/Corps Wetland Concurrence letter and map. if approved and applicable El Pre-printed lables for adjacent property owners (if more than 5) ❑ Restoration plan or rehabilitation plan for temporary impacts ❑Mitigation plan CI Wetland functional assessment and/or stream functional assessment p Alternatives analysis ❑ Biological assessment (if requested by Corps project manager during pre-application coordination.) Stormwater management plan E l Other Send Completed form to: Send Completed form to: U.S. Army Corps of Counties: DSL -West of the Cascades: Engineers Baker, Clackamas, ATTN: CENWP-OD-GP Clatsop, Columbia, Department of State Lands PO Box 2946 Gilliam, Grant, Hood 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97208-2946 River, Jefferson, Lincoln, Salem, OR 97301-1279 Phone: 503-808.4373 Malheur, Marion, Morrow, Phone: 503-986-5200 Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, OR Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, Washington, Wheeler, DSL - East of the Cascades: Yamhill Department of State Lands OR 1645 NE Forbes Road, Suite 112 Bend, Oregon 97701 U.S. Army Corps of Counties: Phone: 541-388-6112 Engineers Benton, Coos, Crook, ATTN: CENWP-OD-GE Curry, Deschutes, Send all Fees to: 1600 Executive Parkway Douglas Jackson. Department of State Lands Suite 210 Josephine, Harney, 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 Eugene, OR 97401-2156 Klamath, Lake, Lane, Salem, OR 97301-1279 Phone: 541-465-6868 Linn Pay by Credit Card by Calling 503-986-5253 15 February 2016 rs`— Jr / ,. �'� Jl www r s - .4 1 u __ 1 i 1. 13' 1 C, •'� Mira. r VIr- 'IL'- . •`'�;, * � Jiti Maki L. 1 41. l' , -.A, j 4 . . ''..,. ) 'WOr kj it ..4' ' 41, NIIII . �Ak .. 1111 \ . , ,__ . do hmyz len r] t. ., — � + ;I ' - lip • t�l • at .w P a .,Cy1` 111131- r , - ti ' • k --il '. - " ;'7 i.. - I 4 t II ;1 Pdig :Nit 7---44-:' -.'"-fil . dogi' 'il: 'N1:7%'---- ------------.7- --------t1WIC-----71"1.-4U'ruf.' .• ,,,• tit __ 1 1' 'IV)! : Pi; ,it- l. ,si sdierki1.11.- Aim?'red 1-)4:_ (e'l' . . . . I 1 II' • ' 4 • PRO.ECT 911 t y f �, 0'4', 01 ,- `a. ' '' w $+-,Lp,�p` �''► W----.L!,i, ' 2:_pre,ail',-. - -" I iatilli Oirj --- --4 ____—,,----lc:' - - 411Org ,6 1 -j gt441(4 tf ,z, alar !iM L� r ` 41.7R4... 040"-,+� `•, lir era,* py-1t_ - f' ___... illp__ p i 3', lam" '—*.-. g6-1 ►" Je' L'/' F_^ ' ' 4f0 • _ ` a �f* h` 'City• n,;nwc mewuo oR. - a 1 6;,ifii w• r �, f\ • t, . .. _ . ----,..! �//��,rreity Y Kea cam` f O J I• r. 1-- r•RJ _ 'ibi �� hi. l3 1 1 ,. sI.-wI,twoo ._ i` ` b ... il,wlatf Rte• I A ....,_., .h _ U �, , , ..ril,_ -, v ;it ,..}� Q s i - ;,, V1�(l __ . . Si 1.J'Imienlii .110 ---,.40 Ils-4101 .11.... . • . i 11 k'c‘ \ .4 '. * W 44° a J` COWL/WIN 41 ti_ _...... 1,74".4'744,- ,.- 411 bot, J I:LI i V. 1.--,,,d A .7. • L 4.,....._ y , 1 110 ,.._..-- --R , —, ,,fow.. L„-...4,,,;,--- cm.,_..) . . :, r -\_.y i I P „N t .,c, r . r L t r 4.,' ll ...-e L.i.i.,,,,----,_f . , _.. ..,....4 ..a.,. . ,..,,,,,, _ ,, _. PROJECT SITE FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP DATE: 12-04-2014 HERITAGE CROSSING -NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SCALE 1" = 2000 FEET DRAWN Br: DS CHECKED BY:PAS DWG:3876 SITE MAPS aloe: 3876 • AKS ENGINEERING & FORESTRY, LLC AMSC ■ in 12965 SW HERMAN RD SUITE 100 2000 0 800120016002000 TUALATIN. OR 97062 www.aks-eng.com PHONE: 503.563,6151 FAX: 503.563.6152 tt�r M ..�A -'�•1.. •{ 41• ¢ t e 3 ' z..„--c, 1. •'os`.., i. r,:fe.,-- 1'r .0 , nM• 1 R e] t 1 99 WESTLUND CT•-gm.- a•.• •+ GJ •°" . w• .. . 144, • 1 r« • rg : ? (.7:4:344.' -••r• n'".‘ _ ?� • �,s ! 37 6.1w„rt �" el 34 •. 'Iw` 1 ow e, .,,,4 allii ! j.,, :,yx + 0.NN -• 6 • JON di • '. • it % RI >i : 3. f' 25 E' 3e l .3.„ • •- " of 2f E, >�«w =, = r a .�.;We•! rsr,,s . V. e ,. I 1 f0 e7 f0 ;1 II 02 rim T t-711 p1• �r« . O.I. r+•. '••- • -• 1 • • j, r 3 • f t� .. • rr r.1 4. I,iii 11}:�• �•M. •�•7 v. • •.w w�. �1•� . �'7; • �w SATTLER ' STREET11 'r a r tom El tom 7 1'0000 arm•t.. .. • w.l • •.• ` q- 1-1212--. h- •• I,� •••,-••, .,•"«.• .ir _lair ..•. .� (t1 C I, K t >. 1, f2 n N vw { •,1 s 5000 •,f9 800 1 649 ,cu•,r -W ;-•,y eoa -1212-', i'3C•", T N 11 +7 % i N 1 ] e › 4 t foo 3000 : 2,00 '� �4•rte rw-• nw-• ns • .•..s..it �' ;r.. , w 4,, ] x41 Q + e 1 ri H 2 yo0 ♦ tp . �•: f`+ • ,.N� ye nr • ,rw • r• S• ..rY • *see w. r.'4 27 VAR a "- SW LANE •'=" s� «, CORTLAND 1 a �t. BRAEBURN ' LANE o • - ...1 :'x• Nr• YY • rw Yi r •" 3 N rt •" • `•w 'U...•._1 1,• a t a.m 1 IfW I. f1oD 6310 • .,a, awry « ".., r•iw • •.- • r- Yr •ww 1�1 I. ! v 1 ►9 I f, t' ft Nle�li W ••7 -1+600 •4 F r 4P6653 ;'• R•., 7: 7 NJ- d ? ? L 9 7 D ' am a /1 m i •SK + .i.„11,2 ♦ N. 67r .,« 1« ; ~ _ y is W C• am +j� ,Rm 2 O • Ie t 7 2• ° RUSE i� 7."' Ale I 4.90 : 4110 t WOO 'fn0 r 1, '991- • 1u¢ ! 5 r .v0 i �CKx- O '$ • r.. pr H -^a ! Q _ ♦f : t 61 i e7 t ea I. se 71 t - •70f • e- ! M P A R .l . O r 11 t �'� 31m ergo • •'•1 1 ♦.. ww • •,a< Y.. ., 4• fl leOD E .. H. ,. �' t e 2, 33. , W 3 • .4 _ i e0 3t ` Q'.;•zr -- t` u j7.._,y ,.•, W.,.• ma • Yr a tir •w••. F•� . "'70 SW GRAVENSTEIN LN 0 ; 1 LODI a LANE = 7. {• will' A 1 • 431.._ ...12 I eae]! t 24 t„ 1 31 n :! .0 t, 39 X1+00 '4" •i2 t Q''.'-,13 ,144 '20 • -, .. z , - 10 �.-j s� " �..• .y.I7e ,6� 1 •l r • .:'• , rna r 71 Y ri $$ t • Na '� 70f 3000 ! Cr t 15�� r' 66"70 1000 6900 ',e0 6300 Wm t 31.00 r ''b-ei- •- I. U • - s!.1 s + rr a lea, • a`L�e / 1]A 71`P L►sE O1.D 05=9u ■ N•4 •t'*14 3 Mt twos 300 = . 21 a Y4 .f for 6] 3 r • ••r. • • •rl ♦ • um * • •:. • 11*. • lux •1• .f r •„^I - NM . � •�i: ._� 1M ] Sw 1• 2 - BELLFLOWER t _ STREET I .�• "="' •.Y N.- ..� •• ..: • -- • ur ♦ rL I «r .. •.. 1,- • 4• • •a.,. }1, •• n- ' - t • r jfir-r •t :000 7601 • .. •.r • rw ln.• i•_ t -v 0 7. •6f .M .JOD nw C :900 r 36669 n•40 7 ,t iw' •I I •a•ap •..x, 7fU0 �••�~ ]700 1 * w r M 3 17 H: r.,: •1z RC 16 1 I >. t. = 3? �,� •'if^'+•'#il-•-6!3.31`+'41.•-1111 1..., .._.• 3;,111-' - r 17140 el U100Rl t„emt ,Iwo 11 3 I1100t ,1Jmt 1+500 R w e 23-74 �3 / ,••, _ �t•e t n• I r 1 e M t la 1 /a W NI GJ { P1' .n• Yr ♦ -w I-w 4 r} • - • nay `uw• • ,+ • " + SW PIPPEN Y LANE _' CaCV 46:60 161ti' 1 .«• -- • ••- • jeer ' w • Ye. • at et •alio;"4 W • -. Q 7 si! 1-.070 r t w R ,•a R ,smo 11 I R it** r• a 1aoc ; n-SI Y' •f} Z 133 13 f 11frj I• n �}rr ' • 0 v t r',5611•r•-• •artr- r •,41 , r `•►300 Aloft r R"•;y0 t, 1e, I •s7 t le] 1 114 1' 166 I .1e I 167. W ¢ t» • ., -.--- . el a> • .r. N« E • C • u« • u• rr• •.•w ', S% SW ASHFORD STREET 1.• K •rn• «a -r • •.., Y- • P. • -j• • •r••✓.• W 9 L "' ; •.•••e arf 1 .n00 4600 t _ 100 .am �'f�f{'• •ri��rr it • INT .r1J«� • err, • pi. I. 3 .37 •••m t 7500 t- 4 f'"+700 e .^0� lam0 1 • - (f�• t' V7 t. 111 I Cr111 1 170 3 71 t 173 [ 73• : 31•-ea 1w� • •I- • -r Yr • u. 4. -- a Y- '+• IP; r134• SW GREENING LANE7R •.1•04Nw1 • • .' PROJECT 91E s 4 11 112800 a 1740 3 ,3700 r 1'16r 6- •.•s• .a10 t • e t tt ~ r=R• i'Ir I t 121 t� 121 I 130 8 131 7 117 1 133 a '4100 035 0 a I• ri 11]• .••N 44.•t ? u�rtxYr+ yyw- M• . re �I w • a.m. �1 r. -�i2 �3 �� Sr n .r 1 w •i .fw r 36rw a r•w 'is- 10.•w- Ww ; re w•.w tl :7 Ti a #I 36 ;' `� jco r 3• a i 31 if .,. y as s • at • r.. Ery ,I •... ser w..l a ' SW . NN • • ,',,1 • t 444..r - ma, 23w ! :.T ' HAMLET :'t,• HAMLET CT ti k :�i,i 30 • •-�V•t] ,s„,• •11.01 w�••,w R �ii'Y t I •s `�a 1' :is 27 1 •1 ui, 4 WA �•. t• e .. r grA w 1 % b •� it 3J a ', I. ,2 \•r3 • • :- I!- 1 1 11 47 1 4447 1.3.1 » r.yR LNN-�"'-.�WI_ �- � X63- 2e - • .u.i. ♦ �s d'a• a n',•x.•.1. - ?8i�i r�ol�6 t •1 ..-1r... r- 7 - f4 Z a % r; )10 .diliktf :44 ill - . ' 4.4 ...1 , , '. Y‘ 164 4104 ' 40 41.-*--iirwpri.-40 " 4 '4 ..j,..' - . . 4„.-70,iii_ 1,110MO. , 2 41inelinSist..... ' . ,45,1 i --. 0%4 ',...-11.--' rh Iv 7,11. 141- iiir :64e. . 40170 10714Littizi -0474w11 - - 1 ' i ilbj0 .• I -,' Itri-1) :. VP, •-•$ lij 1 . �� '1 ►r 1 0 111 I, 1 , 1 1 IrI.—lo • . I . �' I+I - • PROJECT SITE w . J , i i 6 44.1.1: i' . . r-- . t. i r r3'l • 4 it.11W' eli4 : .. t :'? l `. . -_. see. . . ii -I- --FT,.. :r 1. , ` .4rivraos 1 . . .1 ....).1 , . .•..., ..,.. . 1 , ....._! ,_ , . . ,,,_: , 1 -- 10% ti -.„ wig MINI � r NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY 2014 I PROJECT SITE FIGURE 3: RECENT AERIAL PHOTO DATE: 12-04-2014 HERITAGE CROSSING SCALE 1" = 150 FEET DRAM BY DS CHECKED er PAS D :3876 SITE MAPS X 6: 3876 ■ inAKS ENGINEERING FORESTRY, LLC ■ ■ 12965 SW HERMAN RD SUITE 100 1 50 0 BO 90 120 150 TUALATIN, OR 97062 www.aks-eng.corn PHONE: 503.563.6151 FAX: 503.563.6152 WS_ v coo rz] 5 N o 2 c# a beirel —4346T) a U "" rt cnN l 11 I Q o gig — — ,., ,c4oQ :r Q D OA18 11VH MS o 6 o r U w u c0 � W . 35fpN f ® 1. b:, a ° Xz=e ccsj 77N' I • >U-/ .3. Q C5 z`j7 �� , j m W`n4; c. / " x c7 w cr 3 v.g 5 28 a \ I A ti = , .:i c, a I CN C3 ` L----\ s9 el o e1 �; i •�11 \ 1R) x S Ig p 14 `I 8 1 O EA/— \ '� X B I :::81,4 VS\ L.:( \ • 'I- ,_0 , ,- . 3 Q IO .9• a . ~ 4 a * 2,818 'l x d�.� crj <�' E 1 I- x J P= Y \ os g .er--.- ' r • 7S 521 12, �L D *` r .-.-KI / L Imo . �� _..1 )51 ---., r �.195J O x§/P ! t"-- � `/ tri¢ I 8 \ 1 / N 2,411 W 1 $13 J . Oli `�'-�c° a �8 _8 I J W c • JN W CO�g1.4gCli -"fi8iP -•-- ><175v- '00e_ - � � �8 2, a 85� � �� - - — ^ a 4 oto 33bad31- - N 31:1IdW3 MS 1 E. Gri.j $ i ; CflN I ,- hd� o N v) — ----=:=7;:=F-- — _ _‘I.; ci lig . .. --- - - Q — ,._ „._ 0A1811VH MS W 8 N 1 8 a 1 1,, • ,,, , .. . w >_. 0 in 0 ca w ii CC cn ; ._YJ w do Is o a o 4 1'1 J N N wj , -� - _ ` mo \5 3 - p �' N In 41/1 . t -' ... w Z o) -, ' '.) CC m z 12-i/"4-- rr— . _ . ‘ 1i2:,I i0 t n r lji = 1+1,� <s �9R1.4 r„,,,.4., i 1,i C" Q Cf- 1 . 1 Ir_ i i4,-, IMN • I- ‘- 4 I %c .q– r �Fi o 40 I. 1 1 i o JgAl3 1 2817 te3i x�2- al il 1 �►Al1 I r- .� ► I N a8I. 1 Ifl_.• S' 1 F+ y,c* ta xiii„..... .9.:..:�. �� ._ � SL+Z I 1 8 711. 77 i 1 Q ��_j'j loS2 b 1 cf,- P ,n � / 'MI .78-. lib x , , ! ..._. _ Iii o c2iog i ei . " o > cr ,_ 1 , ‘.. • . on el O WIC '° O H �81P 1 L.J.LW x itt •41 Ir/1– :1F �QQqQ1- ° A m N<(D3 OI a. ~ T I2OC X g n :E2-,818 I 881e o la tesla osta a5�16 c' og�� 8g xQ' r JAS _ •tp J0,- 8 o 2,-80 30V883.1. ` 3JIdW3 MS ) 1 co La n o °O N I co he N v N Q —. cZ cou (--) W Q Q .4 IIIIIC .} N O Q u II II zo E. p Wa CC Q O N LQ [L] L� Z ~ 00 Q W Q 743 I Q SW w ~ U M O+ �_, ¢ CO m CO CO cD U Q W j Z Q W Z =LAJ W Q rn J A Y O O O C 0 = J o trim o �„ O 0 V }- c # JOa II II Z H II N u K 3 it w � p U r � ORcn U ._ ...... .<.< tn • u,' u) x ¢ v� m W a `-` W � C7 a w Li- S f- err 6 ' � � cc cc J � C.- m � a V 0 0 Cn = W6 V) == 7 6 u) g •13 m ,ND S I- CA Zz O Jv �O C�3 CC z� rn � a 2 ' U � cn � ci) c9 Vo a= V N, w Q c� z to v) 3 ,n a Qcr C) Q j H- m w,r) ¢ 1'' 0 W Y N Q O 0 0 o w = i a' c± a rn o0 00'961 0 I OS6l i a o Oco 6£'961 - ZS'Ssl I I'M8 461 N YY13 ONV113dl 116:661,1 1 Zl'961 F N 1 8 461 N - a 06'961. :II 6S'96l llrill ONV11314 Fi,, O S61L-461 gt 1l8 961 o I 90'L61 g a s L.461 ,: 1 V176l N v I 6L'96l 1 09'961 6461 ' o S1761.30%1210 HSINI3 £Z'96l _ $ I 30V HSINLA 96'961 p 30Vd0 ONIISIX3 8461 ± �� 1 30Va9 ONIlSIX3 9'ti6L ± v o Z6'S6l N c9'961 O*61 91761 50'9fi l 91761. 6Z.96 g I �8 6ti61 -c+-) � o O'S61 ± Z.17.96 w 88'561 1 S61 1 1'561 f 1IhIl0NY113M £L'961 o Zi'S61 g Z S6l o 1i1fl ONVl13M_ 1'561 o —I 40'L61 I 9 561 j 4'561 _ — 2Z161o o 0 0 co' 1961 o I o c L'S6l `O C) t0 C) aD Up N- 00 vi } I g¢��• r U o O 'S ,17 •U he I� ) O N o Z M in N O WQ II II II z I a () ji p C�) Z C) Z wm * a awU �' w W w � = o cc co c � M > O co • v o� 8 ¢ Ez II II 7 0 - O w > o O T to 0 s Cl' Ln W Q = 0 r I- Q J W (f) N 7 Z V ; W L� M CC a ~ it V1 LLJ el U O O (n S W Z t 0 a a < N m L. O icy v E N � M �J Z Z 33 I o OZ cc W zmrnc�p a X41 UD 0 W V re ifs a 3 Q I 0 0 * r~ 0 o z_ • � to w W4 C, Z O Q CC Uj CC ~ m w C w 0 0 CD LnO o _ v,a, Q 6 Z (� L1J J o - - h L9'061 N U .11 .11 ON L _ i C � a W II1"lll ONd113M L'061 ( N q — 98061 g v) W g 9 17.-:?.1 r-, (I7 w O J C) _ ' OZ'991 t DC f U a vr r 81 v, OZ'98l a � - OZ'991 0 669L g ao, coo OZ'991 — — l I 1061 g 11N111 ONbl13M S r OZ'9Bl '— –'— 9!`'991 ! 3 S'061 L.061 30Yfl HSINU OZ'99l 5 o OZ'991 6 30V80NI1SIx3 6'061 ± o i. 6 0061 + OZ'9Bl w 3 0Z'991 kp o • 1'161 I 9.061 90'L91 g _ 30M219 HSINL 11'691 g z 161 JOWL ONIISIX3 L061 + 91'161 6('161 0.161 `L- z =r- 9'061 9$' 151 ISF 61 0 9'161 o v, 0 0161 0 11YYIl ONbll3M _ L1Z61 •.—,/, I I10NV113M 01761 Z6 l' l 0.161 I 1 LS'Z61 g1 j I I 06'Z61 0 E o o inZ61 0 0 0 0 ,n 9.161 + 05ap n O 01oo r- N - •- .- N .- W $ ep I he Cif N o Yk, o Q N J cn az __z_._)i cii(7) lig - - 111111111 s -- -10 II o -RV!— i .. +119 i -� —pus -- -— QA�B lIVIN MS W U 8 g — - - - _ - - - - -- - - O W . — ,� i'` 000 � „Inginimmigessi _./i,� �, zA � °tom ' z W ig > - e2 g ... 1 elvi PIiIJI1iilI se1 -- --711 HibjiE i s-Thl '` 3 zS f' 4rr iIst $ it [;::; ilD, _ -rm °_ ° O 1' firm:2,IO dr � A1C I � � e gni '4.V., I 3d1 1! 11° '° J 1 ♦ 600 411!'.. III e _ • l §§1§ 1 .” /pO1o A 1 � i • _1 !! �� IWIR i 0 r I I: ( : 7 J §g gmom Ili -.q1a I yJ� S x : la.1 (.......• }Li ISO= I '-- 001 J W� J 8 1 _ W ° , II ,5—qIJacs ° �: CO COU-1 41 19-.J81? � x��iC CA 1 s §814 !!I! P „ i a o ho S81.4 SOP. I • %w73 to °` _ _ d_ ` 5 ,� I 30V1:11:131 cn10 31:1Id113 MS1 - - M u) — —J w 8 `...ew $ N w O o 2 he cl 2 > gic V- II c c z .- W H ° oF c-4 1 \ dmil1..-It--,---.---4 Q ~ a _ c� �- OAlS 11VH MS rn -1 Y "p' N g }: v Iti 0 0 0 3e a _,-----4W . 3 L. s% 0 m o 1 I o 43°CN�' r4- N Q ,/ E 8 C,.. �n 1 (D W z '�' o lam- .r - N , .../7- ., i�, _ I `�i og 6 m --/ w �N Z CC CC m z , Ci � / _ 4 LL NRS .; 54.- - J / LIZ 0810 EL 'f),§1:4 / N p N a � I '§81,4 .&i Lc\ f -4 1 O J •3f1N3AV ° M nom' i t� F" ` _f �\ 000M3lddV MS ° II �� i� i� 4 N �C1D Q 8F C r Cl ecu*-iR 1_�z t.ir,.. - -..., = W r/ Z LL, W \ Q L to ` O W a % a % ICE81 V V YXN \sli 1 � W � d el- -t — a — cc 5 a4 3 ✓ CO Oo 0 o � lo8%a° a a a Q � CO ° N. a s m z 30 la0 ` zZ za ee wee Xg10 0800 xg1= o81a c3§10 „ ' +1 oc. I I ��F4 ate► r--A ` .-� _ , IV `^ 4�/ 08 0 r t ` `^~K E-1 8 1.0 4/ ;a -. hew N N S ujZII o INCC - US J p oa ►- O . - 92113251 4 Z J 5 E N O i ,- 4 r-- Cr x o O d A 0A19 11VH MS ,,� r L Q m o paC N t() CC g N 1A (-Dr•-• „� C. 1 ,_-co -� '. I N / �� o x_ .s \�P ) os L a m �N � W 1 N o T I U.' c0 i o 6 cc coN ] N aN J I— S'-S. 14 w / w J / r $ le N <+0- �j N o t F-: t 111 LL _J 1 C 2 N Lil ~. - Q 3f1N3AV o 'A' X _� 000M31ddV MS o II a II II ? 1 C•1 Q L 1 N R �� T— S 1— Q \ 8`� r N i . 0 o8Ia �, �. 0 s — - o Cl I�� la ,a i = W L w 4 I-l L f c) o OW~C og*$ \WSJA �I I / N ° J �0 , 13-W - CC �� ` ' � J cr, co R 4 Xao W o p O D JI<to._4 _ I W o 4 Z CO Z _ c zp W cm ZZ W gO 1. ° N i aw 4 w d N • 'z- o - -- 1- 00 CI mt LLQ 0 d 3 a �/�n'ti-� —_� - j p�U _ J -13/= o$ DOO10 d8'o SW liVN. !,� ~p gg. p sou p$ g I �ao"44� a - -1; QO-1SO Q� - , 1 < PIC Z:71%'i 5. 34- \ r' .. ~ W g � co) cc 5 it GW $ c j °.. F18 O N heC-) io 3 c I. W ec N u o i � o cc ;-4 W W J I i _ _ j) , ...... p g N i ( ` , u ip Z to W i )--0 XR ul 0 c) v) as UJ 2 W Li )0000 -- -- R� -- O Q m L�a -- / i---- 8 F- o cr c.l uI g — — — — — 0 r / — _. .-. — — — � W " Com, iv n- cc 0 ��(, �� _ t Z3 Cr' CC I-t4 a) O r W N C') d' 11) (O r W Lo I� Cp r r I NQ Ir r r r r T , _ 5 Q J I Q v LIJ m i,, z _ U tai D ; W u< ZW I41 3 cn J- 1r r�'cc y C, LPI Ori 4 Q /081.§ , , O �+a - LLr � d 4 1 l F—a S Of 1 I v at Tr V � I � L 1 I CO o l 1 r - o I I r O Of _ CO N (0 1A I I CC \ I I I� et ch M el i c" I 1 r-- T' g # 1— — — f ' N r--- C) 3NV14w 000M31ddV MS i I n u " II — — I I N sw ,-- 1 I $ -)) 9 1 a 1 0 I ` JI I a I Q 1--- Z W 4 QWI Q r ul i 4 ..ic 3 w FE 1 ,.. / a 0 0 Dom— i oJlo$ _ - - - - - - a u. Ali Callii•• . al 0 7. ..cii ..„ o1�g NM O = iff----\---5 \N. -lcaCNIN- c .4. I 1 � N N Iii -. ..,43-. ..,43 N I 6- I 'a �81 �g � ogao , J o10 omoog _ 0 M [wnwNre•Fnw � ATTACHMENT A City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation Report 114 City of Tigard Population and Housing Review Agenda TIGARD MEETING DATE: Thursday, October 18, 3:00-5:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: TVFR Fire Station 50 Community Room 12617 SW Walnut Street,Tigard 97223 1. (Info) Welcome and Agenda Review 3:00-3:15 PM 2. (Action) Consider Minutes 3:15-3:25 3. (Info) Tasks 1 and 2 Final Report 3:25-3:35 / Matt Hastie/ 4. (Discussion) Tasks 3 and 4 Draft Report 3:354:41 /Matt Hastie and Marissa Daniels/ • See discussion guide on reverse, items in bold represent city priorities. 5. (Info) Next Steps 4:45-5.00 /Marissa Daniels/ Next Meeting: • December 13, 2012 COMBINED CAC/TAC AGENDA— October 18, 2012 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 Population and Housing Review I Discussion Guide October 18,2012 Meeting I lousing Needs and Capacity Requirements 1. Finding: Overall, the City has adequate capacity to meet future housing needs and it generally has zoned land in a way that provides opportunities for a mix of housing types, densities and price ranges. 2. Reminder Areas recently brought into the UGB will need to meet regional density and housing mix requirements (i.e.,average net density of 10 units per acre). Fair Ilousing Act Issues 1. Should the City include additional policies in its Comprehensive Plan related to the Fair Housing Act,including policy language related to ensuring that people covered by the act have good access to high quality public facilities and services (schools,libraries,parks, transit and commercial and retail services)? 2. Should the City consider encouraging or requiring additional design features in the construction of new residential units to ensure accessibility for people with physical or mobility limitations (including older residents)? Code Questions Related to Specific Housing Types 1. Should the City consider adopting specific standards for single-family attached housing that would be applied in other parts of the city (e.g.,in mixed use,medium and high density residential zones),rather than just in the Downtown area? 2. Should the City consider reducing the minimum lot size for duplexes in the medium density residential zone? 3. Should the City consider adopting new standards for cottage cluster and other newer or non-traditional types of housing,including as a form of infill housing in single family and/or multi-family zones? 4. Should the City consider adopting new development standards for live/work units,particularly for application in commercial or mixed use zones? Zoning for Housing in the Tigard Triangle and Washington Square Areas I. It the community vision for these areas includes more residential use in them, should the City adopt policies or standards that require a certain amount of residential development in these areas? If so,which of the following two approaches might be preferable: a. Requiring that each individual development incorporate a certain percentage of residential use (either as part of a vertical or horizontal mixed use development). b. Rezoning specific portions of these areas for residential use. Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs 1. Should the City consider revising standards for these units, such as the following types of changes? a. Do not require the ADU to be attached to the primary unit. b. Do not require additional off-street parking for the ADU. c. Require that building materials and facade features for the ADU be similar to the primary unit. Density Bonuses 1. Do we think there would be a public benefit associated with providing density or height bonuses to meet specific community goals (e.g.,use of solar energy,provision of affordable housing, etc.)? 2. Do we think there is a market for density bonuses in Tigard,given current allowed densities and heights in the City's residential and mixed use zones? Parking Requirements I. Should the City allow for on-street parking to be applied to meeting requirements for provision of off-street parking? 2. Should the City consider reducing off-street parking requirements for multi-family and group housing? Residential In61] Standards (note that this topic is related to some of the above questions) I. Are new standards for infill development (particularly smaller-scale or non-traditional projects) needed as an alternative to existing Planned Development and multi-family housing standards? COMBINED CAC/TAC AGENDA— October 18, 2012 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Bhd.,Tigard,()R 97223 I 503-639-417l ( www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 1 City of Tigard Population and Housing Review I Minutes TIGARD MEETING DATE: Wednesday,July 18, 3:00-5:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Library, Second Floor Conference Room (Located on east side of building) 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions— Marissa Daniels The meeting was called to order at 3:04 p.m. Attendees introduced themselves. Present at the meeting were: Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard (project manager) Justin Wood, Home Builders Association of Metro Portland Kimberly Armstrong, Washington County Department of Housing Services Steven Kelley,Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation Gerry Uba, Metro Regional Government Darren Wyss, City of Tigard Ramsey Weit,Community Housing Fund Chris Wiley, City of Tigard (meeting secretary) Gordon Howard, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Anne Debbaut, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Tom McGuire, City of Tigard Tom Anderson, Tigard Planning Commission Brendan Buckley,Johnson Reid (consultant team) Matt Hastie, Angelo Planning Group (consultant team) Carolyn Reid, Angelo Planning Group (consultant team) 2. Process Overview—;Marissa Daniels and Mart Hastie a. The project schedule was distributed (Attachment 1). The project team is starting on Tasks 3 and 4. Information will go out to the committee before the mid- September meeting. Work from Tasks 1-4 will be rolled into Task 5. b. The group will meet four times during the process,including today's meeting. c. Group members can share materials with other agencies. d. There is a citizen involvement plan for this project. e. Project information will be posted to Tigard's city website. COMBINED CAC/TAC MINUTES—July 18, 2012 Cin-of Tigard I 13125 SW I fall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 ( 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 3 3. Roles and Responsibilities - Marissa Daniels a. Meeting protocols were reviewed. b. Committee members will be sent the link to the project website. The role of the advisory committee is posted there as well. 4. Tasks 1 and 2 - Matt Hastie and Brendan Buckley (Attachment 2) • Housing report on demographic conditions, population projection, existing and anticipated housing trends and needs • Compliance report analyzing the city's buildable lands and compliance with state policies a. Current housing needs and supply match up pretty well. b. Committee members asked if information on regulated affordable housing that has been put out by Metro within the last six months could be included. Kimberly Armstrong said she could provide information on the number of Section 8 households and Section 8 wait list numbers for'Tigard. Ramsey Weir suggested the vacancy rate for rentals be separated out from home ownership. c. This is a capacity analysis; looking at maximum densities. The city has a couple of mixed use zones such as downtown and the Tigard triangle. For purposes of this analysis, they were not included. d. The city has the capacity to meet the 10-unit-per-acre goal without looking at either redevelopment or the two mixed use zones. There arc assumptions that residential development will happen in mixed use zones however the cost of land in those areas and the cost of development may preclude a lot of residential development. There is more than sufficient capacity among vacant lands to meet future requirements. c. The committee reviewed the information on anticipated housing trends and the implications for Tigard. (Attachment 2, pgs. 12-15) f. It is predicted Tigard will need an additional 6,500+ units by the year 2032 to meet anticipated growth. (Attachment 2, pg. 23) g. RECAP: 1) It should be clear to readers there is a difference between what is stated as "demand" and what is stated as "need". 2) Incorporate redevelopment capacity in our capacity calculations, using Metro's current methodology; Gerry Uba has provided a draft summary of the methodology 3) More explicitly address the capacity of mixed use areas, particularly the downtown and Tigard Triangle, to accommodate some residential development, including in our comparison of housing need and land supply COMBINED CAC/TAC MINUTES—July 18, 2012 City of Tigard I 13125 S\X' I lan Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-41,1 I ws.vw.rigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 3 4) Show vacancy rates specific to single-family and multi- family dwellings 5) If data allows, provide more information about the available and/or future needed supply of housing by size (e.g., number of bedrooms) and income 6) Better address the issue of future demand for manufactured homes 7) Be clear about addressing housing requirements vs. aspirations 8) Double-check in-migration/out-migration graphic and data for consistency; also revisit statements about migrating households to the area typically being both larger and poorer;this is not necessarily the case in Washington County, particularly for people moving here to work in the high-tech industry 9) Check population data;compare what we used to the new "gamma" numbers 5. Next Steps - Marissa Daniels a. As the committee was close to adjournment time, Marissa said she would email the committee members with the following questions: 1) What information do you feel is most important to pass to the Planning Commission and City Council? 2) Which meeting time would work best for you for the September meeting— Wednesday, the 12th or Thursday, the I Iah, from 4 to 6 pm;' 6. The meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m. COMBINED CAC/TAC MINUTES —July 18, 2012 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 3 City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 1 Memorandum — Preliminary Draft DATE: October 2, 2012 TO: Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard FROM: Matt Hastie, Shayna Rehberg, and Carolyn Reid,Angelo Planning Group SUBJECT: City of Tigard Population and Housing Review Tasks 3 & 4: Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Overview This memorandum reviews the City of Tigard's housing policies and development code in three parts: Part 1 summarizes three key findings from the residential capacity and needs analyses completed for Tasks 1 and 2 of this project, and discusses these findings in the context of existing City of Tigard policies and codes. This includes a review of the city's affordable housing policies and implementing measures. Part 2 reviews City of Tigard policies and codes relative to state and federal housing regulations, including: • Consistency with the federal Fair Housing Act • Compliance with state law associated with manufactured homes • Compliance with other state statutes and administrative rules associated with housing planning and development • Consistency with the city's recently completed Economic Opportunities Analysis Part 3 builds on these findings through an analysis of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC), highlighting regulations that could be improved to meet Tigard's future housing needs. TCDC issues reviewed in Part 3 include: • Design and development standards for the Tigard Triangle, other mixed use and commercial zones and infill development • Housing types not currently allowed explicitly by the Code • Density bonuses associated with solar energy and other sustainable planning strategies • Requirements associated with duplexes and accessory dwelling units For each of these topics, the memo briefly describes associated planning issues or requirements, how the city's Comprehensive Plan or Development Code currently addresses them, and in some cases potential strategies for further responding to them. Additional recommended strategies will be included in a future memo as part of Task 5 of this project (Housing Strategy Report). City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 2 Part 1: Current and Forecasted Housing Needs The majority of Tigard's current housing policies are in the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 2007.' Key to an evaluation of these policies is an understanding of housing needs in the city. As part of Task 1 of this current planning effort, Johnson Reid completed an analysis that compared current housing need with the existing supply of housing in the city, as well as forecasted future housing demand for 2032 . Three key findings from this analysis are summarized below. Each finding is followed by a review of relevant existing policies from the Comprehensive Plan, and related implementation measures in the TCDC, as well as identification of any gaps that need to be addressed as the project proceeds A. Finding: There is a need for affordable housing. Summary In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units that is not currently being supplied by the market. This is not uncommon as the lowest income households struggle to find market rate housing of any type that keeps costs at 30% of gross income. Policy/Code Review The city's adopted policies recommend many action measures to address affordable housing issues,which fall under Goal 10.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Broadly,the policy states: The City shall adopt and maintain lond 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.' The Comprehensive Plan also includes several general but related statements to coordinate with other jurisdictions, the Washington County Housing Authority,and housing developers, in addition to providing informational resources about available incentives and subsidies to relevant parties. Several more specific affordable housing policies are also recommended as action items. One such measure is to coordinate with other jurisdictions to support workforce housing needs; Tigard's large inflow and outflow of workers was also emphasized in the Johnson Reid report, indicating that housing in Tigard helps meet the needs of people who work in Tigard as well as other parts of the region. Another recommended action measure is to preserve existing affordable housing units. Another notable policy related to affordable housing includes: Lower development costs for affordable housing by subsidizing City fees and charges, giving higher priority to housing projects close to major activity centers and transit services.' 'City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, http://www,tigard- or.gov/city hall/departments/cd/long range planning/comprehensive plan.asp 2 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. (2007)p. 10-5. 3 Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure vii(p.10-7) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report t Page 3 To help implement this policy,Tigard has an Affordable Housing Fee Assistance program that provides Housing Fee Subsidy funds for development and rehabilitation of affordable housing.4 Additionally, the city code allows a tax exemption for providers of affordable housing for persons at or below 60 percent of the area median income through Chapter 3.50: Non-Profit Corporation Low-Income Housing.' This cost reduction for providers helps translate into reduced rent for residents. The Comprehensive Plan also addresses affordability in ownership housing under Goal 10.1: Provide opportunities for affordable home ownership by: A. Adapting the City's land use program to allow for the development of a variety of residential building types and ownership arrangements; B. Supporting the activities of non-profit housing providers such as Habitat for Humanity and community land trusts;and C. Supporting the efforts of Washington County Housing Authority and developers of affordable housing to utilize a variety of public and private subsidies and incentives.6 While ownership arrangements are not currently addressed in the code,the city does currently allow for a variety of housing types including single-family attached units (including manufactured units), single-family detached units, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family units. A review of other potential housing types and arrangements— including cottage housing, co-housing, and live-work units —is provided under "18.510 Residential Zoning Codes" in Part 3 of this report. Additional affordable housing policy statements, which have not yet been addressed through implementing code provisions, include: Develop strategies to encourage affordable housing in rhe City's regional (Washington Square)and town centers (Downtown)and other areas designated for mixed use and high residential densities.' Encourage the development of affordable housing when opportunities arise to redevelop public property and private institutional lands.8 Conclusion From a policy perspective, the City's Comprehensive Plan does a good job of addressing the need for affordable housing in Tigard and we are unlikely to recommend any significant City of Tigard,Affordable Housing Program.http:/Jwww.t gard- or.gov/city hall/departments/cd/long range planning/affordable housing/default.asp Tigard Municipal Code. Chapter 3.50 http://www.tigard or.gov/business/municipal code/docs/03- 50.pdf 6 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007).Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure xvi. (p.10-8) 7 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007).Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure x.(p.10-7) a City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007).Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure xv. (p.10-8) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report 1k� Page 4 Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to address this issue. The potential need for code amendments related to this issue is addressed in Part 3 of this report. B. Finding: There is a need for a variety of housing types. Summary Task 1 of this planning effort identified a need for future owner occupied and rental housing in a variety of price ranges and housing types, to meet the needs of people of different ages and incomes. This includes the need for single-family detached homes, single family attached housing(i.e., row houses or town homes), multi-family units, manufactured homes in parks and some government assisted housing. About two thirds of the estimated need is for owner- occupied units. In terms of the current supply of housing, there are gaps at the lowest housing cost ranges, some middle price ranges and the highest range. For rental housing, gaps are primarily at the lowest and a portion of the middle cost range. Policy/Code Review Taken together, these findings indicate the need for a range of housing types, which Tigard's housing policy addresses several times. Broadly,the city's Comprehensive Plan states: Provide Opportunities for o variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Additionally, the city's housing policy encourages the development of several specific types of housing, including types of housing that are typically more affordable to people with lower to moderate incomes, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), manufactured homes, shared housing, and smaller homes. Policies and action measures related to ADUs are shown below: 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.9 ADUs are currently allowed in all residential zones in conjunction with single-family detached units. Allow opportunities for accessory dwelling units in regional centers, town centers, and corridors per Metro requirements.10 The zoning map currently designates centers and corridors as primarily commercial and mixed- use zones. Single-family detached housing is only permitted in commercial and mixed-use zones as pre-existing uses, as are ADUs associated with single-family detached housing. While the opportunities to provide ADU's in commercial and mixed-use zones may be limited, allowing them in conjunction with townhouses or other medium density development types should be considered. The Comprehensive Plan also addresses the types of housing that allow people to age in place: 9 City of Tigard Comprehensive Pion(2007). Policy 6(p.10-6) 1°City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (2007).Goal 10.1,Recommended Action Measure iv. (p_10-6) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review 1 7 Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 5 Support housing types, such as shared housing, accessory dwelling units, smaller homes, adult foster homes, and other assisted living arrangements that allow the elderly to remain in their community as their needs change." In addition to housing types, housing design is also important to allow people to age in place. Several aspects of the Fair Housing Act (discussed in that section below) address universal design features for people with disabilities;these design principles also allow older residents to stay in their houses as their needs change. The TCDC allows for household living (e.g., retirement housing) and group living(e.g., convalescent housing) that address several of the housing types that are identified in this action measure. Smaller homes can currently be provided on smaller lots, as ADUs, and/or in denser and multi-story units in medium- and high-density zones. Another alternative is allowing smaller homes in a "cottage housing" arrangement, which is discussed along with other new housing types in the Part 3 of the report. In addition to allowing these specific housing types, the following action measure also suggests other mechanisms to meet the goal of increasing the range of housing types: Increase Tigard's diversity of housing types through financial incentives and regulatory tools such as density transfer and planned development standards; transit, and vertical oriented housing tox credits; voluntary inclusionary zoning, etc. Of the tools suggested in this action measure, Tigard currently implements density transfers (Chapter 18.715.030) and planned development standards (Chapter 18.350)through the TCDC; more detail about both tools is provided in Part 3 of this memo. Vertical oriented housing tax credits are a financial tool authorized by the state of Oregon and not typically addressed in a city's development code. Nothing in the city's Comprehensive Plan or code would limit the ability for a developer to voluntarily implement inclusionary zoning(i.e., provide a percentage of affordable units within a given development). However, because this would be voluntary by definition, it would not be addressed in the city's code. Summary Similar to Issue A, the Comprehensive Plan currently includes a good set of policies for supporting the need to provide a range of housing types within Tigard. Some policy amendments may be recommended during this project to expand the list of housing types to include cottage housing or similar new housing types as discussed above and in Part 3 of this report C. Finding: There is sufficient capacity for new housing. Overview The Johnson Reid analysis conducted for Task 1 concludes that there is a sufficient supply of land zoned for residential use to meet future housing demand, including land zoned for different 11 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007).Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure xvii. (p.10-8) 12 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007).Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure xii. (p.10-7) -� City of Tigard Housing and Population Review 1 )(2) Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 6 types and densities of housing. That analysis does not explicitly include expected residential development in Downtown and Tigard Triangle in the potential future supply of residential land, because these are mixed use areas where housing is not required or expected to be the primary use. However,the city expects to see residential use in these areas and the additional capacity they represent will provide the city with a certain amount of flexibility in its ability to meet a variety of types of housing needs in these and other existing and future residential and mixed use areas. Policy/Code Review As noted in Section B, the city's development code already allows for a range of housing types in its residential zones which will meet the need for new housing in Tigard. In addition, the Downtown and Tigard Triangle mixed use areas have both been identified on a list of potential High Capacity Transit station communities in the city. As noted above, these areas would provide additional capacity for new housing, over and above the capacity already calculated for the city's residential zones.The city is currently in the process of coordinating with Metro's Southwest Corridor planning process to evaluate alternative scenarios for future transit that would help serve these and other areas. Regardless of the plan outcomes, however, policies and implementing zoning designations to allow high-density development in these areas have already been adopted, consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan action measure: Increase opportunities for higher density mixed use development in the Downtown Urban Renewal District, Washington Square Regional Center, Tigard Triangle, and designated Corridors to enable residential uses to be located in close proximity to retail, employment, and public facilities, such as transit and parks.13 In addition, the City applies an overlay zone to the Downtown that allows for development of housing at densities of up to 80 units per acre. In considering the relationship between market demand and available capacity, it is also noteworthy that Tigard adopted an 80%minimum density requirement - per Metro Title 1-in 1998, so that new construction must build 80 percent of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation. Tigard also adopted a policy under Goal 14.3 of the comprehensive plan related to single-family housing neighborhoods: The City shall maintain the low-density residential character of its existing single family residential neighborhoods and accommodate more intense urban land uses in its regional and town centers and within major transportation corridors to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Framework Plan.1 Currently, 58.7 percent of the housing stock in Tigard is made up of single-family detached housing,"and the policy above affirms the city's intention of directing high-density "City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007) Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure v.(p.10-6-10-7) 14 City of Tigard Comprehensive Pion(2007).Goal 14.3, Policy 3. (p.14-8) 15 City of Tigard 20-Year Housing Needs Forecast,completed by Johnson Reid as Task 1 of this project. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Fx-) Page 1 development to transit-accessible nodes, while maintaining the character of single-family residential neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan addresses infill development in a similar manner: The City shall require infill development to be designed to address compatibility with existing neighborhoods.16 Currently, the TCDC addresses infill and compatibility with existing neighborhoods and development through Chapter 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards). These standards are reviewed in Part 3 of this memo. Summary Overall,the Comprehensive Plan provides an adequate policy basis for meeting the need for projected new housing in Tigard. Potential additional strategies for addressing this issue in the development code are described in Part 3 of this memo. Part 2: Policy and Code Compliance with Federal and State Housing Regulations A. Fair Housing Act Overview The Fair Housing Act is a federal law first passed in 1968 that requires that jurisdictions take affirmative actions to ensure fair treatment of"protected classes." In practical terms, this means that housing and housing finance tools cannot be denied to any person based on gender, race, color, religion, national origin, familial status, or disability. The State of Oregon augments the protected class status so that discrimination is also not allowed based on source of income, marital status,sexual orientation, or gender identity. In practice, compliance with the Fair Housing Act primarily focuses on ensuring that banks and other financial institutions, as well as realtors and housing providers,do not unfairly deny protected classes opportunities to pay for or obtain housing. Cities like Tigard have a limited role in monitoring these activities or enforcing most fair housing rules. However, cities can help ensure consistency with the Fair Housing Act through permitting and zoning practices as described below. Cities also can help comply with the Fair Housing Act by funding publicly subsidized housing in a way that provides residents with access to public facilities and services. Some communities have been criticized for concentrating or clustering publicly assisted housing in lower income areas with less access to strong schools or other community facilities and services in comparison to more affluent areas. This is often a consequence of trying to develop as many units of affordable housing as possible by locating projects in areas with lower land values (and reduced costs). Ultimately, this is a policy choice and trade-off for affordable housing providers and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007).Goal 10.2, Policy 9. (p.10-10) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review PGPolicy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 8 public agencies-whether to provide more affordable housing units in total or whether to provide fewer units in locations that provide residents with better access to high quality public services and other neighborhood amenities such as good schools, access to public transit, shopping, parks, libraries, etc. Because the City of Tigard is not an entitlement agency for federal funds, it does not have a direct role in the location of publicly subsidized housing for people in protected classes. However, the city works with Washington County and other affordable housing providers to help ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act in this regard. The policies cited below generally support this approach. Policy Review Tigard has not adopted any policies that explicitly reaffirm the Fair Housing Act, but there are a few policies in the Housing section of the Comprehensive plan that are related to it. The first is a broad statement that implicitly covers Fair Housing Act compliance: The City shall comply with federal and state housing lows and applicable implementing administrative rules-1 The second related statement is a "recommended action measure" that makes a specific commitment to one protected class, persons with special needs: The City shall adopt and maintain land use regulations that provide opportunities to develop housing for persons with special needs. The scale, design, intensity, and operation of those housing types shall be compatible with other land uses and located in proximity to supporting community services and activities.28 A recent review of fair housing impediments commissioned by Washington County provides insight into the challenges that Washington County residents, including residents in Tigard (or potential residents) may face with regard to fair housing protocols. Generally, these include process problems, such as the lack of a coordinated approach for introducing specialized housing into neighborhoods; zoning/building problems, such as unclear occupancy standards; challenges to integration of protected classes that lead to clustering; lack of knowledge of fair housing laws by service providers;and challenges to developing solvent affordable housing. The report considers Tigard a model in two regards: 1)fast permit processing and, 2) the voluntary tax-abatement program (discussed in Part 1 under Finding A related to affordable housing). The recommended actions are largely educational and advocacy programs to address a general lack of awareness and passiveness toward fair housing laws.19 While Tigard's policies appear to be generally in compliance with fair housing laws, the next step of this project will discuss ways that the city may be able to approach these issues more proactively. One potential recommendation may be to include additional policy language in the 1'City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan(2007).Goal 10.1, Policy 7 (p.10-6) la City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (2007). Goal 10.1, Policy 4(p.10-6) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 9 Comprehensive Plan that more explicitly addresses and supports consistency with the Fair Housing Act. Code Review The existing TCDC does not include provisions that regulate housing rental and sales practices in the city. The code relates more closely to the Fair Housing Act in the types of housing that may be supported by government funding and development review requirements for new housing. One site development criterion in the code (TCDC 18.360.090) requires facilities for the disabled to be designed pursuant to ORS Chapter 447. The Fair Housing Act requires that any residential building with four or more units constructed after 1991 meet seven design and construction criteria, including accessible entrances and common areas and wide doors and hallways.2°Provisions addressing accessibility relate more to building code than development code;Tigard's building code administers the Oregon State Codes for Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Residential Specialty Codes.' It is important to note that the use of these Oregon standards does not guarantee compliance with federal or state accessibility laws.As noted in the Fair Housing Council of Oregon's Accessible Design and Construction handbook: Oregon's building code governing multi-unit residential buildings (the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, or OSSC) includes a comprehensive set of accessibility requirements. Thus, designers, builders, and building officials may believe that compliance with the OSSC brings a project in compliance with all accessibility requirements. However, compliance with the OSSC does not assure compliance with all accessibility laws because: (a) While the OSSC draws on many of the some standards, the OSSC differs in organization and language from other laws, and is not a "safe harbor"for compliance with any federal low. (b)The OSSC includes only those accessibility criteria and standards required to be included in the OSSC by Oregon law. It does not incorporate ail federal accessibility lows or Oregon accessibility laws." This means that designers, builders, and building officials must look beyond the adopted building code to ensure that new construction of multifamily housing complies with federal accessibility laws. To help these entities comply with the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act, HUD established a set of Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines (F HAG)that "provide builders and developers with technical guidance on how to comply with the accessibility Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST. www.fairhousingfirst.orR as referenced in Fact Sheet: Expanding Implementation of Universal Design and Visitability Features in the Housing Stock.March 2010.AARP Public Policy Institute. http://www.aarp.org/home-garden/housingjinfo-03-2010/fs167.html 21 City of Tigard Municipal Code.Chapter 14.04 Building Code. http://www.tigard- or.gov[businessjmunicipal code/docs/14 04.pdi 32 Accessible Design and Construction:A Handbook Prepared by the Community Development Law Center for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon.June 2010. http://fhco.org/pdfs/DCHandbook062010.pdf City of Tigard Housing and Population Review I yy Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report r "L 1 Page to requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.13 Additionally, HUD recognizes the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)A117,1 —a set of accessible design specifications— as "safe harbors" for compliance with Fair Housing Act accessibility requirements.24 In addition to site-level accessibility, it is important that residential uses that are designed for people with disabilities or other special needs, such as group living and transitional living units, are available throughout the city. These residential uses are regulated alongside housing types in Tigard's residential, commercial,and mixed-use districts of the TCDC. The residential zoning code permits group living outright in all the residential zones, unless group living is made up of more than five residents, in which case it is permitted conditionally. Transitional housing is permitted only in the higher-density zones R-12 through R-40. In commercial and mixed-use zones, group living and transitional housing are generally permitted only conditionally; in these same zones, household living is generally permitted outright." Conclusions All in all,group living and transitional housing appear to be permitted sufficiently throughout the City's residential, commercial, and mixed-use zones. However, it may be necessary to clarify code requirements relative to group living and transitional housing. The code's definition of Group Living does not include a duration of tenancy. Group living is defined to include "some group homes for the physically and mentally disabled; and some residential programs for drug and alcohol treatment". It is not clear whether those facilities that don't qualify as group living would be defined as transitional housing and what the basis for that decision would be. It also will be important to ensure that the city's definitions of these types of housing are consistent with state requirements associated with "residential homes" and "residential facilities" (ORS 197). Development review requirements are discussed in more detail in Part 3 in this report. As noted above, the city also may want to consider encouraging or requiring additional housing design features that meet the needs of older residents and those with physical disabilities. B. Economic Opportunities Analysis Overview The Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) was completed in 2011 as part of the City's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 9: Economic Development. The EOA includes a technical analysis comparing projected land demand for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. 23 Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. http Jportal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program offices/fair housing equal opp/disabilities/fhefhag 24 Accessible Design and Construction:A Handbook Prepared by the Community Development Law Center for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon.June 2010.p 3 'S More information about the relationship between the Fair Housing Act, local zoning codes,and group living can be found in the Joint Statement of the United States Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development,"Group Homes, Local Land Use, and The Fair Housing Act." http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/final8 1.php -7� City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 11 Policy/Cade Review The EOA reviews Comprehensive Plan policies, and ultimately reaffirms Tigard's strategy of directing high-density mixed-use development (that includes housing)to Downtown, Washington Square, and the Tigard Triangle with no further policy recommendations. As noted previously,the TCDC implements this strategy through high-density, mixed-use zoning designations in these areas. The EOA also included interviews with 12 business leaders, employers, and economic experts. One question asked of this group was about housing needs in Tigard: While three interviewees responded that the current mix of housing is adequote, others suggested the need for a more diverse housing stock. Specific needs include moderate to low-income housing in or near downtown and commercial services, second-floor residential, condominiums and small lot or zero lot line homes. A few respondents suggested siting mixed-income housing near transit routes.16 Conclusion The above recommendations should be taken into consideration as the consultant team begins to work on the Housing Strategy Report and in addressing Development Code issues as part of this memo. C. Urban Growth Boundaries and Needed Housing within Boundaries (ORS 197.295 - 197.314) Summary State policies outlined in ORS sections 197.295 through 197.314 that are relevant to this housing policy and code evaluation are reviewed below. Please note that ORS 197.299, 197.301 and 197.302 apply at the metropolitan service district level (for Tigard this means Metro),and are not reviewed here. Additionally, compliance with ORS 197.303, 197.307, 197.309, and 197.312 are detailed in the Development Code review in Part 3 of this memo. ORS 197.296 Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary, analysis and determination of residential housing patterns. This section establishes requirements for conducting buildable lands inventories (ails) and needs analyses related to housing. The statute requires that jurisdictions adopt measures to provide more housing variety and/or density if the buildable lands inventory is not sufficient to meet the needs determined in the housing needs analysis. Within the Portland metropolitan area, Metro is responsible for maintaining the regional urban growth boundary(UGB) in coordination with cities and counties in the region. As part of these regional processes, Metro has estimated the supply and capacity of buildable land in Tigard and other parts of the region and recommended and approved expansions of the regional UGB to address future housing and other land needs. In doing so, Metro conducted its analysis in '6 City of Tigard 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis. P.42 A City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report E11(.. Page 12 accordance with state requirements as documented by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in its review of the proposed UGB expansions. Metro's work on the regional UGB and available land inventory translates to Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requirements for housing. Metro's 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." Also, Metro Title 6 includes provisions for housing densities in newly added areas that ensure zoned capacity for the number and types of housing units. For example, as residential zoning designations are applied in the West Bull Mountain area,the city will need to meet a allow for residential development at an average net density of at least 10 units per acre . Similarly, zoning will need to accommodate a mix of housing types, with the ability for at least half of the units to be single-family attached or multi-family housing. In addition to these regional efforts, the City of Tigard regularly maintains its own inventory of buildable land. As part of this planning effort, the City updated its BLI in June 2012. GIS analysis of vacant unconstrained parcels in Tigard found 600 net acres of developable residential land. This land supply will accommodate an estimated 6,714 housing units at an average density of 11.2 units per acre per the residential capacity analysis. The Johnson Reid housing needs analysis found the need for approximately 4,975 new housing units in the city by 2032 (more detail about the conditions and implications of this analysis are provided in Part 1 of this memo under Finding 3 related to housing development capacity). Therefore,the current land supply meets the projected 20-year need for 4,975 new housing units in the city, and measures to provide more housing variety and/or density, pursuant to the statute, are not required to be developed or adopted at this point in the process ORS 197.298 Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary. This statute describes the types of land that are prioritized for inclusion in the UGB. The city is currently in the process of developing the River Terrace Community Plan for the areas most recently brought into Tigard's portion of the UGB.''This includes lands addressed in the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan, including the recent River Terrace annexation (Area 64), as well as urban growth boundary expansion area 63 and the 50-acre Roy Rogers West area. ORS 197.303 "Needed housing" defined, and ORS.197.307 Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas; approval standards for certain residential development; placement standards for approval of manufactured dwellings. The definition of "needed housing" provided in ORS 197.303 applies to ORS 197.307, which was addressed in Tasks 1 and 2 of this project (summarized in Finding C of Part 1 in this memo)with the exception of farmworker housing which is not addressed directly in the analysis but could be included in estimates of the need for government assisted housing and/or multi-family housing. The TCDC provides development review standards for housing in residential districts, in commercial and mixed use districts, in the special districts, as conditional uses, as part of subdivisions, and/or site development review. State law requires that these standards, 27 More information about the River Terrace Community Plan is available online:http://www.GKard- or.gov/city hall/departments/cd/long range planning/river terrace.asp City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 13 conditions and procedures are clear and objective. As summarized in Table 1 below, certain needed housing types are permitted uses within each of the residential zones. A permitted use is a use which is permitted outright, but subject to all of the applicable provisions of this title. The applicable development standards contained in Chapter 18.510, which address lot size, dimensions and setbacks, appear to be clear and objective. Those Specific Development Standards in 18.700 which apply to residential development also generally appear to be clear and objective. However, in the case of single family attached and multifamily development the approval criteria in 18.360.090 may be a potential concern. Similarly, the requirement that all Group living with six or more residents be subject to conditional use review may be an issue (especially in the case of those facilities with 6-15 residents which meet the State definition of "Residential Facility"). The state requires that these developments be subject to the same types of regulations as multi-family developments. Table 1. Needed Housing Types and Associated Zoning Designations Needed Housing Residential Zones Procedures Applicable Standards Types _ _ _ Single Family Permitted in all zones Building Chapter 18.510.050 Detached(5FD) permit 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation. 18.715 Density Computations. 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards. 18.745 Landscaping and Screening. 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. 18.775 Sensitive Lands. 18.790 Tree Removal (applies to subsequent development on newly created lots). 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas. 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. Manufactured Units Permitted in all zones Building Same as 5FD+ on individual lots permit 18.750 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations. Single Family Permitted in R-7 with 5 or Site Design Same as SFD+ Attached fewer units in a grouping; Review Type 18.730.030 Zero Lot Line Setback permitted in R-12 through II Standards R-40 18.360.090 Approval Criteria Multifamily Units Permitted in R-12 though R- Site Design Same as 5FD+ 40 Review Type 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and II Recyclable Storage. 18.360.090 Approval Criteria Group living with Permitted in all zones Building Same as SFD(assuming building five or fewer permit type is SFD) residents City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report PG Page 14 Needed Housing Residential Zones Procedures Applicable Standards Types Group living with Conditional use in all zones Type Ill CU 18.330 Conditional Use+ six or more Other standards vary depending on residents building type ORS 197.312 Limitation on city and county authority to prohibit certain kinds of housing: zoning requirements for farmworker housing; real estate sales office. ORS 197.312 requires that farmworker housing is permitted in all residential and commercial zones that allow single family and multifamily housing. The TCDC does not address farmworker housing per se, but it does allow for a range of housing types and group living as a housing use. ORS 197.314 Required siting of manufactured homes; minimum lot size; approval standards. This statute requires that all cities and counties allow manufactured housing in all land zoned for single-family residential uses. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan affirms this through a recommended action measure under Goal 10.1: Allow manufactured homes on individual lots subject to standards to ensure their compatibility with single-family residential housing types.28 Table 18.510.1 of the Development Code implements this policy,with further standards for manufactured home development detailed in Chapter 18.570.These are discussed in more detail in Part 3 of this memo. D. Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-0000) Overview This rule implements the overall requirement of Statewide Planning Goal 10 to provide a range of housing types that will meet the needs of households with a full range of incomes and across a spectrum of life phases. The key individual provisions of this rule for local jurisdictions are to ensure that the city designates its residential land in such a way as to provide the opportunity to develop at least 50 percent of the city's future housing as single-family attached or multi-family housing, and that the city's zoning designations allow for development at an average net density of 10 or more units per acre. Several other elements of the rule relate primarily to development code provisions. Consistency with these requirements was addressed in the report prepared as part of Task 2 of this planning effort, and is reviewed in Finding C in Part 1 of this memo. 28 Goal 10.1, Recommended Action Measure iii. (p.10-6) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report PG Page 15 OAR 660-007-0000 As found in the Task 1 and 2 Report, existing zoning district regulations and designations in the city are sufficient to meet OAR 660-007 requirements that at least half of potential new construction could be single-family attached units and multi-family units, and that new construction could occur at a density of at least 10 units/acre (OAR 660-007-0030 and -0035). OAR 660-007-0015 Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required Review of this statute is addressed in Section F (ORS 197.307) of this memo. OAR 660-007-0033 Consideration of Other Housing Types Manufactured Housing This provision stipulates that Metro area jurisdictions consider the need for manufactured housing and government assisted housing. Tigard currently allows manufactured housing in all residential zoning districts, as detailed in section C (ORS 197.314), above. The need for government-assisted housing is addressed as part of affordability-related housing issues, under Finding A in Part 1 of this report. As noted in that section, Washington County is the entitlement agency for disbursal of federal program funds in Tigard. Current Comprehensive Plan housing policies affirm Tigard's intention to work with Washington County as well as other federal, state, and local agency's to provide a range of housing options in Tigard. Part 3: Review of Development Code Our section-by-section review of the TCDC considered the three key findings from the residential capacity and needs analyses completed for Tasks 1 and 2 of this project (affordable housing,variety of housing types and capacity for needed housing)as well as recommendations for efficiency and modernization related to housing. The following table notes the code sections review and the policy issues or questions associated with them. Table 2. Overview of Code Sections Code Section Policy/Code Question 18.500 Zoning Districts 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts. Do districts allow for a variety of housing types, including single family attached and duplex standards and new housing types? 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts. Are additional residential development standards needed in commercial zones? 18.600 Community Plan Area Standards 18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards. What types of zoning and building design standards are needed to implement High Capacity Transit planning and improve effectiveness of residential development standards in these areas? City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report E 'c. Page 16 Code Section Policy/Code Question Should a certain percentage of residential development be required as part of future developments? 18.630 Washington Square Regional Same questions as for Tigard Triangle Center Design Standards. 18.700 Specific Development Standards 18.710 Accessory Residential Dwelling Should the city update location, size and Units(ADU). setback standards for ADUs? 18.715 Density Computations. Should the city provide density, height or other bonuses for meeting community objectives related to sustainability, use of alternative energy or provision of affordable housing? 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards. Are new standards needed to allow for a wider variety of housing types and address potential impacts of infill development on surrounding neighborhoods? 18.750 Manufactured/Mobile Home Do standards need to be updated to allow Regulations. for development of newer types of manufactured units? 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Should standards be revised to help meet Requirements. density and affordability goals? 18.300 Land Use Decisions 18.350 Planned Developments. Are additional standards needed to allow for infill,cottage developments or other small scale non-traditional developments which may be difficult to develop under the Planned Development regulations? 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts and Regulations The TCDC currently allows the following housing types: • Single-family detached units, including manufactured units • Single-family attached units • Duplexes • Multi-family units • Manufactured unit parks/subdivisions • Accessory dwelling units. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 17 As noted in Table 2, potential areas for discussion include the city's current standards for single- family attached units and duplexes as well as several new housing options. Recent trends in housing that provide more choices include: • Small single-family homes • Shared housing and resources • Combined living and working spaces include cottage housing, co-housing, and live/work units These are described in more detail in this section. Single-Family Attached Housing Regulations The TCDC code defines single-family attached housing as follows: e. "Single-family dwelling": (1) "Attached dwelling"- Two or more dwelling units attached side by side on two or more contiguous, separate lots with some structural ports in common at a common property line. (TCDC Chapter 18,120.76) Single-family attached housing is permitted in residential zones in the city as shown in Table 3. It is not permitted in commercial zones, permitted as a pre-existing use in MUC, MUE, and MUR zones, and is permitted in the MU-CBD zone Downtown. Table 3. Use Regulations for Single-Family Attached Housing in Tigord Zone Use Regulation R-1 -- - — R-2 Prohibited R-3.5 R-4.5 Permitted as Planned Development R-7 Permitted outright in groups of five or less units Permitted conditionally in groups of six or more units R-12 R-25 Permitted outright R-40 Note:duplexes, another shared-wall housing type, are permitted conditionally in the R-3.5 and R- 4.5 zones and then outright in R-7 to R-40 zones. The TCDC currently does not include a section for single-family attached housing under its chapter on specific development standards per se, but single-family attached housing is subject to site plan development review(TCDC 18.360.090), whose approval criteria address relationship of buildings and natural environment, building elevations, screening and buffering between uses, shared areas, transit access and amenities, drainage, landscaping, and facilities for the disabled. The TCDC does include some standards for single-family attached housing which apply in specific circumstances locations. For example, TCDC 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) addresses compatibility of this type of housing and multi-family housing with surrounding residential development (see review of section 18.720 below). In Downtown TCDC 18.610.030 requires entrances for attached single-family housing to be City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 18 oriented to the street; to have garages or carports at the rear of the building access from an alley or recessed from the front building elevation; and to have a minimum of 100 square feet of private open space. Recommendation: • Consider adopting single-family attached housing standards as special development standards citywide, not just in the Downtown. The 2nd Edition Model Development Code & User's Guide for Small Cities provided by the state Transportation Growth Management (TGM) program ("Model Code") Section 2.2.200.8 includes special standards for attached single-family and duplexes that apply to attached housing with three or more units (lots) and consecutively attached duplexes with four or more units. The standards address access and common areas. Vehicle access to lots and units from an alley or parking court (and provide specifications for alleys and parking courts later in the code) and that any common areas (e.g., landscaping, private tracts, common driveways, alleys) shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association or other legal entity. Duplexes Currently, duplexes are permitted conditionally in the low-density residential R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones in Tigard, and permitted outright in the medium-to high-density residential zones as well as the MUR zones. The following minimum lot size or unit area requirements in square feet ("sf") currently apply to duplexes in the city according to zone, pursuant to Table 18.510.2 of the residential zoning code and Table 18.520.2 of the commercial zoning code. Table 4. Existing Minimum Lot Sizes and Unit Area Requirements for Duplexes in Tigard Zone Use Regulation Duplex Lot Size Per Unit Duplex Lot Size as per Unit a %of SFD lot size R-3.5 Permitted conditionally 5,000 sf 50% R-4.5 Permitted conditionally 5,000 sf 67% R-7 Permitted outright 5,000 sf 100% R-12 Permitted outright 3,050 sf 100% R-25 Permitted outright 3,050 sf 100% R-40 Permitted outright None N/A TCDC 18.330.050 addresses additional development standards for conditional uses. The subsection on duplexes just reinforces the development standards table in the residential zoning code, requiring that the minimum lot size be 10,000 sf. In comparing the per unit duplex lot size to the minimum single family detached lot size for each zone, it appears that the greatest density gains associated with duplex development occurs in the R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones whereas there is no density benefit in the zones that might be more suitable for duplexes (e.g., R-7). The Model Code recommends the following minimum lot sizes for duplexes. • Low-density residential zones—6,000-9,000 sf • Medium-density residential zones—5,000-7,000 sf City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 19 • High density residential zones/mixed-use zones— 5,000-6,000 sf. Recommendation: • Consider reducing the minimum lot size for duplexes in the medium-density R-7 zone to 7,000-7,500 sf. Requirements in the R-12 to R-40 zones and mixed-use zones are in line with the recommendations of the Model Code. There is an opportunity to modify the standards in the lower-density zones to be more consistent with the Model Code if desired. At least in the medium-density R-7 zone,the minimum lot size could be reduced to 7,000-7,500 sf without being incongruous with the minimum lot size for single-family detached in the R-7 zone (5,000 sf). Alternative Housing Types, including Cottage Housing, Co-Housing and Live/Work Units Current trends in residential development include construction of a number of housing types not explicitly addressed in the City of Tigard's Development Code. These include cottage housing, co-housing and live/work units. It may be possible to permit and build these types of housing using existing code requirements. However, given unique issues associated with their design and development, constructing them may be challenging and potentially onerous. Recommendations: • Develop and adopt a new code section for cottage housing. • Adopt lot clustering provisions into the City's subdivision code or consider as a separate new section of code. • Develop and adopt live/work unit definitions and development standards. Consider permitting live/work units in Tigard commercial districts C-C, C-G, and C-P, and in all mixed-use zones to the extent they are not already allowed. Cottage Housing As explained in the 3rd Edition Model Development Code& User's Guide for Small Cities, Draft #4 (April 2012) ("Draft Model Code"), provided by the state Transportation Growth Management (TGM) program: Cottage housing developments or "cottage clusters"consist of small houses, each usually with less than 1,000 square feet of floor area, oriented around a common open space area and with shared parking. Some developments might hove other common amenities, such as o recreation area, laundry facility, common building, etc. Depending on the development, cottages might be owned fee simple (each on its own lot)or os port of a condominium plat where the land is owned in common but the buildings are individually owned. Typically the open space and parking areas are owned and maintained in common. In this way, cottage developments can offer elements of affordable single family housing without the feeling of living in on apartment. Cottage housing is not included in the state definition of needed housing, but it is an economical way to City of Tigard Housing and Population Review PG Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 20 provide additional housing choices, particularly in communities with high land prices or o lack of investment in affordable housing. In addition to the potential to provide affordable housing, cottage housing units that are small and single-story are more manageable and accessible for seniors and residents with disabilities. Metro has prepared a case study of cottage housing in Wood Village with development standards specifically for cottage housing and tips for implementation.29 The standards are based largely on examples from Washington state, where cottage housing developments have been built recently in several communities. Below is a sample of the standards. • Zones —Vary by city; single family or medium-density multi-family • Lot coverage—40-60% • Density—.35 floor area ratio,twice the existing allowed density;7-14 units/acre • Unit size— 1,000 square feet maximum • Number of units—4 minimum/12 maximum • Yards front/side/rear setbacks — 15 feet/5 feet/5 feet • Garage or parking standards 1-1.5 spaces; bundled parking;screened from view; 20' setback • Separation of developments — 1,000 feet minimum • Review procedure—Varies by city. Cottage housing may be preferred where residents own individual lots and potentially share ownership of common spaces. However, the flexibility in existing Planned Development or subdivision standards (including mechanisms such as lot size averaging) are potentially not sufficient to spur cottage development in Tigard,given the small unit sizes and potential reductions in setbacks3D. For this development model, it is likely that the TCDC would need to be revised to include a new code section for cottage housing, with the intention of providing a complete process and clear and objective standards for this type of development. As Grants Pass is exploring as an option, standards for cottage housing can be developed similar to PUD regulations in terms of submittal requirements and review procedure, but the development and design standards would be different. If developed according to the condominium model, where there are multiple units on a commonly owned parcel, cottage housing in Tigard could possibly be developed pursuant to existing zoning and mufti-family standards, but probably only in higher-density zones. Another option, which is currently being explored in Grants Pass, is to allow cottage housing as multi- family development that is exempt from existing multi-family development standards. This 29 The full study can be viewed online at: http://Iibrary.oregonmetro.gov/files//wood village case study.pdf 30 Site development review does allow for up to a 20%reduction in setback standards that meet other compatibility criteria(TCDC 18.360.080, Exceptions to Standards). ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review r 1 Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report PG Page 11 would also likely require adoption of some additional standards (as listed above) specific to cottage housing. Cohousing Cohousing has European roots and has been gaining popularity in the United States. As summarized on the website http://www.cohousing.org/: "Cohousing is a type of collaborative housing in which residents actively participate in the design and operation of their own neighborhoods." Unlike the single-family detached housing focus of cottage housing, cohousing may be developed as any combination of single-family detached, single-family attached, and multi- family housing units that are centered around a shared facility, which often includes a kitchen and community space. Depending on site size and neighborhood context, the units may be oriented around a central courtyard or clustered to preserve open space. a 6... .. .....--,,_ 1...„ 'k4N- .9(61, " ' - rliCrn ill u ' . 'A if -i s ___ , 4.-- ;� v;: "� 4; .fir • r „ii �_ i ... • Figure I. Example of Cohousing Cluster Source:www.cohousinq.orq According to cohousing.org, most cohousing communities in the U.S. are structured as condominiums or planned unit developments. If developed as divided lots, the residents share ownership of the common property and facilities, but have individual ownership of their lots and homes. Multi-family development review(site development review) and subdivision or planned development review in Tigard may accommodate cohousing development in their current form. Some questions would be whether sufficient setbacks could be achieved, especially in urban environments and adjacent to lower-density zones; whether parking" could be accommodated " TCDC 18.765.030(General Provisions,Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements): City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report i '( Page 22 separately from the housing units; and whether lot clustering could occur to maximize an area of open or common space The city's Planned Development (PD) regulations appear to be most appropriate for cohousing development in Tigard. Site development review and PO provisions both require at least 200 sf of shared open space per unit of two bedrooms, or less than 300 sf of shared open space per unit of three bedrooms or more. Site development review and PO regulations also both require landscape coverage for at least 15-20 percent of the site. In PO regulations, these requirements are more specific. If not through a PD process, however, cohousing may be developed through the subdivision process. Currently, subdivision regulations allow for lot size averaging (TCDC 18.430.020.0), but this does not necessarily allow the open space configurations characteristic of cohousing and similar development. Live/Work Units live/work units are important because they provide flexibility in combining residential and commercial uses, and can allow residential uses on the ground floor until the market is ready to support retail in these spaces. The following is a definition of live/work units from the City of Bend's NorthWest Crossing Overlay Zone: A dwelling in which a business may be operated on the ground floor. The ground floor commercial or office space has visibility, signage and access from the primary street. To preserve the pedestrian orientation of the commercial or office space, alley access is required to provide trash service and residential parking. A live/work dwelling is allowed instead of, or in addition to, home occupation as defined by this Code. The location of lots where live/work dwellings may be sited shall be specified on the subdivision plot. The permitted live/work housing types ore defined below: o. Live/work House:A single-family detached house with no more than 50 percent of the ground floor of the building available as commercial or office space. b. Live/work Townhome:A residential,fee simple townhome unit in which a business may be operated. The commercial or office portion of the building shall be limited to the ground floor and may not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of the entire building, excluding the garage. 8. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s). 2. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line... -71 City of Tigard Housing and Population Review {'(-; Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 2 c. Live/work Apartment:A primarily residential multi-story, multi-unit building with a maximum of 50 percent of the building ground floor square footage used as commercial or office space. Residential units may be for rent or for sale in condominium or cooperative ownership.32 Standards for live/work units in Bend and Oregon City address primary street frontage, off- street parking, signs, and special standards including noise, storage, public access, and hours of operation. Live/work provisions from other jurisdictions more specifically regulate the commercial uses in live/work units, open space requirements, and conversion to and conversion of live/work units depending on zoning district. In Grants Pass, live/work units are being considered as permitted residential development in commercial districts where residential uses can be above ground-floor commercial uses (mixed use)or live/work units. Live/work units are also being considered as permitted in residential PUDs. Live/work development could be considered in Tigard's commercial districts (C-C, C-G, and C-P), which currently only allow residential uses: 1)conditionally as group or transitional housing (C-G zone); 2)outright as mixed uses with commercial on the second floor or above; or 3) as multi- family housing subject to PD regulations. Live/work could expand the flexibility of residential and commercial uses in these zones, effectively increasing the residential capacity in the city's mixed-use zones. 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts. Existing commercial zoning code allows housing in commercial zones in Tigard on a limited basis (Table 18.520 1). • Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) -Housing not permitted. • Community Commercial (C-C) and Professional Commercial (C-P) -Household living is permitted outright in units in conjunction with commercial uses, second floor and above, at a maximum density of 12 units/acre. • General Commercial (C-G)-Caretaker units are permitted and multi-family housing is permitted subject to Planned Development. This pattern of use regulation is similar to use regulations recommended in the Draft Model Code, where residential uses are either not permitted or permitted according to special standards or restrictions. Recommendation: • Consider developing and adopting live/work unit definitions and development standards. Consider permitting attached single-family and multi-family live/work units in Tigard commercial districts C-C,C-G, and C-P, and in all mixed-use zones. 32 Section 2.7.300 of Chapter 2.7, Special Planned Districts,in the City of Bend's Development Code City of Tigard Housing and Population Review {aC7 Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 24 One opportunity area for housing in commercial zones is live/work units.As discussed in the section "18.510 Residential Zoning Districts" above, live/work units offer flexibility to provide a combination of residential and commercial/employment uses,allowing for commercial uses on the ground floor when the market is ready to support them, and allowing residential uses on the ground floor in the interim. Communities who are allowing live/work units have found it important to define different forms of live/work units (e.g., houses,townhomes, multi-family units) and adopt specific development standards for them (e.g., allowable area of commercial use, alleys/access/entrances). 18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards. The City of Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, Final Report (February 2012) describes the Concept Plan for the Tigard Triangle as seeking to "blend smaller-scale retail, restaurants and housing to complement the current employment center, especially in the northeast part of the Triangle. Increased housing options would also be allowed northwest of Pacific Highway." The City recently received a grant from the state's Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program to develop a District Plan for the Tigard Triangle. The new plan is expected to address a variety of land use and transportation planning issues and build on the recommendations from the High Capacity Transit planning effort. Objectives of the planning effort include supporting mixed use development in the area; assessing the market for residential uses in the area and any barriers to that type of development; and creating a walkable area that makes efficient use of the transportation system, including addressing the needs of people who have difficulty accessing transportation due to their age, income or disabilities. Recommendations: • Consider revising standards for residential development in the Tigard Triangle. • If residential development is part of the future vision for the Tigard Triangle, consider adopting standards that require a certain amount of percentage of future development in the area to be residential or mixed residential/commercial/retail. While zoning in the Tigard Triangle currently allows for development of residential uses, little housing has been built in the area. City staff report that most property owners and developers envision the area as a location for large scale retail, commercial or light industrial activities. The current Tigard Triangle standards (TCDC 18.620), which were last amended in 2001, include site design standards, building design standards, entry portals (gateway)standards, and street and accessway standards. • Site design standards— Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials, building setback, front yard setback design, walkway connections to building entrances,and parking location and landscape design. • Building design standards— For non-residential buildings;ground floor windows, building facades, weather protection, building materials, roofs and roof lines, and roof- mounted equipment. • Entry portal standards — Location and design; at specified intersections in the area. A City of Tigard Housing and Population Review 1)(-; Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 25 • Street and accessway standards - Detailed set of urban design plans, street plans, street plan details, and street cross-sections. Updating these standards would provide the city with an opportunity to address future street connections and street designs in greater detail(similar to what has been done in Downtown). The standards could vary setbacks and building design elements based on the street type and land use designation (e.g., a maximum 10 foot building setback may not be needed on all street types). In addition, the area covered by the existing Tigard Triangle standards is smaller than the area envisioned in the HCT Land Use Plan. Extending the Community Plan area north of Highway 99 will provide the city with opportunity to create transit-oriented neighborhood north of the highway as well as to address design standards and both sides of the street. Some residential development is already permitted within the existing Tigard Triangle. As noted in the HCT Land Use Plan within the Tigard Triangle: The C-G zone is not capable of supporting the transit-supportive, compact mixed-use that is integral to future aspirations for this station community type. However, areas that ore zoned for C-G (PD)in the Triangle permit multifamily residential. The MUE zone allows for o wide variety of uses, include office, institutional, multifamily residential(at maximum density of 25 du/acre)and retail commercial(that does not occupy more than 60,000 square feet of floor area per building). The maximum building height allowed is 45 feet, which is likely to be insufficient for fostering vertical mixed-use in this area. The Transit Neighborhood station community type consists of Residential zones within the Triangle ranging from R-4.5 to R-25. Of these zones, only R-11 and R- 25 provides the requisite residential density while only R-25 provides the requisite mix of uses (restricted to ground-floor retail in multifamily residential buildings) to satisfy the guidelines for the Neighborhood type. However, the current Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards (18.620.030)do not lend themselves to residential development and the Building Design Standards (18.620.040) do not apply to residential developments. In order to facilitate residential development, appropriate densities and standards should be developed. 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards. Washington Square is designated as a Regional Center in the Metro 2040 Plan. Given this designation, the Washington Square area represents opportunities for future residential and mixed use development. However,there are fewer properties with significant redevelopment potential in this area in comparison to the Tigard Triangle. The recently completed Tigard High Capacity Transit (HCT) Plan envisions land use changes in this area to create more transit- oriented, dense, mixed use development in this area. Portions of the Washington Square area are designated as Town Center/Main Street, Transit Corridor and Transit Neighborhood areas in the HCT Plan. Underlying zoning in these areas is primarily Mixed Use Employment, Mixed Use Residential and Single Family Residential. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review PG Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 26 Recommendation: • Review Washington Square density standards(18.620.030.D, E,and F) for potential modifications to help implement the recommendations in the Tigard HCT Plan and make design standards more appropriate for residential developments. Design standards currently applied in this area include development standards, site design standards, and building design standards for the Washington Square Regional Center.The types of site design and building design standards addressed are similar to those applied in the Tigard Triangle. However, building design standards in the Washington Square area apply to all new buildings within the MUC, MUE, and MUR zones in Washington Square Regional Center, not just to non-residential buildings. The Washington Square standards were adopted in 2002. before the latest update to Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). Similar to the standards applied in the Tigard Triangle, some of the building and site design standards may be more appropriate for non-residential buildings and less appropriate for residential uses, including live/work units. The same comments related to these standards in the Tigard Triangle would apply in the Washington Square area. In addition, a broader range of housing types could be considered as permitted outright in this area (e.g., single-family attached housing in addition to multi-family housing). 18.710 Accessory Residential (Dwelling) Units (ADUsI. Currently, ADUs in Tigard are permitted in all residential zones where single-family detached housing is permitted, and as pre-existing uses with single-family detached housing in mixed-use (MUC, MUE, and MUR)zones. Existing development standards for ADUs (TCDC 18.710.020) are as follows: A. Location. As noted in the use tables (18.510.1 and 18.520.1), accessory residential units are permitted as limited uses in all zones where detached, single-family dwelling units are permitted. 8. Limitations. An accessory residential unit is permitted providing there is compliance with all of the following standards: 1. An accessory residential unit may be created within or as an addition to a detached single[-)family dwelling. For the purposes of this chapter, "addition"means the shoring of a common wall with the primary residence.A garage may not be converted to an accessory residential unit unless it is rebuilt as part of the primary structure; 1. An accessory residential unit may not exceed 50%of the size of the primary unit, up to a maximum of 800 square feet; 3. The number of residents permitted to inhabit the accessory residential unit is regulated by the State Building Code; 4. Either the primary or accessory residential unit must be owner-occupied; 5.A primary residence in which an accessory residential unit has been created may have only one home occupation; 6. In addition to the number of parking spaces required for the primary residence, as established in Chapter 18.765, one parking space shall be provided for the accessory residential unit. This parking space shall be paved and/or covered; City of Tigard Housing and Population Review `�,��_ Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page.7 7. The front door of the accessory residential unit shall not be located on the front facade of the primary unit unless the door is already existing; 8. There shall be compliance with oll development standards established in the base zone. Recommendations: • Consider whether not to require that the ADU be attached to the primary unit,as long as it complies with the other development standards (e.g., setbacks) of the zone. • Consider whether not to require parking for the ADU. • Consider requiring that building materials or facade features of the ADU be similar to the primary unit. • Consider authorizing the City to require screening or buffering between the ADU and housing on an adjacent lot. Unit size,owner occupancy, and front door standards are in line with recommendations made regarding ADU standards in the Draft Model Code and a recent urbanization code evaluation for Grants Pass. However, the requirement that the ADU be attached to the primary structure is not in line with the Model Code provisions or standards in many other communities. The Model Code and the proposed requirements for Grants Pass also include standards associated with buffering, construction materials and facade design that are aimed at ensuring compatibility with surrounding structures. In addition, some jurisdictions do not require additional parking associated with ADUs or require fewer additional off-street parking spaces. Ima.ova id. 104 . 406 401 • • Figure 2. Example of ADU Site Layout Source:Southwest independence Concept Plan Designing for Density Presentation (September 2I,2011) 18.715 Density Computations. Pursuant to TCDC 18.715.030, the city allows for some residential density transfer when natural resources are located on-site. In the case of floodplains on-site, slopes over 25%, and City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report 'C-; Page 28 drainageways,the units per acre that would have been allowed on the unbuildable land can be transferred to the buildable area of the site, with the following restrictions: • The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25%of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations. • The total number of units per site does not exceed 125% of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. In the case of wetlands,the density from the unbuildable area may be transferred to the remaining buildable area only if the land is zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 and with the following restrictions: • The number of units which con be transferred is limited to the number of units which would hove been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations. • The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. In addition, the City currently offers density bonuses in Planned Developments for open space and pedestrian amenities, density transfers, and lot size averaging. City staff note that net developable areas are prescribed by Clean Water Services and do not readily accommodate increased density, limiting the bonus's utility. Recommendation: • Consider adopting density or height bonuses for implementing sustainable design principles such as solar energy use and/or provision of affordable housing. In terms of Planned Development, Subsection (A)(3)(c)of TCDC 18.350.070(Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria)allows the following: (T)he Commission to authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10%as on incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated into the development.... The degree of distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following: (1)A one percent bonus for each five percent of the gross site area set aside in open space, up to a maximum of five percent, is allowed for the provision of active use recreational open space, exclusive of areas contained in floodplain, steep slopes, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; (2)Up to a maximum of five percent is allowed for the development of pedestrian amenities, streetscape development, recreation areas, plazas, or other items from the "Planning Commission's Toolbox." The Planning Commission's Toolbox is available on-line but is rarely used by the Commission. Staff note that the Toolbox would benefit from review and revision to better represent development opportunities in Tigard. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report k_--; Page 29 There are examples from other jurisdictions of bonuses for density, building height, and lot coverage that are tied to requirements such as low impact development, heightened design standards, and affordable housing development. Density, Height and Lot Coveroqe Bonuses Canby The City of Canby has established "Low Impact Development Incentives"that allow for height bonuses or density bonuses in subdivision development (Canby Code Section 16.64.80). Height bonuses are allowed for providing additional park land, using pervious surfacing materials, constructing a rain garden for on-site stormwater management, or replanting of removed trees. There are particular standards established for these low impact development features. The height bonuses are limited as follows: • Height increases are limited to 12 feet more than the maximum building height standard of the underlying zone. • Building(s) receiving the height increase must be located within the same subdivision where the LID benefit is being provided. • The height bonus may not be used on buildings that are directly adjacent to an existing lot in a low-density residential zone. Density bonuses are offered for subdivision proposals that provide additional park land, with the following requirements: • A proposal must provide at least 110% of the park land required in Chapter 16.120. • A 10-20% density bonus is allowed and scaled to providing 110%or more additional park land. Durham In Durham, height and density bonuses are offered in the Multi-Family Design (MD) Overlay District for complying with optional open space, security, property operations, structured parking, sustainability practices (LEED development, bicycle parking, and access to transit), and building design detail requirements. Density and height are limited according whether sites are located on SW Boones ferry Road and SW Lower Boones Ferry Road;sites on these major arterials are limited to 44 units/gross acre while sites not on these roads are limited to 16 units/acre and 35 feet in height. The MD Overlay District also sets requirements for adequate public facilities, traffic impact analysis, and design compatibility. Ambergien, Hillsboro Section 143, VII (Adjustments in Return for Public Benefit) allows densities below minimum and parking above maximum by 10-20%for vertical mixed use (residential, commercial, and institutional), mixed-income housing, "green" building(LEED certification), and public art. The mixed-income housing requirements entail setting aside 10% of units either for purchase at a price that is affordable to households at 80% of AMI or for rent at a cost that is affordable to households at 60%of AMI. Affordability at these levels must be secured for at least 30 years through a development agreement. The adjustments in Section 143, VII are available to residential and non-residential development, but are not available for any part of a property located within 800 feet of a light rail or high capacity transit stop. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review I --; 7 Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 30 Lot Coverage Bonus The Draft Model Code addresses bonuses for lot coverage. Increases in lot coverage, for instance, may help to keep buildings single-story when issues with accessibility arise with the aging population and residents with disabilities. The Draft Model Code recommends 40-70% lot coverage depending on housing type and zone. (In the Draft Model Code, lot coverage applies to buildings or structures on a site, but not paved surface-level features such as driveways and patios.) Existing lot coverage requirements in Tigard are as shown in Table_. They appear more permissive than standards recommended in the Draft Model Code; however, they account for all buildings and impervious surfaces, All the same, the standards seem reasonable and no changes or bonuses are necessarily recommended at this time. Table 5. Existing Maximum Lot Coverage Requirements in Residential Zones in Tigord R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 MUR-1 MUR-2 Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium High High Medium Density Density Density Density Density Density High Density Density Density Density 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards. Currently, the TCDC addresses infill and compatibility with existing neighborhoods and development through Chapter 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards), whose stated purpose is: "to establish standards and regulations for design compatibility between multi-family residential or attached single-family residential when abutting detached single-family districts." The chapter applies to single-family attached and multi-family housing in R-4.5 to R-40 zones in Tigard, when abutting "property zoned for single-family residential development" (R-1 to R-3.5 zones). The design compatibility standards deal with the following: • Density transitions • Front facade • Main entrance • Unit definition • Roof lines • Trim detail • Rooftop mechanical equipment • Parking • Pedestrian circulation. The density transitions standards go into the most detail, with limits on building heights and building planes within 30 to 50 feet of the shared property line. These "buffer" zones of 30 and 50 feet may be too onerous for development, particularly for single-family attached housing being developed on smaller lots than multi-family housing. The 30-foot height limits correspond City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page �1 to those allowed in the City's low-density zones (R-1 to R-4.5);this also may discourage needed housing. In addition, all infill development which involves single-family attached or multi-family housing is also subject to base zone standards and site development review (TCDC 18.360). Site development review addresses the relationship of buildings to the natural environment, building elevations,screening and buffering between uses, shared areas,transit access and amenities, drainage, landscaping, and facilities for the disabled. In some locations, special district standards may also apply. City staff notes that little multi-family residential construction has occurred in Tigard in the past seven years, so they have not had an opportunity to identify any issues that may be associated with implementation of the standards. 18.750 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations. The TCDC defines manufactured home parks and subdivisions as follows: 113. "Mobile home park"-Any place where four or more mobile homes are located within 500 feet of one another on a lot, tract or parcel of land under the same ownership, the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to ony person for o charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. 114. "Mobile home subdivision"-A subdivision designed and approved for sale of lots for residential occupancy in mobile homes only. (TCDC 18.120) As detailed in Part 2 of this memo under ORS 197.314, manufactured homes on single lots are permitted wherever single-family housing is permitted in residential zones,and manufactured home parks and subdivisions are permitted on a more restricted basis in residential zones. Recommendation: • If the City is interested in adopting cottage housing provisions, consider how to coordinate development of cottage home regulations with existing mobile home park requirements. Manufactured home subdivisions are subject to approval under the provisions of TCDC 18.430 (Subdivisions). Manufactured home parks are subject to approval under the provisions of TCDC 18.340 (Site Development Review), in addition to conditional review standards in TCDC 18.330.050.8.18 for development in R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones, which prescribe minimums for lot size, lot dimensions, setbacks, landscaping, and outdoor recreation areas. Chapter 18.750 contains specific standards for manufactured homes in parks, subdivisions, and on individual lots. The standards overlap with the conditional use standards above, with additional standards addressing compliance with state regulations, public facilities, and the design and modifications of the homes once they are in place. The Draft Model Code does not recommend requirements beyond what is already addressed in existing manufactured home regulations in Tigard. The addition of provisions for cottage housing to the TCDC (as discussed above under "18.510 Residential Zoning Districts") could also allow the development of less conventional manufactured home parks that encourage a sense of community if manufactured housing units City of Tigard Housing and Population Review 7 Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 32 were sited in a cottage housing format. If manufactured homes are to be an option for cottage housing development, it would be useful to review existing mobile home park requirements alongside proposed cottage housing regulations to ensure compatibility. 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Parking requirements can lead to inefficient land use, increase development costs, and/or cause parking to spill over onto residential streets if requirements result in too much or too little parking. The following parking issues are explored with a focus on development affordability and efficient use of land: • Parking for ADUs • On-street parking on local/residential streets • On-street parking credits • Parking space requirements for residential uses • Carport or garage requirements. Recommendations: • Consider removing the requirement for one off-street parking space for an ADU,with a caveat about whether on-street parking is provided on that neighborhood or local residential street. • Consider adopting on-street parking credits toward meeting minimum parking requirements. • Consider scaling back minimum off-street requirements for multi-family housing and group housing so that one space is required per multi-family housing unit and per eight bedrooms in group housing. Parking for ADUs Currently, section 18.710.020 requires one parking space for an ADU. This can increase the cost of building an ADU if the existing parking for the residence is not sufficient, as new paving or covered parking must be constructed. As the city looks to increase infill opportunities as well as the variety of housing choices in the city, this recommendation should be reconsidered On-street Parking on Neighborhood/Local Residential Streets Cross-sections in the TCDC for Neighborhood Routes and Local Residential streets offer options for on-street parking (TCDC Figure 18.810.3-.6). Neighborhood Routes can be designed to provide parking on both sides of the street or on one side, or to bike lanes in addition to or in lieu of parking. Local Residential streets vary in design options according to traffic volume (vehicles per day or"vpd"). Depending on volumes under 1,500 vpd, 500 vpd, and 200 vpd, narrow street cross-sections provide parking on both sides, one side, and no sides, respectively. Potential reductions to or elimination of off-street parking should be reviewed as part of the city's overall parking strategy for a particular area or neighborhood. On-street Parking Credits Currently, the TCDC explicitly prohibits counting on-street parking as part of required minimum parking (TCDC 18.765.070.D.1). City of Tigard Housing and Population Review EaC� Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 33 Model Code (Section 3.3.300.C) recommends crediting on-street parking given that the parking is located on the street adjacent to the development and that the parking is for public use (not restricted to the development's use), and it is recommended that the City consider this Model Code for adoption. This provides a small parking credit but can make a difference when development costs are high per parking space in structured or garage parking for housing. Parking Space Requirements for Residential Uses As part of a current update, the Draft Model Code is simplifying its recommended approach to parking requirements for housing. Essentially, one parking space is required for each housing unit (Table 3.5.030.A), except for group living where a space is recommended for every eight bedrooms.The city's standards follow this approach to some extent, with higher standards for multi-family housing and group housing; from 1.00 to 1.75 spaces are required for multi-family housing ranging from a unit less than 500 sf to one with three or more bedrooms, and group living requires a space per bedroom (Table 18.765.2).33 Scaling back parking requirements to match recommendations in the Draft Model Code multi-family and group housing may help reduce development costs for these housing types and uses. Carport or Garage Requirements While at least one off-street parking space is currently required for housing units in Tigard, residential zoning code does not require that a garage or carport be provided." Particularly when it comes to garages, this saves on development costs for housing. In considering recommendations related to parking requirements, it will be important to provide opportunities for community conversation about them. Relaxing or reducing parking requirements often generates concern among residents in affected neighborhoods who expect potential adverse impacts on the supply of parking and the related to need to walk or drive longer distances to access their homes or other nearby destinations. Reduce parking restrictions may be most appropriate in neighborhoods planned or zoned for high capacity transit service or a concentration or nearby services and amenities within easy walking distance. 18.350 Planned Developments. Tigard's Planned Development (PD) provisions do not specify a minimum site size. PD proposals in Tigard are subject to basically the same standards as site development review, with additional flexibility allowed for open space, drainage, and parking. The potential challenge to PD proposals is process; applications are required to go through a two-step process of preparing a concept plan and a development plan and then going through procedures to adopt PD overlay zoning. Recommendation: • Evaluate whether Planned Development regulations are sufficient to facilitate infill development in the city, or whether specific infill development standards should be adopted, focused on small residential developments. a3 Only one space per multi-family housing unit is required in the MU-CBD zone(Downtown). There are not a code section of special development standards for single-family attached housing, but Downtown design standards require that garage for this housing be accessed from an alley in the rear of the building or be recessed behind the front building elevation.(TCDC 18.610.030.G) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Policy and Development Code Evaluation and Report Page 34 The city's existing PD requirements allow for flexibility in density and other development and design elements. The approval process is a Type Ill decision-making process that includes a hearing and decision by the Planning Commission. Planned Developments typically have been requested for residential developments when significant natural resources are present or to allow a private street to service more than 6 units. Commercial projects within existing PO overlay zones are required to use the PD process but rarely seek to use the discretion allowed instead opting to meet standard requirements. Residential PD developments are primarily single house type developments. Depending on the complexity of the project,comfort with risk, and schedule, applicants approach the process differently and the review process is somewhat flexible with respect to Commission hearing schedules. Given the extent of and cost associated with the PD requirements, these provisions may not be an appropriate vehicle for permitting cottage housing or other new housing types, particularly in infill development situations. Instead, it may be more appropriate for the city to develop and adopt specific infill standards that would allow for these types of development with less cost and complexity. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 1 Memorandum DATE: August 31, 2012 (Revised Draft) TO: Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard FROM: Matt Hastie, Shayna Rehberg, and Carolyn Reid, Angelo Planning Group Brendan Buckley,Johnson Reid SUBJECT: City of Tigard Population and Housing Review Tasks 1 and 2: Data Review and Report and Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000)and ORS 197.296 This memorandum addresses the Metropolitan Housing Rule (MHR), Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-007, with a focus on Sections -0030 (New Construction Mix) and -0035 (Minimum Residential Density Allocation for New Construction), and Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.296' for the City of Tigard. It also includes a summary of Housing and Population Conditions and Future Needs prepared by Johnson Reid. A more detailed memo prepared by Johnson Reid is provided in Appendix C. Population and Housing Characteristics in Tigard Following is a brief summary of information related to housing, income and poverty conditions in Tigard. More detailed information is found in Appendix C. • Tigard is a City of over 48,000 people located in the Portland metropolitan area. • As of the 2010 Census, Tigard was the fifth largest city by population in the Portland metro area (excluding Vancouver, Washington). It represents 3% of the total population within the three primary metro counties. Tigard is the 1316 largest city in Oregon. • Tigard grew by 6,857 people between 2000 and 2010, or 17%. This is somewhat slower than the Washington County growth of 19% during that period, but greater than the state of Oregon's growth of 12%. Tigard experienced slower percentage growth than the two largest Washington County cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton (31%and 18% respectively). • Tigard was home to over 19,000 households in 2010. The percentage of families was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2010 at 65% of all households. This is very similar to the Metro area figure of 63.5%family households, and Washington County's 66.8%. • Tigard's average household size is 2.49 persons, which is slightly smaller than the Washington County and Metro area averages of 2.6 and 2.52 respectively. ` ORS 197.296(Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary;analysis and determination of residential housing patterns) City of Tigard Housing and Population Review F-1(- Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 2 Table 1 presents a profile of City of Tigard demographics from the 2000 and 2010 Census, It also presents projected demographics in 2012, based on assumptions detailed in the table footnotes. Table 1 Tigard Demographic Profile POPULATION,HOUSEHOLDS, FAMILIES, AND YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS 2000 2010 Growth Rate 2012 Growth Rate (Census) (Census) 00-10 (Proj.) 10-12 Population1 41,223 48,035 1.5% 48,798 08% Households' 16,507 19,157 1.5% 19,456 0.8% Farniliest 10,739 12,470 1.5% 12,665 0.8% Housing Units' 17,369 20,068 1.5% 20,357 0.7% Group Quarters Populations 221 347 4.6% 353 0.8% Household Size 2.48 2.49 0.0% 1.49 0.0% PER CAPITA AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2000 2010 Growth Rate 2012 Growth Rate (Census) (Est.) 00-10 (Prof.) 10-12 Per Capita(S) 25,110 32,009 1 5% 33,545 2 4% Average HH(5) 62,439 79,267 2 4% 83,072 2.4% Median HH(5) 51,581 59,245 1.4% 60,904 1.4% SOURCE:Claritas.Census,and Johnson Reid .Population growth rate irons 2011 to 2012 is based on'10-11 growth rate from PSI.'Population Research Center '2012 Households•2012 population/2012 NH Sire i Ratio of 2012 families to total NH is kept constant from 2010. 2012 housing units are the 2010 Census total plus new units permitted from'10 through Apnl'12(source- HUD State of the Cities Data Systems 'Ratio of 2012 Group Quarters Population to Total Population is kept constant from 2010 Income Levels and Poverty • Tigard's median household income was over $59,000 in 2010. This is 11% higher than the Portland/Vancouver metro area median (553,078). However, it is 10% lower than the countywide median of$66,500. • Interestingly, the average (mean) income in Tigard of over $79,000 is actually higher than the countywide average of 575,821. This indicates that there are some high income households which pull the average higher. • Median income grew 15% between 2000 and 2010, while growing over 27% in Washington County. ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review R(., Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 3 • Figure 1 shows the distribution of households by income in 2000 and 2012 (estimated). The largest single income cohort is those households earning between $50k and $75k, at 21% of households. 37%of households earn $75k or more per year. • The number of households at the lower end of the income spectrum has fallen since 2000, which mostly reflects general wage inflation. 16% of households earn $25k or less, down from 20%of households in 2000. • The five-year ACS (2006-2010) estimates that 8% of the population lives under the poverty level. • The poverty rate is higher than average among females (9.9%) and those under 18 years of age (8.7%). This is likely reflective of the heightened poverty rate among young single mothers, which is a nationwide trend. 25% ■2000 20% — — ■2012 15% 10% 596 000 ,- 'c'?)3 gg0 000 c03 qg0i cq4i �c00 )3 o e c,�()' r21tx' ti�'tx, ,Aoi` t,1R' ri°'°i' "y1.,°' stc ' gc5' o,,fi 'a 000 000 000 000 000 00 00'7C0• Od0 N.6; lNh 1711 l,, L4, c"\ 000 Lc0 41o, 2'1, Lid' LP' tzN SOURCE Clancas Inc.,Johnson Rend LLC Figure 1•Shore of Households within Income Groups,City of Tigard Current Housing Conditions A profile of current housing conditions is included in Appendix C. Key observations from that summary include: City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 4 • An estimated 60% of housing units are ownership units, while an estimated 40% of housing units are rental units. • This is a similar ratio of ownership units compared to the general PortlandNancouver Metro Area (62%ownership rate), and the state. • Over 95% of ownership units are single family homes (detached or attached), while nearly 60% of rental units are in structures of 5 units or more. Johnson Reid also compared an assessment of current housing need with the existing supply of housing in the city. Summary observations include: • In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units. This is not uncommon as the lowest income households struggle to find housing of any type that keeps costs at 30%of gross income. • Among prospective ownership households, there is a solid supply of mid-priced housing between $170k and $240k, as well as upper-mid-priced housing of $370k to 5550k_ This analysis estimates the need for more for-sale housing in between these ranges, and at the upper end of the market. • There is a general need for rental units at the lower and middle price levels. There are levels of estimated surplus for apartments ($620 to 51060 per month), and for single family homes for rent ($1770 - $3,530). These bands represent the average rent prices in Tigard, where most units can be expected to congregate. • Overall, there is a total surplus of 270 ownership units, and a current surplus of rental units of 631. This is an estimated based on a model of general preferences of households in different age and income cohorts to either own or rent. • There are an estimated 901 units more than the current number of households, reflecting the current estimated vacancy rate of 4.4%. Future Housing Needs Analysis Johnson Reid conducted a housing needs analysis as required for the Periodic Review process to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. The housing needs analysis presents housing needs in terms of the number and types of housing units needed, and includes a residential land needs analysis based on projected housing needs. Housing and land needs are forecast to 2032 consistent with 20-year need requirements of Periodic Review. (See Appendix C for the full housing needs analysis draft report.) The needs analysis relied on current demographic and housing condition data, integrated with past City and County reports, and current and anticipated housing trends. The primary data sources for the analysis included the U.S. Census, Portland State University Population Research Center, City of Tigard planning and land use, Metro population forecasts, and Claritas, Inc., a third-party company that specializes in demographic and market segmentation data. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Fa(� Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 5 The following are key findings related to housing needs projected for 2032 (see Appendix C, Table 8 for more detail): • The results show a need for over 6,500 new housing units by 2030,with a stronger emphasis on new ownership units. This total need includes the West Bull Mountain area. • Of the new units needed, 76% are projected to be ownership units, while 24% are projected to be rental units. This is because analysis of the current supply finds a greater vacancy of rental units (Figure 7). Therefore, to rebalance the supply with the projected future need profile, more new ownership units will be needed than rental units, while the current surplus of rental units needs to be absorbed. • Of the new units needed, the largest share (53%) is projected to be single family detached homes, due again to the stronger need for new ownership housing. The remainder of units (47%) is projected to be some form of attached housing. • The projected preferences for future unit types are based upon historically permitted units since 1980, cross referenced with the profile of currently available buildable lands, and how that will shape future inventory (see next section on land need). It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types, including attached single family. • Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20%of future need. • Duplex through four-plex units are projected to represent over 8%of the total need. • 18%of all needed units are projected to be multi-family in structures of 5+ attached units. • Under 1% of new needed units are projected to be manufactured home units in manufactured home parks, which meet the needs of some low-income households for both ownership and rental. Manufactured home units in manufactured home parks are projected to make up a small share of future demand. Tigard has two large manufactured home parks, both of which are fully occupied. It is projected here that there will on-going demand for manufactured home units (36 units) in keeping roughly with the current share of mobile home units in the community Compliance with OAR 660-007 and ORS 197.296 Sections -0030 of OAR 660-07-000 requires local jurisdictions to providing a variety in housing types, which is part of providing affordable housing and options for residents with different lifestyles and in different life phases. Section -0035 sets target overall densities for jurisdictions so that land in the Portland metropolitan region is used more efficiently, while supporting densities that vary within a community to meet different housing needs and choices, such as housing in newer commercial or mixed use centers as well as in older established residential neighborhoods. In addition to these key sections of the MHR, this memorandum addresses the other sections of the rule. All the sections are presented in the same order as in the administrative rule and include at least of brief description of the rule section and whether the City of Tigard Community Development Code ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review Ea(� Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.2% Page 6 (TCDC) or other pertinent regulations comply with that rule section. In some cases, compliance with a rule section will be confirmed as upcoming tasks for this project are completed. In addition to the description of the rule section and compliance, a discussion of the methodology used in analyzing housing type mix and overall density and presentation and explanation of analysis findings are included for the parts of the memorandum addressing MHR Sections -0030 and -0035. ORS 197.296 establishes requirements for conducting buildable lands inventories (BLIs) and needs analyses related to housing. The statute requires that jurisdictions adopt measures to provide more housing variety and/or density if the BLI is not sufficient to meet the needs determined in the housing needs analysis. This memorandum will address the findings of whether the City's buildable lands inventory is generally sufficient to meet estimated housing needs based on a review of the city's BLI and development code as well as an assessment of future housing needs in Tigard_ Measures that may be needed to address insufficient inventory will be addressed in future memoranda as appropriate. OAR 660-007-0015 - Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required (1) Except as provided in section (2)of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable land. The standards, conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. (2) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures as provided in section (1) of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply on optional alternative approval process for applications and permits for residential development based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if: (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of section(1); (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules;and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in section(1)of this rule. A thorough development code assessment will be performed as part of Task 4 for this project, and determination of clear and objective housing development review standards will be made at that time. OAR 660-007-0018 - Specific Plan Designations Required (1) Plan designations that allow or require residential uses shall be assigned to all buildable land. Such designations may allow nonresidential uses os well as residential uses. Such designations may be considered to be "residential plan designations"for the purposes of this division. The plan designations assigned to buildable land shall be specific so as to accommodate the varying housing types and densities identified in OAR 660-007-0030 through 660-007-0037. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review F Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 7 The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map designations and zoning are assigned to all buildable land in the city, with the exception of the River Terrace area discussed in the next section of this report, which is in the midst of a planning process that will include determining land use designations in the area. Comprehensive Plan Map designations (see Figure 2) are listed below as underlined, followed by corresponding zoning designations (not underlined). They include both residential land use designations and commercial and mixed use designations that allow residential uses. (See Table 2 for the residential housing types allowed in the zoning districts listed below.) Low Density Residential (1) MUC-1: Mixed Use Commercial— 1 R-1: Low-Density Residential District Mixed Use Employment (MUE) R-2: Low-Density Residential District MUE: Mixed-Use Employment R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District Mixed Use Employment 1 (MUE 1) MUE-1: Mixed-Use Employment 1 Medium Density Residential (M1 R-7: Medium-Density Residential District Mixed Use Employment 2 (MUE 2). R-12: Medium-Density Residential District MUE-2: Mixed-Use Employment 2 Medium-High Density Residential (MI-11 R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District High Density Residential (H) R-40: High-Density Residential District MUR-1 Mixed Use Residential 1 MUR-1: Mixed Use Residential District 1 MUR-2 Mixed Use Residential 2 MUR-2: Mixed Use Residential District 2 Mixed Use Central Business District (MU-CBD1 MU-CBD: Mixed Use-Central Business District General Commercial (CG) C-G:General Commercial District Community Commercial(CC) C-C: Community Commercial District Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) MUC: Mixed Use Commercial District N , 4 ! 11 ! ; 1 [ 111 ! 111111 I K __::: S ci ao 11 „ 1 , 111111 I ii . . : ,4 , ii ! l ! ! . 1 111111y1110 1 ii i ?17er1i ) rii31t ; ; I ! ! til : r 1I I1 III II uric:. 0 =: Y .. 'I1G iMit iI I .... p ry y^ : . iii,. .....1.14111•1141•11N.111. S r � 1 fJ l e • :E •f :Ea'o ; ' . .cvr : - $ t a o if •I ' c i i .. ♦ t t iE . , i r j ,t: i : ' - : it = • �F �. o 3t - a i i ..E a.._ tia :1 o cc 11 3[if ' . • .L 3 IIt 5 it . s u • ' a fe f E, t s �n It- is 4 if i o :f E : . ; 1 IC if C3 Y w 1t cO In 1 I i ii !Ill o ? .— Q. tS. ti + r orp : Iit o fi ti R. IZa r---..- -..... 1111 it 1 Na S City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 9 OAR 660-007-0020-The Rezoning Process A local government may defer rezoning of kind within the urban growth boundary to maximum planned residential density provided thot the process for future rezoning is reasonably justified: (1) The plan must contain a justification for the rezoning process and policies which explain how this process will be used to provide for needed housing. (2) Standards and procedures governing the process for future rezoning shall be based on the rezoning justification and policy statement, and must be clear and objective. City zoning designations are provided for land within the city limits of Tigard. The existing exception is land in the area called "River Terrace" (previously called "Area 64," see figure 3) that was annexed in September 2011, but has yet to complete a Community Plan that will be the basis for City zoning in the area. Potential land use designations were identified for the area as part of the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan (2010). Housing capacity in this area, as well as other portions of the UGB which do not yet have zoning are based on proposed land use designations and density assumptions identified in the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan. More detail about these areas can be found in Appendix A. Otherwise, rezoning of land within the UGB is not deferred. OAR 660-007-0022- Restrictions on Housing Tenure Any local government that restricts the construction of either rental or owner occupied housing on or after its first periodic review shall either justify such restriction by on analysis of housing need according to tenure or otherwise demonstrate that such restrictions comply with ORS 197.303(1)(a) and 197.307(3). There are no restrictions on construction of rental or owner-occupied housing in the City's residential zoning code (TCDC Chapter 18.510), subdivision code (TCDC Chapter 18.430), or community plan standards (TCDC Chapter 18.600). Further, the City explicitly supports providing affordable rental and owner-occupied housing as part of the purpose statement in its residential zoning code: Encourage Construction of affordable housing_ Another purpose of these regulations is to create the environment in which construction of a full range of owner-occupied and rental housing at affordable prices is encouraged. This con be accomplished by providing residential zoning districts of varying densities and developing flexible design and development standards to encourage innovation and reduce housing costs. (TCDC 18.510.010.B) OAR 660-007-0030 - New Construction Mix (1) Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must either designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing or justify on alternative percentage based on changing circumstances. City of Tigard Housing and Population Review F)(-; Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 10 Assumptions The following assumptions were made for analysis of both New Construction Mix and the following section, Minimum Residential Density Allocation for New Construction. Buildable Land Inventory The City's BLI was used to determine the location of developable land within Tigard and the surrounding Urban Growth Area (UGA). A map of buildable lands by zone is shown in Figure 3. Permitted Housing Types and Density in Residential Zoning Districts Residential zoning districts' currently applied to land within the BLI were examined to determine allowed housing types and densities in each zone. These assumptions are shown in Table 3. Chapter 18.510:Residential Zoning Districts htlo:llwww tiBeard or Aov/businesslmuniupaI code/docsltrtle18118510-1.pdf I 1 /NC). t S.0-1 \ = ) Lb). 1..i - 410 i a) Cil gi ry d a', ac ?+ 110%...c. . o 1 ri occ r~ _ Z G Q k g o . 3 a 3 1....___.--)__1 r� c ..r) Li o a v a ai cc t T 00 ` AB r.............„1":„Jr 00 et, ! \ i CD o `o Lam ' r Y 2 LIa+ A a. Els L ' .1.:Ip J 1 aJL., C a ro E ti 1 , uC.1.-1r. "', :4 . En is .Sc • 14 pAt':- V f O C ~ 1 t4, .... ('V M p L tir~ ! HA iY C - - 0 mELIO " 1111111 Cl) ° ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review FA-; Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 12 Urban Growth Areas In addition to the zones shown in Table 2, there are also two areas of buildable land in the West Bra,mon • Bull Mountain Concept Plan (WBMCP)3, referred •'•' to as Area 63 and Area 64 (see Figure 4), that have • s ff not yet been zoned. - :- t, .. Within Area 63 and Area 64, the WBMCP identifies 1' ' " ' -- tl, areas for low-, medium-, and high-density - T residential development. These density ranges are . f -• ;. �•j T,.g,ud based on a 2008 project memorandum4 that ''••f ?'- ' _ 11 details assumptions that led to the final WBMCP -'10t-,..• qj -L -Flit t^- document, and defines the residential density . ~"■O°""`"` 4I classifications as follows: e�` J' r1 t - -- - Low density: detached products ranging from } .- I i� . 4 to 6 units per acre; $ Area 63 1 • 714:Medium density: detached and attached . products ranging from 7 to 14 units per acre; a'a■; and . - Rura!Arsea • - High density: attached multi-dwelling unit I l ...• .•''" products ranging from 15 to 45 units per acre. —•......,,, A detailed explanation of the methodology for determining housing types and densities assigned to these areas can be found in Appendix A. Figure 4-West Bull Mountain Concept Plan areas Duplexes Source:West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Report,page 7 Additionally, several residential zoning districts allow duplexes. According to OAR 660-007-0005(6), "Multiple Family Housing" means attached housing where each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot. The City of Tigard defines a "duplex" as: Two dwelling units placed so that some structural parts are in common and are located on a single lot.' Based on these two definitions, duplexes were considered multiple family housing for the purposes of this analysis. This means that zones R-3.5 and R-4.5, which permit only duplexes and single family 'West 80 Mountain Concept Pton Report.Washrtt<ton County,Oregon.October 2010. httD//www.cc washington.Or.us/LUT/Planni cProlectsiwestbullmtiuoioad/WBM'residential Ddf Memorandum•West Bull Mountain Concept Pion, Tasks 2.08 and 3.1:Residential Near and For-Term Nerds,Development Alternatives and Density Targets.Minds Plummer&Tina Mosul,Leland Consulting Group.lune 5,2008. `Chapter 18.120-7.76.d htti.ilwww tuiard•Or tov/businessimuniooal code/docsltitle18/18120-1.pdi City of Tigard Housing and Population Review PG Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 13 detached housing types, were assumed to contribute to the opportunity to develop attached or multifamily housing units through duplexes. Maximum Development Capacity As shown in Table 3, there are seven zones (R-3.5, R-4.5, R-7, R-12, R-25, MUR-1, and MUR-2)where single family detached as well as single family attached and/or multi-family housing are permitted. For the purposes of showing the opportunity to develop at least fifty percent of new units as attached or multifamily units, the maximum capacity in each zone was assumed. An exception was made in the R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones, which permit single family detached housing outright, and duplexes as a conditional use. While duplex development is higher density and assumes more capacity for these zones, because it is a conditional use it was considered unreasonable to assume that all of the buildable R-3.5 and R-4.5 land could develop as duplexes. Instead,for these zones, it was assumed that half of the land would develop as single family detached housing and half would develop as duplexes. The R-1 and R-2 zones are the only zones where there is no opportunity for attached and/or multifamily housing units to develop. MUR-1 and MUR-2 Zones: Percentage of Residential Development The Mixed-Use Residential zones (MUR-1 and MUR-2) are primarily residential, and included in the new residential construction capacity analysis. In order to determine the percentage of MUR zoning that is expected to be developed as housing, the existing development with MUR zoning was analyzed. Currently, there are 96 developed parcels with MUR-1 or MUR-2 zoning. Table 1 below shows the distribution of land uses over these 96 parcels, as well as the percentage of land area that has been developed in each of these uses. Table 2 Land Uses in Developed MUR zones Number Total Area by of Percentage Land Use Percentage of Land Use Parcels of Parcels (Acres) MUR land Commercial 4 4% 2.517 11.3% Public 4 4% 1.388 6.2% Multi-Family Residential 30 31% 5.374 24.1% Single Family Residential 58 60% 13.030 58.4% TOTAL 96 100% 22.310 100.0% City of Tigard Housing and Population Review PG Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000)and ORS 197.296 Page 14 As shown in Table 2, residential development (multi-family and single family combined) make-up about 91% of the total developed MUR land area. Accordingly, the assumption was made that about 91% of new development on MUR land would be residential. Additional Residential Redevelopment Capacity The City's BLI includes properties that are partially vacant and have the capacity for infill development. In addition to this infill development, some residential lots in the city have the capacity for redevelopment from lower to higher density uses, such as existing single-family dwellings located in zones where single-family attached or multi-family dwellings are allowed. The current draft housing capacity methodology recommended for use by Metro includes an approach for estimating this redevelopment capacity. As part of this process, we have done this for such properties in residential zones R-12 and higher. R-12 is the lowest zone where MFR is allowed outright; R-4.5 allows duplexes conditionally, and R-7 allows SFA conditionally. There are no identified single-family residential uses identified in the city's mixed use zones (MUC, MUC-1, MUE, and MUE-2).Appendix B includes detailed results of the redevelopment analysis, showing a potential additional capacity for a significant number of units through residential redevelopment (2,700 — 4,900 additional new units). It should be noted that these numbers may overestimate the amount of true redevelopment potential given that parcel sizes, setback requirements, land values and a host of other factors may present obstacles to residential redevelopment in these areas. In addition, as noted previously, even without considering this redevelopment capacity, the city has adequate buildable residential land to meet future housing needs. As a result, additional redevelopment capacity represents an additional cushion to this supply. $ g ° IV en f C cc al G. S. e - & - b 0 4EQ c® TO o = I I , 5 13 » , . 2 A % \ c C C 9 - c ` $ 0 \ - I . , , , , } 2 -171 . r X 7 7 4, r ft 0 § r.- ft ■ I V A z �z z z z a a a. a % CC m f C p. C k V / ai 3 •;01 10 - 013 I - D Cti � , § '. \ tt % 7 7 c c 0 E• \ t / q $ 3 i 2 k 2 z _ /©\ j � ° 7 1 § _ Z z z 0C et 0. a. a. a. IN Vr f m m 0 E k & - -iu 3 - / kJ © D cE / \ ƒ 0 0 $ c 0 0 c = O f_ a.2 o d c o ¥ k i- 02 cc & k 2 , .4 4, C j I { z Z u u a O. 0. a a I , , ' I'i co N. m m 0 i . ia C X C & . RI V , 7 " • To g % g 0 k c c 2 \ ƒ o \ - Cr � m m \ \ § C . z z u \ 0 5 _ c , . , al c f LI 10 E w _ E ea _ S 7 a a. a. O. O. O. a ■ ■ k I ' cc , , 1 a CC 0 un b a \ _ NI ; _ _ _ ci E 2 o z _ _ e I N4 0 Cf _ C rte_ ■_ ■ a ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review PG Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 16 Methodology Using GIS, the City's BLI was analyzed to determine the capacity for single family housing units versus the capacity for attached and multifamily housing units using the following method: 1. Calculate net developable area (in acres) in each zoning district. The BLI is based on taxlots, so rights-of-way are already eliminated. 2. Multiply the number of acres in each zone by the maximum density allowed in each zone to find the maximum development capacity (as number of units) for each zone. These results are shown in two columns in Table 4 based on the housing type (single family detached or attached/multifamily) used to calculate the development capacity. 3. Sum capacity for single-family detached units across all zones as well as capacity for attached/multifamily units across all zones. 4. Calculate housing types as percentage of total units. Results and Discussion The results of the analysis show that under current zoning and planning, there is an opportunity for greater than 50 percent (up to 68 percent) of new housing to be attached or multifamily units. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4. It should be noted that while the code permits up to 68 percent of new housing to be attached or multifamily units—and 24 percent of housing that must develop as single family detached housing—this may not be a realistic expectation for future development. Preliminary analysis by Johnson Reid for Task 1 of this project shows that 58.7 percent of the existing housing stock is made up of single family detached housing. Based on assumptions detailed in Appendix A, Area 63 and Area 64 also have the potential to include a significant share of single family detached housing. These results and issues will be discussed further with city staff and advisory committee members. One further caveat is that these results do not include any housing that may develop in the MU-CBD. MUC, or MUE zoning districts (Mixed Use —Central Business District, —Commercial, and —Employment zones, respectively.) While these zones permit residential development without discretionary review, housing is not the primary land use and residential uses are not required to be developed in these areas as a component of a permitted mixed use development in these districts. Therefore they were not counted towards the city's residential capacity as part of the analysis. However, based on rough estimates of buildable land and allowed densities in these areas, the city and APG have estimated that the Downtown and Tigard Triangle areas could accommodate approximately 2,000 and 1,200 additional residential units, respectively- The majority of these units would be single-family attached or multi- family units per the mixed use and residential zones applied in these areas, further increasing the potential supply and density of housing within Tigard. f \ § - ; -_ + P < \ a4 2 S `• f ! ƒ / 00 r0 7 . _ z _ 4 C g o f § § SI2 §Q ) § |\ , / O. 0 | i § o - � 4 ■ c % ) J « . . . . f �,{ | 0:3_ ^ � ! r - - • / j al � � z 1 o $ _ �� IF. r••• V.'', IN w_ ! I .11 r• 1,11 114 � $ ; _ ! ! § , \ / Z2 . ~ 1 cia » ` , , k ¥» y - > 0 f � - § , , | ! L '/ , 2 | ! ti i •£ . E /y . . - !; % } \ / . . • ^ ! yc i; `� o } � c > > . | 2 - 7 ' k \ � f! | . | £ , . - - ' | aa � ` `� § % 7 { ! 3 4 ` ` � � / $ % � UI E c `0 2 « 2 • §- j c | z ' 1 , j a all i2 / - . . zz2 , & � � � � % | ! 2 © ` - - \ \ 2f 41.1 U j 2 ■ t z lb. • z ! , _ 2v \ / \ � 2 c IA k ] t4 § . . _ 7 I . 0 2 \ � 1 } \ | | - & . -v , , IS1 N 2ff zz � � & & . & & 1131 ! m i , ■ !a; ` IL ! ! - • - . it .4t | , , ! ; - ! , tu 4)o. } / b'K § K K I E o Al § ) « » kk - .^ f 1i1 = 13 ; I 2 � _ . , , if ) | � t § E - 1 ! t1 • h- E : kZ � O. El � O. IX � . . ) i | . ■ \ , !kill � � a 2 f . ! i a -2 7 | 1 | 4 $ ] § iii ! r(CR 111' | � ` � 0 c_ k \ QZ }_32cici22 \ 4 _| S . 1 - ,Z City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 18 OAR 660-007-0035- Minimum Residential Density Allocation for New Construction The following standards shall apply to those jurisdictions which provide the opportunity for at least SD percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing: (3) Multnomah County and the cities of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro Lake Oswego and Tigord must provide for an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. Assumptions The assumptions made to calculate minimum residential density are the same as those made for New Construction Mix in the previous section with regard to: Urban Growth Areas, duplexes, permitted housing types and density in residential zoning districts, maximum development capacity, and percentage of residential development in MUR-1 and MUR-2 zones. Additionally, assumptions for maximum density in the MUR-1 zone were also made, as detailed below. MUR-1 Zone—Maximum Density A further assumption had to be made regarding development capacity in the MUR-1 ("Mixed Use Residential/High Density) zone. Currently, there are 27 parcels (3.8 acres) in the BLI zoned MUR-1, but the code specifies that there is no set maximum residential density for this zone. The code does specify the following requirements for the MUR-1 zone: - Minimum density of 50 units per acre - Minimum FAR of 0.6 - Maximum site coverage of 80% - Minimum building height of 2 stories - Maximum building height of 75 ft. In order to estimate maximum development capacity, a maximum must be assumed based on previous development in the MUR-1 zone and realistic predictions about site capacity. Currently, there are 73 residentially-developed parcels (9.5 acres) within the MUR-1 zoning designation. Of these, 28 are multifamily housing: - 10 units in Deodar Condominiums (built in 1984) - 18 units in Touchstone Townhomes at Washington Square (built in 2007) And 45 are single family residences: - 13 units in Ashbrook Farm (built 1930-1988) - 24 units in Maple Ridge Estates (built 2000-2001) - 4 units in Town of Metzger (built 1940-1967) - 4 units in Metzger Acre Tracts(built 1940-1972) 18.510.2:Development Standards in Residential Zones http://www,tiRard-or.Rov/business/municipal code/docs/title18/18510-1.pdf City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 19 None of these developments begin to approach the 50 units per acre minimum required by the MUR-1 zoning classification, and so do not provide adequate precedent to predict future density maximums. Tigard's Community Development Code, Title 18, was updated in 1998,' and the majority of these residences were built under a previous version of the code. For the purposes of the density analysis, the minimum density for the MUR-1 zone (50 dwelling units per acre) was used. The calculated density for the entire buildable area exceeded the minimum of 10.0 dwelling units per acre required under this section of the Metropolitan Housing Rule, so this minimum was deemed sufficient. Methodology Using GIS, the City's BLI was analyzed to determine the overall residential density for new construction. 1. Calculate net developable area (acres) in each zoning district. The BLI is based on taxlots, so rights-of-way are already eliminated. 2. Multiply the number of acres in each zone by the maximum density allowed in each zone to find the maximum development capacity (number of units)for each zone. 3. Sum net developable area (acres)for city plus Urban Growth Area 4. Sum maximum development capacity (number of units) for city plus Urban Growth Area 5. Divide maximum development capacity (number of units) by net developable area (in acres) to find average density (units per acre). Results and Discussion The results of the analysis show that under current zoning and planning, Tigard provides for an overall residential density of new construction of 11.6 units per acre, which exceeds the MHR requirement of 10.0 units per acre. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. As in the New Construction Mix analysis, mixed-use zones that are not primarily residential and which do not require a certain percentage of housing within mixed use developments were not included in this analysis. As noted previously,this includes both the city's Downtown area (zoned for Mixed Use Central Business District) and the Tigard Triangle area (zoned for Mixed Use Employment), both of which are expected to see significant increases in housing in the long term. Additionally, the 3.8 net buildable acres that are zoned as MUR-1 were assumed to develop at the minimum allowed density of 50 units per acre for this analysis. As noted in the assumptions section, there is no maximum density for the MUR-1 zone. This means that the overall 11.6 unit per acre residential density may be a low estimate for future density with respect to these areas as a measure of potential residential capacity. 'Chapter 18.500-1:Zoning Districts Legislative Notes summarizes code updates,and is dated 11/26/1998.http://www.tigard- Or.gov/husineWmunicipal code/docs/title18/185Q0'1.pdi 3 Lo cm , - - - - - ƒ q & ~ � § ] ) 22 � / § § J \ Q. tky - - 2 $ 2 ƒ } • o T. E 7 _ • N _ _ I, _ COINm , 0. - . i ~ ^ - ^ - i 7 / § _ 0 5 � % g ank m N. z .-I . 2 E | , _en sr0 & ' \ Lo { | ^ 12 g r.1 • 0 D . , . , , k I2 5 9110 cc \ � ls ' i \ f\ § \ | • 7 2 z � ,\ ' \ 2 ' .zz . I ! a . t ! I lIZ zzzzz � o. a � I.2 I 2 , k f2 ! .a 4 § f 0 2 | } , , I I I | } a . § - ` ? ! 1 ' EJfES ƒ \ f " 12Z � :.• 1 � 0 | - « cu ■ ■ I 7 = § } 7 „ . e ., 14E zzz � � a. ista0. i} ;$ o - 4o ! §| lg: C9 4 `9C9 �� az, $ 2 | � 't - { t§ - $ ■ - 20.1 E2— § § § § 5E % } i } ! t # 5 § k § wwi. i. i S � - . ! . 22 ! | | k % r 1 . . , 2 ; 11k 1f £ zzuu & & & & 7. } . c4 ! � - ! . - ~ - - ` - - 9 � 1 � � f | { ar m ) k ' 2 | �| ! /c. E ` ) � , aa { . ' } ! 1 it E ƒ) § ) § oo . . ; k 4k § « ww0o ` | ! | Z ! — — zz-E- N. | • X \ . .- , • { $ �k � � � � � � � � � {� )\ ■ Z To v ' ' I . f} | } ! :, OJ Re 7 _ en wt EI1ir1l , 1(12 \ ...5 f i : _ 2 2 m k k f f 2 Ce = E4oickeieceek22 _ w ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review 1T 3 Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 21 OAR 660-007-0033-Consideration of Other Housing Types Each local government shall consider the needs for manufactured housing and government assisted housing within the Portland Metropolitan UGH in arriving of on allocation of housing types. Currently, manufactured homes are permitted in all residential zoning districts. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are not permitted in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, are conditionally permitted in the R- 3.5 and R-4.5 zoning districts, and are permitted outright in the R-7, R-12, R-25, and R-40 zoning districts.8 The need for manufactured housing and government assisted housing in Tigard is being assessed by consultant Johnson Reid as part of a comprehensive housing needs analysis. According to the housing needs analysis, mobile home units are not anticipated to make up a significant share of new future units. Tigard has two large fully occupied mobile home parks. While mobile home parks are allowed conditionally or outright in six of Tigard's eight residential zones, it is more likely that vacant land in these zones will be developed with attached housing types that will return more value than a new mobile home park and for which a significant need has been shown in the analysis (approximately 47% of the need per Appendix C, Figure 9). The need for individual manufactured homes (outside of parks) was included in the "single family detached" category in the housing needs analysis. Policy and code support for providing manufactured and government assisted housing will be further examined during Task 4 of this project. OAR 660-007-0037 - Alternate Minimum Residential Density Allocation for New Construction The density standards in OAR 660-007-0035 shall not apply to a jurisdiction which justifies an alternative new construction mix under the provisions of OAR 660-007-0030. The City of Tigard is not seeking an alternate minimum residential density. ORS 197.296 ORS 197.296 Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary; analysis and determination of residential housing patterns. (7) Using the analysis conducted under subsection (3)(b) of this section, the local government shall determine the overall average density and overall mix of housing types of which residential development of needed housing types must occur in order to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. If that density is greater than the actual density of development determined under subsection (5)(o)(A) of this section, or if that mix is different from the actual mix of housing types determined under subsection (5)(a)(A) of this section, the local government, as port of its periodic review, shall adopt measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at the housing types and density and at the mix of housing types required to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. 8 See Table 18.510.1 in the City of Tigard Community Development Code. ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review I'1G Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 22 As described in the introduction, ORS 197.296 establishes requirements for conducting buildable lands inventories (8115) and needs analyses related to housing. The statute requires that jurisdictions adopt measures to provide more housing variety and/or density if the buildable lands inventory is not sufficient to meet the needs determined in the housing needs analysis. As described in the opening sections of this memorandum, the City most recently updated its B11 in June 2012. The Johnson Reid housing needs analysis found the need for approximately 6,550 new housing units in the city by 2032. As part of the City BLI, GIS analysis of vacant unconstrained parcels in Tigard found 600 net acres of developable residential land. This land supply will accommodate an estimated 6,980 housing units at an average density of 11.6 units per acre per the residential capacity analysis described previously. Therefore, this land supply meets the projected 20-year need for 6,550 new housing units in the city, and measures to provide more housing variety and/or density, pursuant to the statute, are not required to be developed or adopted at this point in the process. In addition, Johnson Reid estimated the capacity of the BLI to accommodate the identified needed mix of future housing described on pages 4-5 of this memo an in more detail in Appendix C. The following table summarizes that analysis, showing that the city has nearly enough buildable land with appropriate zoning designations to accommodate projected needed future housing, with a modest shortfall of about 100 units. Table 6: Projected New Unit Need by Zone, Tigard(2032) TOTAL NEW UNITS NEEDED(2030) S.F. S.F. 3-or 4- 5.units Mobile Total Capacity of Comp Plan Designation Detached Attached OuOei pinMFR home Units Vacant Lands Units Per 3,494 1,267 150 401 1,198 36 6,545 IM units)/ Net Acre R-1 Low-Density Residential 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1.5 R•2 Low-Density Residential 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2.2 R-3.5 Low-Density Residential 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 14.8 6.5 R-4.5 low-Density Residential 834 0 50 0 0 0 884 1.085 7.3 R-7 Medium-Density Residential 585 0 0 0 0 36 621 628 8.7 R-12 Medium-Density Residential 200 325 0 0 0 0 525 525 14.3 R-25 Medium-Density Residential 0 139 100 401 600 0 1,240 1,240 29.4 MUR-1 Mixed•Use Residential 0 0 0 0 191 0 191 191 50.0 MUR-2 Mixed-Use Residential 0 0 0 0 60 0 60 60 50.0 (Area63] West Bull Mountain 637 63 0 0 0 0 700 700 6.7 (Area 64] West Bull Mountain 1,045 740 0 0 347 0 2,132 2,132 13.0 Totals/Averages: 3,406 1,267 150 401 1,197 36 6,457 6,714 11.6 1 From assessment of capacity of Buildable Lands Sources Real Urban Geographies,City of TIGARD,Johnson Reid LLC The analysis summarized in this table differs somewhat from the capacity calculations described on pages 13-15. That capacity analysis assumed the potential to build mostly attached or multi-family City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page 23 units in every zone above R-2 based on the housing types allowed in those zones. However, this leaves relatively little capacity to accommodate the projected need for single-family detached housing in some of these same zones. Once these detached units are accommodated in the lower-density residential zones, the actual achieved capacity of these zones is less than the theoretical capacity (based on maximizing the zoning potential). As a result, Table 6 shows a capacity for just under 6,500 units. As noted previously, the MU-CBD and MUE zones (Downtown and Tigard Triangle areas) would be expected to mitigate the impact of this shortfall. These two mixed-use zones are not included in the capacity analysis, but it is anticipated that both of these areas will accommodate a substantial number of residential units in the future. Including the capacity of these areas to absorb additional multi-family units, would free capacity (mostly in the R-12 zone) to absorb the remaining projected demand for detached units City of Tigard Housing and Population Review Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page A-1 Appendix A: West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Areas Overview Within the City of Tigard's Urban Growth Area are two areas that were included in new construction capacity analyses: Area 63 and Area 64 Area 64 (known also as the River Terrace area), was recently annexed to the city, but has not yet been zoned. Area 63 has not yet been annexed (or zoned.) Future residential densities and housing product types for these areas were predicted based on the 2010 West Bull Mountain Concept Plan9(WBMCP). The WBMCP project area included an adjacent "Rural Area" (that is outside of the UGB) in addition to Area 63 and Area 64 (see Figure A-1). This area was not included in the analysis discussed here. The buildable land analysis completed as part of the WBMCP did not disaggregate the project area data based on the three areas, so these numbers could not be used directly for this analysis. It should be noted that the WBMCP calls for the entire project area (including the "Rural Area") to have an overall residential density of 11.5 units per acre. However, calculations to determine the residential capacity in Area 63 and Area 64 determined a density of 8.1 units per acre. This discrepancy is probably due to the large area and density of housing that is planned for the "Rural Area" that did not factor into this analysis. Assumptions and Methodology Area 64 has planned infrastructure and dedicated right-of-ways, and the city included the buildable parcel information for Area 64 in the 2012 Buildable Land Inventory (BLI). However, the GIS information for Area 63 has not yet been incorporated into the BLI. To estimate buildable land for residential development in Area 63, the consultant team used the city's definition of net development area,10 and subtracted the following developed and unbuildable lands: - existing residences and existing school district land; - Clean Water Service (CWS) buffers; and - land with a slope of 25%or greater. The city's net development area definition also provides the following formula for estimating the amount of land to be dedicated to future public rights-of-way:" - Single-family development: allocate 20%of gross acreage - Multifamily development: allocate 15%of gross acreage Within Area 63 and Area 64, the WBMCP identifies areas for low-, medium-, and high-density residential development. These density ranges are based on a 2008 project memorandum'2 that details assumptions that led to the final WBMCP document, and defines the residential density classifications as follows: 'West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Report.Washington County,Oregon.October 2010. htt0://www Co washrn&ton.or.us/LUT/PlannmRProiects/westbuilmt/uoload/WBM-residential.oaf 10 Chapter 18.715.010.A:Definition of net development area.htto://www.tlizard-or goy/business/municipal code/docs/tale18/18715'1 odf "Chapter 18.715.010.A.3 11 Memorandum-West Bull Mountain Concept Plan,Tasks 2 08 and 3.1:Residential Near and For-Term Needs.Development Alternatives and Density TorQets.Mind!Plummer&Tina Mosta,Leland Consulting Group.June 5,2008 City of Tigard Housing and Population Review EG Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page A-2 - Low density: detached products ranging from 4 to 6 units per acre; - Medium density: detached and attached products ranging from 7 to 14 units per acre; and - High density: attached multi-dwelling unit products ranging from 15 to 45 units per acre. Using this definition, each density designation was assumed to develop at the maximum value of the defined range (low-density at 6 units per acre; medium density at 14 units per acre; high density at 45 units per acre). The maximum value was chosen to be consistent with the assumptions made for areas with existing zoning designations (as explained under the Maximum Development Capacity subheading on page 13.) The spatial allocations for these residential densities were estimated based on a Concept Plan map from the WBMCP (see Figure A-1), and assigned to buildable parcels in GIS to determine the total acreage of each density designation. For the residential mix analysis, the single and detached housing types were allocated by density based on the above residential density classifications. All low density development is assumed to be detached housing; medium density is assumed as 50 percent detached and 50 percent multifamily/attached housing; and high density residential is assumed to be all multifamily/attached housing. Housing density and type classifications for Area 63 and Area 64 are shown in Table A•1. It is important to note that overall, the West Bull Mountain Area will need to meet regional requirements for a net density of at least 10 units per acre for future housing in the area. As zoning designations are applied, the average net density and capacity for areas 63 and 64 may be higher than estimated in this report. As a result, this is considered a conservative analysis. ACity of Tigard Housing and Population Review PG Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page A-3 err " • • .10 t%;;;- • 4 `.4 7 k —_Ss1 ,, 1 } ;1'ic ' ..: • • 1 l- 6_A.:r.1 4."(F11_,.:•-•gof-." •r 1 _..n. .l Tr ♦ T1: _ _ . ` '` r t+3. 'J; ( 1. , 11:hyr Aries 63 ..4......:r1:4,' " Ff,: t I MC TE Circ pt Pion OWeQ�- `' MsusRb p1134•310.31 0/tH.dopleti rteIWOu>�n F40 I p1134•310.31 f+'...�Id Yr.w-.. t Use Fr - 1. ---- ='�.� luirma Welt s .� - . Dm.*flammalm Still Mountain cp.,— .��...,.... I[►ln....n r ay.,•..paw..+ In tirwmo •�r .a.m.—No.w �A/ — .. _....a.... Figure A-I Source:West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Report,page 29 \ § }ƒ f ° $ t' �` cu % 113 - re \ Iff ° - K 5 - 2 ] - § 0. % ! k7 i I 31j m $ A \ k 0 �4/1 o. � _ i S § - 2 j _ 00 2 2 ct ( f \ ƒ Z ° k f % J i3 .2 � f c f o o } Q = 7gl ! - a,t Io 61 { � k � � ( to 7 { _ 0 ' k & \ / , ` � � § J ■ ° S z _ 4 co ! E }If 2 9 | F. c a ti e | $ E ro J ■ / 2 I i$ ƒ$ C 0 in � � @ I $ 74 i 1 ƒ1r7, 0 \ i | ge � ` o ƒ7 - - , - 42z $ � � ".11, CU / 6i i I ■ m I 2 I � 3 ' a § { IQ Qs , , . k G 2 ■ .0 \ k k \ ) K 5 t _ , , . . ƒ \ Q. [ z f A. \ $ CO $ / 0 A ' 01 r NI it- O _ . . . . = c o ru . , , c o c k c 1 67 \ } k 0 - - N I cc 5 eu \ 7 c E s ' , , % cx E Eo% TS ± bzi > .0 0 ƒ 2 ` $ q $ CO 0 0 q $ m c E _ . / 2_ . , , \ E E \ 2 ; a _ k c C 2 j f c 2 i \ c m % CC - @ k N. et q I - © 0 _ k / ( I - _ . k : _ 0 cu * R R 0 0 / ....1 2 0 E E _g ~ ^ 2 ~ 2 0 0 0 2 k . . . ; _ 3 IN 0 8 $ $ IN % ? E Ti cc E Eed! c _ % 0 Q Q 9 q \ \ G II Sg CI k , . . . . . un re .2 2 _ au �_ c \ '\ k LA.� U. 4. U. 4. � U U. L $ o » 2 2 2 2 2 12 U. U. % \ _ § { 4) u cc \ q 01 q ? G To E E 7 2 k m C g E t t 7 2 iu 3 - ` R in - - a e d G / b _ ¢ a f 2 i — . . E E % a 10 $ m N 0 0 0 2 0 113 R 0 2 I > 2 3 N it i { > , . . , . , E -,T, 2 G I 2 § s = Cr 1J > o \ c 13 G cc ai \ \ o f -0 2 MI MI 1:3 a 1(12 k - / - E ciJ a.1 IN ../1 & & u d f LL Na • j & & D § § § 2 2 2 2 CU \ « m E j \ 3 2 7 § 7 \ k } fill .- E E 2 a ) - c B a - 0 { § f (o \ ma / 2ii t 1;04 - 6 a of o $i cc . \ 13 2 0 k3 g ." ® \ E CI \ % Tu cc7 % Y. O 11 3 \ k I .15 \ C { ± _ t J — o - § § 2 ; C \ ._ } 2 .3 { ' ! 4 U - } 0 MI rO ,I3 '0C4vi — U _ 7 z ID To £ \ E A' v � op 9 - 6 ) w f 7 k } # { I - E k / \ f � = / cu ( E 2 - 0 \ Z 111 cu eo 7, B \ \ Ii E � f & r, - \ 3 / § - ■ f ° 9 P c t O \ I ¥ § \ _ cc a de $ 2 § 2 E 7. i2 � 2 | 2 = . \ & 12 K k } 2 � - \ . _ ; - o _ ai $ 0 { - '0. al k § t , a`^ 7 {_ � � ' C \ '2 C ! & _ § � _ j ƒ } § k -, � / @ate t : § R \z 2 ( ,... : , . [ JIT§ ] City of Tigard Housing and Population Review PG Compliance with Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000) and ORS 197.296 Page c-1. Appendix C: Johnson Reid 20-Year Housing Needs Forecast and Housing Land Need Analysis - DRAFT jJune 20121 I , M JOHNSON REID LAND USE ECONOMICS CITY OF TIGARD, OR HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT (OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL io) Prepared For: CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON August, 2012 319 SW WASHINGTON STREET,SUITE 1020 PORTLAND,OR 97204 5031295-7632 5031295-1107(FAX) -IIS W TABLE OF CONTENTS 20-YEAR HOUSING NEEDS FORECAST 2 INTRODUCTION 2 CITY OF TIGARD DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 3 CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS 7 ANTICIPATED HOUSING TRENDS 12 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS (2032) 21 20-YEAR HOUSING LAND NEEDS ANALYSIS 25 INTRODUCTION 25 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL LANDS 25 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEED (2032) 26 EXHIBITS CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS PAGE 1 20-YEAR HOUSING NEEDS FORECAST INTRODUCTION This report presents a forecast of housing need within the City of Tigard, Oregon. The Housing Needs Analysis was conducted as required for the Periodic Review process to update the Comprehensive Plan. This report presents a housing needs analysis (presented in number and types of housing units) and a residential land needs analysis, based on those projections. Housing and land need are forecast to 2032 consistent with 20-year need assessment requirements of Periodic Review. This analysis is built on data of current demographic and housing conditions, while integrating past City and County reports, and current and anticipated housing trends. The primary data sources used in generating this forecast were: • U.S. Census • Portland State University Population Research Center • City of Tigard land use data • Metro population forecasts • Claritas Inc.' • Other sources are identified as appropriate ' Claritas Inc. is a third party company providing data on demographics and market segmentation. It as owned by the Nielson Company which conducts direct market research including surveying of households across the nation. Nielson combines proprietary data with data from the U.S.Census,Postal Service,and other federal sources,as well as local-level sources such as Equifax, Vallassis and the Natrona! Association of Realtors. Claritas promotes a "bottom-up" and "top-down" analysis using these sources to produce annual demographic and economic profiles for individual geographies. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 2 CITY OF TIGARD DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Population and Households • Tigard is a City of over 48,000 people located in the Portland metropolitan area. • As of the 2010 Census, Tigard was the fifth largest city by population in the Portland metro area (excluding Vancouver, Washington). It represents 3% of the total population within the three primary metro counties. Tigard is the 13th largest city in Oregon. • Tigard grew by 6,857 people between 2000 and 2010, or 17%. This is somewhat slower than the Washington County growth of 19% during that period, but greater than the state of Oregon's growth of 12%. Tigard experienced slower percentage growth than the two largest Washington County cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton (31%and 18% respectively). • Tigard was home to over 19,000 households in 2010. The percentage of families was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2010 at 65%of all households. This is very similar to the Metro area figure of 63.5%family households, and Washington County's 66.8%. • Tigard's average household size is 2.49 persons, which is slightly smaller than the Washington County and Metro area averages of 2.6 and 2.52 respectively. The following table (Figure 1) presents a profile of City of Tigard demographics from the 2000 and 2010 Census. It also presents projected demographics in 2012, based on assumptions detailed in the table footnotes. FIGURE 1:TIGARD DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, FAMILIES,AND YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS 2000 2010 Growth Rate 2012 Growth Rate (Census) (Census) 00-10 (Prof.) 10-12 Population' 41,223 48,035 1.5% 48,798 0.8% Households' 16,507 19,157 13% 19,456 0.8% Families 10,739 12,470 1.5% 12,665 0.8% Housing Units' 17,369 20,068 1.5% 20,357 0.7% Group Quarters Populations 221 347 4.6% 353 0.8% Household Size 2 4r 2 49 0 0% 2.49 0.0% PER CAPITA AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2000 2010 Growth Rate 2012 Growth Rate (Census) (Est.) 00-10 (Proj.) 10-12 Per Capita(5) 25,110 32,009 2.5% 33,545 2.4% Average HH(5) 62,439 79,267 2.4% 83,072 2.4% Median HH(5) 51,581 59,245 1.4% 60,904 1.4% SOURCE Claritas,Census,and Johnson Reid 'Population growth rate from 2011 to 2012 is based on'10=11 growth rate from PSU Population Research Center 2012 Households=2012 population/2012 HH Site Ratio of 2012 Families to total HH.s kept constant from 2010 '2012 housing units are the 2010 Census total plus new units permitted from'10 through April'12(source. HUD State of the Cities Data System) 'Ratio of 2012 Group Quarters Population to Total Population is kept constant from 2010. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 3 Income Levels • Tigard's median household income was over $59,000 in 2010. This is 11% higher than the Portland/Vancouver metro area median ($53,078). However, it is 10% lower than the countywide median of$66,500. • Interestingly, the average (mean) income in Tigard of over $79,000 is actually higher than the countywide average of $75,821. This indicates that there are some high income households which pull the average higher. • Median income grew 15% between 2000 and 2010, while growing over 27% in Washington County. • Figure 2 shows the distribution of households by income in 2000 and 2012 (estimated). The largest single income cohort is those households earning between $50k and $75k, at 21% of households. 37% of households earn $75k or more per year. • The number of households at the lower end of the income spectrum has fallen since 2000, which mostly reflects general wage inflation. 16% of households earn $25k or less, down from 20%of households in 2000. FIGURE 2:SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN INCOME GROUPS,CITY OF TIGARD 25% - ■2000 20% ■2012 15% -- -- 10% iii 5% 11 d ii a 0% . z ., , ., , , , c, , . , ., , ., , e5 , , l Ok oEP EI El El - - - 1:5 O ra 000 000' 000 000' 000' 00 0 00 ve'" �- 41. Cl''' 424'0 ,1h 000 X4'0 4'0' 4'00 L �. -2." 5 SOURCE: Claritas Inc.,Johnson Reid LLC CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 4 Poverty Levels The American Community Survey (ACS) from the US Census provides the most recent estimates of poverty levels in Tigard. The Census has determined dollar levels for poverty by household size and composition. These levels are then adjusted for inflation. • The five-year ACS (2006-2010) estimates that 8% of the population lives under the poverty level. • The poverty rate is higher than average among females (9.9%) and those under 18 years of age (8.7%). This is likely reflective of the heightened poverty rate among young single mothers, which is a nationwide trend. • The rate of poverty among those 65 and older, at 7.8%, is somewhat lower than the overall poverty rate, • The above statistics reflect the percentage of the population in poverty. The percentage of households in poverty is slightly lower at 7.5%. Of households below the poverty line, the majority(56%) are non-family households, while 44%are family households. Given that 65% of all households are family households, this means that non-family households are more likely to live in poverty. Due to the large variety of affordable housing programs, each with its own guidelines, they differ in determining who is eligible for specific programs and properties. One broadly-used measure is the standard of the federal housing programs (Section 8 vouchers and Public Housing) administered by local Housing Authorities. Housing Authorities (including in Washington County) typically use a measure of 50% of Median Family Income by household size as the threshold of eligibility. • Unfortunately, the most recent Census data on income by household size is from 2000. in 2000, an estimated 17% of Tigard households would have qualified for housing assistance under the 50% MA standard. It is difficult to estimate how this figure may have changed over the ensuing decade. • The latest Washington County Consolidated Plan, completed in 2010, identifies some areas of Tigard where low- and moderate-income households are the most prevalent. The following figure shows Census block groups in which more than 46% of households earn an income of 80% of the local median family income or less. This map gives a general indication of where low to moderate income households tend to locate within Tigard. • The Consolidated Plan also includes "Opportunity Mapping" which indicates where services and amenities are located. In general, the lower-income areas of Tigard identified here feature good access to services, including good public transportation, health services and grocery stores The north central area, near Washington Square, scores somewhat lower for park access and trails, and the availability of sidewalks. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 5 FIGURE 3: CONCENTRATIONS OF Low TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, CITY OF TIGARD ® Block Groups' r Q City of Tigard • /X-141 -- Ora Jo, • Census block groups where at least 46%of households earn 80%MFI or less. SOURCE Washington County Consolidated Plan,2010-2015 CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 6 CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND AND SUPPLY The profile of current housing conditions in Tigard reflects the household totals presented in Figure 1. The estimated number of households in 2012 is based on 2010 Census figures projected forward based on the population growth rate for 2010-11, estimated by the PSU Population Research Center (PRC). The PRC estimates a rate of growth of 0.8%that year, which was also applied to the 2011-12 period. The number of housing units reflects the figure from the 2010 Census, plus new residential permits from the 2010 to 2012 period. FIGURE 4:CURRENT HOUSING PROFILE (2012) CURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS(2012) SOURCE Total 2012 Population 48,798 U5 Census,PSU Pop Research Center - Estimated group housing population: 353 (0.7%of Total) US Census Estimated Non-Group 2012 Population: 48,445 (Total -Group) Avg. HH Size 2.49 US Census Estimated Non-Group 2012 Households: 19,456 (Pop/HH Size) Total Housing Units: 20,357 (Occupied a Vacant) Census 2010«permits Occupied Housing Units: 19,456 (=it of HH) Vacant Housing Units: 901 (Total HH-Occupied) Current Vacancy Rate: 4.4% (Vacant units/Total units) Est.Ownership Vacancy Rate: 3.0% 2010 ACS S-Year estimates Est. Rental Vacancy Rate: 6.0% 2011 ACS S-Year estimates SOURCE• US Census,PSU Population Research Center,City of Tigard,HUD,Johnson Reid LLC We estimate a current population of 48,798, living in 20,357 households (excluding group living situations). Average household size is 2.49 persons. The estimated 2012 vacancy rate of housing units is 4.4% based on estimated number of housing units in excess of number of households. The resulting estimated vacancy is very similar to that found by the 2010 US Census (4.5%). The most recent American Community Survey results for Tigard found that vacancy among ownership units (i-e. units for sale or otherwise unoccupied) was half of that among rental units (6%). Estimate of Current Housing Demand Following the establishment of the current housing profile, the current housing demand was determined based upon the age and income characteristics of current households. The analysis considered the propensity of households in specific age and income levels to either rent or own their home (Census), in order to derive the current demand for ownership and rental housing units and the appropriate housing cost level of each. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 7 The analysis takes into account the average amount that owners and renters tend to spend on housing costs. For instance, lower income households tend to spend more of their total income on housing, while upper income households spend less on a percentage basis. In this case, it was assumed that households in lower income bands would prefer housing costs at no more than 30% of gross income (a common measure of affordability). Higher income households pay a decreasing share down to 20%for the highest income households. Figure 5 presents a snapshot of current housing demand (i.e. preferences) equal to the number of households in the study area (19,456). FIGURE 5: ESTIMATE OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND(2012) Ownership Price Range HouseholdsIncome Range Total Cumulative 50k- $70k 362 Less than$15,000 3.0% 3.0% 570k- $120k 556 $15,000 - 524,999 4.7% 7.7% 5120k- $170k 842 S25,000 - 534,999 7.1% 14.8% 5170k• 5240k 1,323 535,000- 549,999 11.1% 26.0% 5240k-5310k 2,276 550,000- 574,999 19.2% 45.1% 5310k•5370k 2,411 575,000 - 599,999 20.3% 65.4% 5370k•5460k 1,786 5100,000 - 5124,999 15.0% 80.5% 5460k-5550k 873 5125,000 -$149,999 7.4% 87.8% 5550k- 5640k 816 $150,000 -5199,999 6.9% 94.7% $640k+ 632 $200,000* 5.3% 100.0% Totals: 11,877 %of All: 61.0% Rental Rent Level Households Income Range Cumulative 50-$380 1,005 Les s tha n 515,000 13.3% 13.3% 5380 -5620 1,268 515,000 -524,999 16.7% 30.0% 5620 -5870 1,232 525,000 -534,999 16.3% 46.3% 5870 -$1060 1,608 535,000-549,999 21.2% 67.5% 51060-51410 1,758 550,000-574,999 23.2% 90.7% 51410-$1770 472 575,000-$99,999 6.2% 96.9% 51770-$2210 132 5100,000-$124,999 1.7% 98.6% 52210-$2650 62 5125,000-5149,999 0.8% 99.4% 52650-$3530 8 5150,000-5199,999 0.1% 99.6% 53530+ 34 5200,000+ 0.4% 100.0% AN Households Totals: 7,579 %of All: 39.0% 19,456 SOURCES: PSU Population Research Center,Claritas Inc.,Census,Johnson Reid The affordable price level for ownership housing assumes 30-year amortization, at an interest rate of 6%, with 15%down payment. [These assumptions are designed to represent prudent lending and borrowing levels for ownership households. The 30-year mortgage commonly serves as the standard. Down payment assumptions CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PA:_-F 8 tend to range from 20% for older/established households, and 10% for first-time buyers. In recent years, down payment requirements have fallen significantly. The 15% used here represents both the average between newer and older households and recognition that despite currently tightening standards due to the 2008/2009 credit crisis, over the long-run it is anticipated that down payment standards will remain sub-20%(i.e. a new "normal"has been established).) Current Housing Inventory The profile of current housing needs (Figure 4) represents the preference and affordability levels of households. In reality, the current housing supply (Figure 5) differs from this profile, meaning that some households find themselves in housing units which are not optimal, either not meeting the household's own/rent preference, or being under-or over-affordable. A profile of current housing supply in Tigard was determined using data from the 2010 Census, which provides a profile of housing values, rent levels, and housing types (single family, attached, mobile home, etc.). Figure 6 (following page) presents a profile of current housing supply of ownership and rental housing in the study area. • An estimated 60% of housing units are ownership units, while an estimated 40% of housing units are rental units. • This is a similar ratio of ownership units compared to the general Portland/Vancouver Metro Area (62%ownership rate), and the state. • Over 95% of ownership units are single family homes (detached or attached), while nearly 60% of rental units are in structures of 5 units or more. CRY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 9 FIGURE 6: PROFILE OF CURRENT HOUSING SUPPLY(2012) OWNERSHIP HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4• 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Csimmulatrve Price Range %olUnits Detached Attached Duplex plea MFR home other Units % 50k-570k 53 9 0 3 2 42 0 108 0.9% 0.9% 570k-5120k 65 12 0 43 29 0 0 149 1.2% 2.1% 5120k•$170k 179 31 0 102 69 0 0 381 3.1% 5.2% 5170k-5240k 2,100 193 0 61 41 0 0 2,395 19.6% 24.8% 5240k•$310k 1,901 175 0 55 36 0 0 2,166 17.7% 42.5% 5310k-5370k 1,949 176 0 35 21 0 0 2,180 17.8% 60.4% 5370k•$460k 2,262 200 0 12 12 0 0 2,486 20.3% 80.7% 5460k-5550k 1,135 99 0 0 0 0 0 1,235 10.1% 90.8% 5550k•$640k 532 47 0 0 0 0 0 579 4.7% 95.5% 5640k. 501 44 0 0 0 0 0 545 4.5% 100.0% Totals: 10,676 985 0 310 211 42 0 12,225 %ofAllUnits: 60.1% Percentage 87.3% 8.1% 0 0% 2.5% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 100 05' RENTAL HOUSING Sinai*Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Commutative Price Range Detached Attached Duplex %of Units plait MFR home other Units % 50 5380 0 0 0 7 18 20 10 55 0.7% 0.7% 5380•5620 0 4 6 12 50 42 9 123 1.5% 2.2% 5620.$870 467 135 188 395 1,770 23 0 2,978 36.6% 38.8% 5870-51060 418 125 173 358 1,582 10 0 2,666 32.8% 71.6% 51060-51410 184 50 69 145 648 0 0 1,096 13.5% 85.1% 51410-51770 42 11 16 33 146 0 0 247 3.0% 88.1% 51770-52210 136 36 50 105 467 0 0 794 9.8% 97.9% 52210-52650 20 5 7 15 67 0 0 115 1.4% 99.3% 52650-53530 10 3 4 8 34 0 0 58 0.7% 100.0% 53530• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09E 100.0% Totals: 1,276 369 513 1,079 4,782 95 19 8,132 %otAll Units: 39.9% Percentage: 15 7% 4.5% 6.3% 13.3% 58.8% 1 2% 0 2% 100 0% TOTAL HOUSING UNITS Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5-Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Detached Attached Duplex %01 Units plan MFR home other Units Totals: 11,952 1,3354 513 1,389 4,993 :3' 19 20,357 100% Percentage: 58.7% 6.7% 2 5% 6.8% 24.5% 07% 0.1% 1000% SOURCES 2010 Census,PSU Population Research Center,Claritas Inc.,Johnson Reid Comparison of Current Housing Demand with Current Supply A comparison of estimated current housing demand with the existing supply identifies the existing discrepancies between demand and the housing which is currently available(Figure 7). In general, this comparison identifies a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units. This is not uncommon as the lowest income households struggle to find housing of any type that keeps costs at 30%of gross income. Among prospective ownership households, there is a solid supply of mid-priced housing between $170k and $240k, as well as upper-mid-priced housing of $370k to $550k. This analysis estimates the need for more for-sale housing in between these ranges, and at the upper end of the market. CITY OF TIGARD 1 GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 10 The analysis identifies a general need for rental units at the lower and middle price levels. There are levels of estimated surplus for apartments ($620 to $1060 per month), and for single family homes for rent ($1770 - $3,530). These bands represent the average rent prices in Tigard, where most units can be expected to congregate. FIGURE 7:COMPARISON OF CURRENT DEMAND TO CURRENT SUPPLY Ownership Rental Estimated Estimated Unmet Estimated Estimated Unmet Price Range Current Current (Need)or Rent Current Current (Need)or Need Supply Surplus Need Supply Surplus 50k- 570k 3b2 :OS (254) 50 -5380 1,005 55 (949) 570k-$120k 556 149 (407) 5380 -5620 1,268 123 (1146) $120k-5170k 842 381 (461) 5620-5870 1,232 2,978 1745 5170k-$240k 1,323 2,395 1072 5870-51060 1,608 2,666 1058 5240k-5310k 2,276 2,166 (110) 51060- 51410 1,758 1,096 (662) 5310k-$370k 2,411 2,180 (230) 51410-51770 472 247 (224) 5370k-$460k 1,786 2,486 700 51770- 52210 132 794 662 $460k-$550k 873 1,235 361 52210- 52650 62 115 53 5550k-5640k 816 579 (237) 52650- 53530 8 58 50 5640k+ 632 545 (86) 53530+ 34 0 (34) Totals: 11,877 12,225 347 Totals: 7,579 8,132 554 Occupied Units: 19,456 All Housing Units: 20,357 Total Unit Surplus: 901 SOURCES PSU Population Research Center,Claritas Inc.,US Census,Johnson Reid Overall, the analysis identifies a total surplus of 347 ownership units, and a current surplus of rental units of 554. This is an estimated based on a model of general preferences of households in different age and income cohorts to either own or rent. There are an estimated 901 units more than the current number of households, reflecting the current estimated vacancy rate of 4.4%. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 11 ANTICIPATED HOUSING TRENDS This section discusses current and anticipated demographic and market trends which are expected to impact the nature of housing demand and development in the future. These are macro-level trends which generally apply on a regional or nationwide scale, but the potential impact for Tigard is discussed in each case. The impacts of these trends are factored into the projection of housing need and residential land need detailed in following sections of this report. The major demographic trends discussed here are: • Migration to urban environments • Diminishing household sizes • Baby Boom generation transitions • Millennial generation preferences • Immigration • Workforce housing A. Migration to Urban Environments The United States, and indeed most of the world, has been undergoing a long-term shift of population from rural areas to urban areas. For the first time in history, as of 2008, more people globally live in an urban environment than in rural areas. This shift is caused by the decline of small-scale farming as agriculture is mechanized, and the increasing dominance of cities in the global economy. In the developing world, cities are the location of jobs in factories and the export sectors. In the United States, metropolitan areas are the heart of the high-tech, creative and services- based sectors which are growing as manufacturing declines. Ironically, as communication technology increasingly enables dispersed work environments and the ability to connect from anywhere, the urban environment seems to have only grown in popularity. Sociologists and other experts now acknowledge the enduring importance of physical proximity for networking, doing business and forming clusters of competitors within an industry to spur innovation and share a talent pool of employees. These trends have been accompanied by the revitalization of city centers and a return of population growth in the core. For many cities, including Portland, this is a reversal of the out- migration trends of the 1970's and 1980's when the perception of urban crime and dysfunction led many to move to the suburbs to find a better family environment plus more space, cheaper housing and better schools. Since the late 1990's, the return of urban prosperity, continuously falling crime rates, and a reaction against long commutes, many cities have seen increasing demand to live in the downtown area, or the surrounding neighborhoods. There is currently some speculation that this trend will have a negative impact on the suburban cities which surround the larger "core" city, and especially on the farther-flung "exurban" cities. As yet, the evidence is not conclusive that this will be the case. In the Portland metro area, for instance, suburban cities have continued to grow and have shared in the boom in housing development from 2003 to 2007. Between 2000 and 2010, Washington County added more people than Multnomah County (Census), and has experienced more job growth. However, it does appear that since 2007, home values have fared the best in the neighborhoods of central Portland, and price declines and foreclosure activity have been the highest in CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS P ; 12 suburban areas. Recent estimates by Zillow find inner Portland zip codes with 12% to 15% of homes underwater (with greater mortgage debt than the estimated value of the house). Meanwhile suburban zip codes almost uniformly have greater share of underwater properties: Tigard (28%-30%); Hillsboro (36%-48%); Gresham (38%-44%).2 Rather than see this trend as an ominous sign for suburban cities, some experts interpret it as impetus for suburbs to encourage some aspects of urban lifestyle in the suburbs, most notably by revitalizing traditional downtowns and/or creating new town center environments which offer the benefits of a larger central city on a smaller scale.3 This trend is already apparent in many suburban cities, including Tigard. In fact, a 2011 survey from the National Association of Realtors of community preferences found that the largest share of homeowners live in the suburbs (either residential-only areas, or neighborhoods with a mix of uses). When asked where they would prefer to live, the suburbs were still dominant, but with a greater preference for mixed-use suburban environments, over residential-only neighborhoods.' For renter households, the city market was the most popular, but roughly 34%still expressed a preference for the suburban market. Implications for Tigard: As a first-tier suburb in the Portland metro area, the City of Tigard will continue to benefit from the general trend of migration to urban areas. The metro area as a whole can expect continued growth, with different suburbs filling different niches in terms of housing affordability, lifestyle amenities, and employment opportunities. The growing popularity of the urban core (i.e. central Portland) should not be interpreted as a zero-sum game in terms of attracting households. Suburban housing will continue to meet the needs for some households depending on life-stage and personal preferences. Tigard has the additional advantage of a central location between high-paying jobs in Washington County, the Kruse Way area, and central Portland. Tigard can continue to prioritize bringing some of the benefits of a more urban environment to the city, through the long-term redevelopment of the Downtown area, possible addition of light rail service, and development of additional town center or station areas. B. Diminishing Household Sizes There is a clear long-term trend in the United States of falling household (and family) sizes. In 1900, the average household size in the US was 4.6 persons. By 1950, it was 3.4 persons, and in 2010 it was 2.58 persons (US Census). This is a rate of decline of-0.5% per year since 1900. However, in recent decades the trend has slowed considerably. Since 1980, the rate of decline has been -0.2%. Between 2000 and 2010, the average household size was essentially unchanged. This is reflected in Tigard, where the average household size grew very slight from 2000 to 2010(2.48 to 2.49 persons). A continued slow decline of household size is expected over coming decades. Younger baby boomers will transition to empty nest status as kids leave the households. Older boomers will transition to single-person households as spouses pass away, if not in the coming decade than Source: Zillow-U.S.Housing Cnsis"map: www.znllow.com/visuals/negauve-equity/ McIlwam,John. "Housing in Amer¢a:The Next Decade." ULI,2010 Logan,Gregg. "RCLCO Forecast: Does the Housing Market Stoll Want the Suburbs? RCLCO,"The Advisory,"4/30/12. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 13 the following decade. (As discussed in more detail below, the size of the baby boom generation causes them to have an outsized effect on demographic trends.) At the same time, the trend for younger generations to delay having children and having fewer children than previous generations will continue. However, the rate of decline will continue to slow and the average household size is likely to reach a stable level eventually, as it cannot realistically approach a size of 1.0 person per household. Implications for Tigard: One can expect Tigard to share in the general trend towards smaller households. The projections of future households in the following section reflect this declining household size. C. Baby Boom Generation Transitions Due to its sheer size, the baby boom generation has dominated US demographic trends since its appearance between 1946 and 1965. (Exact definitions of generational periods vary, but this is the generally accepted definition of the baby boom generation.) There are an estimated 78 million boomers, making them approximately 26% of the US population. In 2012, this generation is roughly 47 to 66 years old. Demographers often split the baby boom generation into an older and younger cohort when discussing their needs and preferences.5 The prospects of these two cohorts are likely to be very different given the severity of the recent economic downturn. The older cohort, aged 56 to 66, is closer to retirement, with less time to repair household finances if it is needed. Many in this generation have not saved adequately for retirement, and the recent expectation of using rising home equity as a backstop has been frustrated by the housing downturn. This situation may limit some opportunities in retirement. Still, many in this older cohort were already near to retirement when the recession hit, and had built sufficient nest eggs and pension benefits to retire as planned. This cohort was able to take advantage of generally rising income growth and national prosperity over their careers. As incomes have stagnated over the last decade, they were still in their peak earning years. Many have access to pension and health benefits in retirement that are no longer offered to most workers. The younger cohort (aged 47-56) is larger, representing about 2/3 of the generation. This cohort is still entering the prime of its earning years, many with children still at home. Though job and income prospects may be diminished, there is still the opportunity to retrench for retirement. Economically, this younger boomer cohort has more in common with younger generations, in that it has experienced wage stagnation over the last decade. They did not necessarily share in the constant income growth and generous retirement benefits sometimes associated with older boomers. In terms of housing, the baby boom generation is more likely to own their homes, having decades to enter the ownership market and build equity. They are more likely to have greater Most of this discussion draws from the following reports: M[Ilwain,John. "Housing in America:The Next Decade." ULI,2010. -State of the Nation's Housing 2011.'Joint Center for Housing Studies of Halyard University,2011. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 14 equity in their homes, providing some cushion from the recent downturn, Nevertheless, many in this generation are still locked in underwater mortgages, and face the same dilemma as younger generations in being unable or unwilling to sell for a loss. For those entering retirement, the lack of mobility may be a source of frustration and inconvenience, but is not damaging in the sense that they are not compelled to move for job opportunities. For younger boomer, the lack of mobility may hurt job prospects. The older boomers also have the advantage of selling their current homes as "move up" housing to the younger boomers following them, though the prices received are likely to be greatly diminished. Younger boomers are once again in a tougher position, as their homes are most appropriate as move-up housing for the following generation: Generation X. The problem is that Generation X is much smaller, tends to be less prosperous, and shares the younger generations' preference for an urban environment, rather than the suburbs where many younger boomers have located. What are the anticipated housing preferences of empty nesters and retirees? Two studies by RCLCO present somewhat different conclusions on this matter. A 2009 survey found that 75%of retiring boomers said they want to live in mixed-age, mixed-use communities, which implies a more urban environment. However, this mixed environment can be found in suburban town centers as well. A 2010 survey asked a sample of affluent households of a variety of ages what housing choices they anticipated making upon coming empty-nesters and/or retirees. 65% of respondents stated that they prefer to age in place. An additional 14% anticipated moving to a different single-family home in the same market. 7% stated the preference to move to a condominium either in the central city or suburb.' These findings suggest caution with the oft stated belief that older households will increasingly want to live in multi-family housing in dense environments. While some segment of the population will make this choice,this trend can be overstated. Since baby boomers are likely to remain healthier and more active for longer than the previous generation, as well as face problems with underwater mortgages, they are likely to delay downsizing and seeking out senior-focused facilities for some time. Implications for Tigard: The baby boom generation's share of Tigard's population (27%) is very similar to that of the metro area and the nation, both at roughly 26,5%. Tigard should not expect to see the impacts of this generation's lifestyle transitions to any greater degree than other suburban cities. Over the coming 20 years, the baby boom generation will remain healthier and more independent for longer than their parents, meaning that the transition to retirement communities will be postponed or never undertaken. The youngest in this generation will just be reaching the traditional retirement age in 20 years. Their housing legacy may be in leaving behind a large stock of large suburban homes to generations with lower incomes, and/or preferences for a more urban setting. If this is the case, then existing housing prices in suburban locations may remain stagnant for some time. Ducker,Adam and Bob Gardner. 'Anticipating the Upscale Empty-Nester Condo Market Recover"RCLCO,"The Advisory,"8/11. CRY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 15 A subset of the baby boom generation will be interested in opportunities to live in well-planned and safe mixed-use communities in the future. The demand from older households for multi- family housing opportunities in town centers should be significant enough to be addressed, but should not be overstated. Also, older seniors may prefer or require single-level housing. D. Millennial Generation Preferences As the baby boom generation moves through mid-life and into retirement, the millennial generation is emerging as the dominant demographic group of the future. This generation, sometimes called the Echo Boomers or Generation Y, is actually larger than the baby boom generation at 83 million people. Definitions vary, but members of this generation were born roughly between 1980 and 2000 and are now in their teens to early 30's. Aside from being large, this generation is in the prime years of defining popular culture as its greatest consumers. In broad strokes, the millennial generation is more technologically savvy, networked, environmentally and socially responsible than previous generations. They value diversity and activity, and therefore gravitate to urban environments more-so than older generations. This generation grew up in a time of generally rising economic prosperity in the 1980's and 1990's, but they find themselves at a disadvantage in the current economic downturn. Jobs are scarce while average student debt has risen sharply. Incomes for people younger than 35 have fallen over the last decade, meaning that this generation is starting from behind. Many experts expect that over their lifetimes, millennials will make less money and have a more modest quality of life than their parents. The reported desire of this generation to live in an urban setting seems to be very real: A 2008 survey by RCLCO found that 77 percent of generation Y reports wanting to live in an urban core, not in the suburbs where they grew up. They want to be close to each other, to services, to places to meet, and to work, and they would rather walk than drive. They say they are willing to live in a smaller space in order to be able to afford this lifestyle.' Given their age and current finances, this currently means that millennial households are much more likely to rent units than own. In fact, the experience of the housing downturn has likely tempered the desire of many in this generation to own a home for the foreseeable future. Due to the economy, other members of this generation are currently living with their parents, or with many roommates, as evidenced by the falling rate of household formation. After 2008, the rate fell by more than half. Once the economy improves and unemployment drops among the young, this generation is likely to make up for lost time in forming new households and generating new demand for housing. Looking forward at the future housing needs of this large generation raises some questions. While they currently demand rental housing in the urban core, they will be less well-positioned to afford central city housing as they change life-stages and seek ownership opportunities and room for families. In the urban core, where they prefer to live, single-family homes will be scarce and expensive, owned mostly be generation X and boomer households. Mctlwain,John. "Housing in America.The Next Decade." uu,2010. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 16 Childless millennials will continue to accept smaller multi-family units in order to remain in their preferred neighborhoods, either continuing to rent, or buying condos. But millennials with children will find most urban options either too constrained or too expensive. Like previous generations, they will seek a house with a yard at a price they can afford. This may create opportunities for close-in suburbs. The millennial generation may eventually provide a stock of demand for the suburban single family homes vacated by the boomer generation. Similarly, they will value well-planned town centers in suburban locations. Suburbs that are able to revitalize their traditional mixed-use town centers or create new ones may be more attractive to young refugees from the urban core. Millennia's are expected to continue the trend of putting off child rearing until they are older, and therefore this trend may be slow to develop. If they move to the suburbs, this generation may be more accepting of living in denser types of housing, such as attached single-family, even with children. Implications for Tigard: It is generally believed that when millennials claim to prefer the urban core, they truly mean the center of a larger city (in this case central Portland), rather than a suburban environment. However, the eventual impacts of affordability and life-stage decisions are likely to cause some significant share of this generation to either never move into the urban core, or move back out at some point. Tigard, like many suburban cities, can plan ahead for this generation by creating mixed-use town centers and station centers which will provide some urban amenities. Transit options and opportunities to walk and bike will also be attractive. For all of their differences, good schools and a safe environment will appeal to millennial households just as much as preceding generations. Whether millennials remain in Tigard or relocate from the city, a greater share of new housing units can be expected to be attached forms. This generation will need a sufficient stock of multi-family rentals. Townhomes will likely represent larger share of for-sale starter homes. E. Immigration Immigration is expected to be one of the key drivers of population growth, and therefore housing need over the coming decades. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children and grandchildren constitute one of the fastest growing population segments. While native households are expected to trend towards smaller households, fewer children, and more childless households, the number of families and children among immigrant communities is expected to grow. Demographers credit the growth in immigrant households with slowing the decline in household size!' The result of this rapid growth among immigrants and their children is that minorities are expected to account for most of the population growth between now and 2050. Latinos and Asians are the key drivers of this trend. Immigrant households and their children have some key characteristics which impact their housing needs. These households tend to be poorer and larger than average. This means that "State of the Nation's Housing 2011."Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,2011. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 17 many immigrants are reliant on rental housing, and often in lower-priced areas. They may stay in rental housing for more of their lifetime than other populations. In rental and ownership housing, immigrants will need more space to house larger families. For this reason, suburbs will continue to be increasingly attractive to immigrant households. The old pattern of immigrants moving directly to a central city, and moving outwards in later generations has been reversed, and now many immigrant households move directly to suburban communities. Going forward, as smaller native households move back into the central city, the stock of older large suburban homes will be attractive to immigrant households. Suburban apartments also tend to be larger and offer more two and three bedroom units than central apartment properties. Suburbs can expect the trends towards greater diversity to continue. Implications for Tigard: Tigard's foreign-born population is 15% of the total population, up from 13% in 2000. This is somewhat higher than the Portland/Vancouver metro area foreign- born share of 12.5%. The median income of foreign-born households in Tigard is 18% lower than the citywide median ($51,000 vs. $62,000). However, the immigrant population is not homogeneous and includes households ranging from refugees to highly-skilled recruits to local companies. The percentage of foreign-born households that are Latino (42%) is up slightly from 2000 (40%). 28% of the foreign-born population is Asian. The next greatest share at 21% simply identifies as "some other race." The average household size is 3.4 persons, compared to 2.5 for the city as a whole. The main impact of these groups in Tigard and other suburbs will be continuing demand for low- to-moderate cost housing options, and the type of larger housing units already found in most suburbs. As long as the policies and land inventory allow for the production of multi-family units, it will be possible to meet the rental need for immigrants and other populations. Demand for for-sale housing will largely be met by older existing housing units, rather than new housing. It is likely that immigrant households and first-generation American households will provide a key source of demand for suburban boomer housing. F. Workforce Housing Many communities seek to better align housing opportunities with employment opportunities. There are many benefits to housing the local workforce closer to the community in which the jobs are located, as well as bringing employment closer to working households. This arrangement helps keep economic activity within the community. It also reduces local commuting, which helps reduce traffic congestion. Residents have more transportation choices and shorter commute periods. Many communities aspire to provide greater workforce housing opportunities in order to provide greater location equity among different classes of worker. In terms of housing, workforce housing generally means offering a full spectrum of housing at different levels of affordability. Depending on the community, there may be a lack of housing for lower-income workers who might have to commute from other communities. Or there may be a lack of higher-end or executive housing, meaning that higher-paid employees leave the community after work, bringing their financial and other resources with them. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 18 Implications for Tigard: Tigard has significant inflow and outflow of workers. As of 2010, the US Census estimated that only 14% of local working residents actually worked in Tigard. 86% of Tigard workers commute out of Tigard to their primary job. At the same time, over 36,000 workers commute in to Tigard from other cities to work in Tigard jobs. Tigard's recently completed Economic Opportunities Analysis presented figures on local employment. Professional and Business Services, and Retail represent the largest shares of employment in the city. Financial service is also an important local sector. Going forward, Professional Services, along with Education and Health Services are expected to grow the most quickly, increasing their share of overall employment by 2030. Professional and financial services tend to be higher-paying industries, while retail is one of the lowest paying industries. FIGURE 8: INFLOW AND OUTFLOW OF WORKERS,CITY OF TIGARD 'tt,1.,.4;/,1,1i • Analysis Selection ti sM.o+ Cilium F{,,maarn • tr Nab: Overlay arrows do not Indicate Beavarlan .ti ' 4° directionality or worthr now between T"- =�. 7'•i herr*and amploym.nt locations • 4 Employed and Live .-- 411r\ %lc. .,. le $•lenuon"AO . 4 Employed In Mouton Awa, Urge Outside r= r - Live In Selection Area, Illi;ltwourtiii+r .." 36,2.19 it 18,648 ` 11)` Employed Outside d 'kf! sir%=g l N. ` irq 3,063 -, rc,C ,: Sinisresat 1 I. r . SOURCE US Census,2009 employment data FIGURE 9: INFLOW AND OUTFLOW OF WORKERS, CHARACTERISTICS Employed and Commuting Commuting Live in City In Out Income Range $15,000 or less 27% 25% 20% $15,001 to$40,000 40% 37% 34% $40,001 + 33% 38% 46% Income Range Goods Producing 12% 11% 16% Trade,Transport,Utilities 22% 27% 20% All Other Services 67% 62% 64% In general, a community can work to ensure a full spectrum of housing choices in order to provide opportunities to local workers to live in the community. As Figure 7 indicates, there CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS P' 19 may be more need for housing for households at the lower-end of the income spectrum, as well as in the middle of the income spectrum. These are the major demographic trends impacting future housing demand in Tigard, the region and nation. These trends were considered in building assumptions for the household growth projections presented in the following section. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 20 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS (2032) The projected future (20-year) housing profile (Figure 10) for the City of Tigard is based on the current housing profile, multiplied by a projected future household growth rate. The projected household growth rate of 1.4% is based on preliminary Metro projections for the Tigard area, for both 2025 and 2035. This growth rate was applied to project the number of future households in Tigard, and the projected population was determined by multiplying the future projected households by projected household size. FIGURE 10: FUTURE HOUSING PROFILE(2032) PROJECTED FUTURE HOUSING CONDITIONS(2012-2032) SOURCE 2012 Population(Minus Group Pop.) 48,445 2010 Census,PSU Projected Annual Growth Rate 1.2% 2032 Population(Minus Group Pop.) 61,464 .'032 HN Ibeiow►'Avg NH sire(belowll Estimated group housing population: 413 nroiected share from 2010 Census► Total Estimated 2032 Population: 61,877 Estimated Non-Group 2032 Households 25,693 Preliminary forecasted rate'10•'25.1 4% Metro New Households 2012 to 2032 6,237 Avg. HH Size: 2.39 R.,'rri en US raor o'drr'i,c a nce 1080 1.0 2' US Census Total Housing Units: 26,904 Occupied Housing Units. 25,693 • Vacant Housing Units: 1,211 • • . - - • Projected Vacancy Rate- 4.5% Census.Johnson Reid SOURCES: PSU Population Research Center,Metro,US Census,Johnson Reid LLC The model projects growth in the number of non-group households over 20 years of 6,240 households, with accompanying population growth of 13,000 new residents. (The number of households differs from the number of housing units, because the total number of housing units includes a percentage of vacancy. Projected housing unit needs are discussed below.) Projection of Future Housing Unit Demand (20321 The profile of future housing demand was derived using the same methodology used to produce the estimate of current housing need. It includes current and future households, and includes a vacancy rate assumption of 4.5%. Therefore, these projections represent the total number of housing units demanded, occupied and vacant. The analysis considered the propensity of households at specific age and income levels to either rent or own their home, in order to derive the future demand for ownership and rent housing units, and the CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 21 affordable cost level of each. The projected demand is for all 2032 households and therefore includes the needs of current households. The price levels presented here use the same assumptions regarding the amount of gross income applied to housing costs, from 30% for low income households down to 20% for the highest income households. The affordable price level for ownership housing assumes 30-year amortization, at an interest rate of 6%, with 15% down payment. Because of the impossibility of predicting variables such as interest rates 20 years into the future, these assumptions were kept constant from the estimation of current housing demand. Income levels and price levels are presented in 2012 dollars. Figure 11 presents the projected total future housing demand (current and new households, plus vacancy) in 2032. FIGURE 11: PROJECTED TOTAL FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND (2032) Ownership Price Range #Units %of Units Cumulative SOk -570k 486 28% 28% $70k- $120k 785 4.6% 7.4% 5120k-5170k 1,193 6.9% 14.3% 5170k-$240k 1,831 10.6% 25.0% 5240k-$310k 3,207 18.6% 43.6% 5310k-$370k 3,386 19.7% 63.3% 5370k-5460k 2,584 15.0% 78.3% $460k-5550k 1,410 8.2% 86.5% $S50k•$640k 1,245 7.2% 93.8% 5640k+ 1,073 6.2% 100.0% Totals: 17,200 %of All: 63.9% Rental Rent #Units %of Units Cumulative 50-5380 1,298 13.4% 13.40 5380-5620 1,626 16.8% 30.1% $620 -$870 1,598 16.5% 46.6% $870-$1060 2,070 21.3% 67.9% 51060-51410 2,236 23.0% 91.0% 51410-51770 587 6.0% 97.0% 51770-52210 150 1.5% 98.6% 52210-52650 73 0.8% 99.3% 52650 -$3530 14 0.1% 99.5% $3530 • 51 0 5% 100.0% All Units Totals: 9,704 %of All: 36-1% 26,904 Sources: Claritas,US Census,Johnson Reid. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 22 Comparison of Future Housing Demand to Current Housing Inventory The profile of total future housing demand presented above (Figure 10) was compared to the current housing inventory to determine the total future need for new housing units by type and price range (Figure 12, next page). • The results show a need for over 6,500 new housing units by 2030, with a stronger emphasis on new ownership units. (This total need includes the West Bull Mountain area.) • Of the new units needed, 76% are projected to be ownership units, while 24% are projected to be rental units. This is because analysis of the current supply finds a greater vacancy of rental units (Figure 7). Therefore, to rebalance the supply with the projected future need profile, more new ownership units will be needed than rental units, while the current surplus of rental units needs to be absorbed. • Of the new units needed, the largest share (53%) is projected to be single family detached homes, due again to the stronger need for new ownership housing. The remainder of units (47%) is projected to be some form of attached housing. • The projected preferences for future unit types are based upon historically permitted units since 1980, cross referenced with the profile of currently available buildable lands, and how that will shape future inventory (see next section on land need). It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types, including attached single family. • Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20%of future need. • Duplex through four-plex units are projected to represent over 8%of the total need. • 18%of all needed units are projected to be multi-family in structures of 5+attached units. • Under 1%of new needed units are projected to be mobile home units, which meet the needs of some low-income households for both ownership and rental. Mobile home units: Mobile home units are projected to make up a small share of future demand. Tigard has two large mobile home parks, both of which are fully occupied. It is projected here that there will on-going demand for mobile home units (36 units) in keeping roughly with the current share of mobile home units in the community. Mobile home units fill an important niche of low-cost rental and ownership opportunities. Mobile home parks are allowed in four of Tigard's eight residential zones, and allowed conditionally in two others. However, it may be unlikely that remaining vacant land in Tigard would be put to this use, given that it can support higher value forms of housing. Attached housing types are likely to return more value to the landowner than a new mobile home park. Manufactured home units are allowed in all residential zones and also provide an important source of lower-cost ownership housing. These unit types would be included in the "single family detached" category of the following table Affordable Housing (Government Assisted): This report finds the need for more rental units at the bottom end of the price spectrum (below 5620 in 2012 dollars). This pattern is common in most communities, because those in the lowest income cohorts generally must stretch to pay for housing near the median rent price. While a community has a full spectrum of income ranges, the rental market will naturally set most rents around the going market rate, with some variation for location, unit quality and size. CITY Of TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS P 2 1 Because of this effect, truly low-cost housing is generally limited to units which are subsidized through affordable housing programs. These include Housing Authority programs such as Public Housing and Section 8, as well as tax-credit and non-profit projects. The City of Tigard has policies and zoning in place to allow for the development of new affordable units in the city. The most recent Regional Inventory of Affordable Housing compiled by Metro regional government in 2011, identified 18 separate subsidized housing properties in Tigard offering 705 units. This is roughly 10% of the units in the County. In terms of number of subsidized units, Tigard trails Hillsboro and unincorporated areas, but exceeds all other jurisdictions, including the larger City of Beaverton. FIGURE 12: PROJECTED FUTURE NEED FOR NEW HOUSING UNITS(2032) OWNERSHIP HOUSING Single Family Single Family3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total c"""'"Price Range Detached Attached Duplex plea MFR home other Units , %of units % $Ok $70k 34; ;C : y U 427 8 6% 8 6% $70k-$120k 577 83 2 -20 -9 9 0 642 129% 21.5% $120k-5170k 797 114 3 -68 -38 0 0 808 16.2% 37.7% $170k-$240k -602 28 5 -9 6 0 0 -571 -11.5% 26.3% 5240k-$310k 724 213 9 36 47 0 0 1,029 20 7% 46.9% $310k-5370k 822 234 10 61 67 0 0 1,194 24.0% 70 9% 5370k-$460k -147 112 7 61 55 0 0 89 1.8% 72.7% $460k-$550k 19 71 4 40 37 0 0 170 3.4% 76.1% $550k-$640k 487 104 4 35 32 0 0 6621 13.3% 895% 5640k. 377 86 3 30 28 0 0 524 10 5% 100 0% Totals: 3,401 1,095 50 177 236 17 0 4,975 %All Units- 76.0% Percentage: 68 4% 22 0% 1 0` 3 5% 4 7% 0 3% 0 0% 100 0% RENTAL HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Cummulative Price Range Detached Attached Duplexplex MFR home ether Units %of Units % So 5380 :8� 72 82 167 75J 5 0 1,260 80.2% 802% 5380-5620 230 87 97 206 912 5 0 1,536 97.9% 178 1% 5620-5870 -242 -46 -87 180 •824 5 0 1,374 -87.5% 90.6% 5870-$1060 -126 -9 -42 -80 -356 5 0 -609 -38 8% 51 7% $1060•51410 132 75 72 155 676 0 0 1,110 70.7% 122 4% $1410-$1770 41 22 21 46 202 0 0 331 21.1% 143 6% 51770-52210 -115 -28 -41 -85 -378 0 0 -647 -41 2% 102 4% $2210-$2650 -10 -1 •3 -5 -24 0 0 -43 -2.7% 99.6% $2650-$3530 -8 -2 -3 6 26 0 0 -45 -2.9% 96.8% 53530. 7 3 3 7 30 0 0 50 3 2% 100 0% Totals: 93 173 100 225 962 18 0 1,570 %AII Units: 24.0% Percentage: 5.9% 11.0% 6.49, 14.3% 61 3% 1 2% 0.0% 1000% TOTAL HOUSING UNITS Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Single Family Attached Duplex MFR home other Units %of Units ~ Totals: 3,494 1,2b7 150 -101 ,198 t6 0 6,545 100''-. Percentage: 53 4% 19 4% 2 3k, 6 1% 18 3% 0 5% 0 0% 100 0% SOURCES PSU Population Research Center,Clantas,Census,Johnson Reid. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 24 20-YEAR HOUSING LAND NEEDS ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This section summarizes the projected need for residential land associated with the household growth projections through 2032. Residential land needs are determined by analyzing the area and achieved density of residentially-zoned land in Tigard. The potential development capacity of remaining vacant parcels was determined in by the City of Tigard, and further refined by Angelo Planning Group. The capacity of existing vacant parcels was compared to the overall future housing need presented in the previous section. This determined the amount of additional land which will be needed. CURRENT RESIDENTIAL LANDS The City of Tigard has ten Comprehensive Plan Designations which allow residential uses, ranging from low density to high density configurations, and two mixed-use designations. The target housing density across these zones is estimated to be 11.2 units per net acre. This is based on the target density of each zone, multiplied by the share of residential land that zone represents. FIGURE 13: RESIDENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS,CITY OF TIGARD Net Vacant Capacity of Density ZONING DESIGNATION Buildable Vacant Lands (Units/Net Acres (Units) Acre) R-1 Low-Density Residential 2.4 3 1.5 R-2 Low-Density Residential 1.0 2 2.2 R-3.5 Low-Density Residential 22.7 148 6.5 R-4.5 Low-Density Residential 149.5 1,085 7.3 R-7 Medium-Density Residential 72.1 628 8.7 R-12 Medium-Density Residential 36.7 525 14.3 R-25 Medium-Density Residential 42.1 1,240 29.4 MUR-1 Mixed-Use Residential 3.8 191 50.0 MUR-2 Mixed-Use Residential 1.2 60 50.0 [Area 63] West Bull Mountain 104.6 700 6.7 [Area 64] West Bull Mountain 164.3 2,132 13.0 Totals/Averages: 600.4 6,714 11.2 1 Density standards based on TIGARD Development Code. Sources: Angelo Planning Group,City of Tigard,Johnson Reid LLC GIS analysis of vacant unconstrained parcels in Tigard found 600 net acres of developable residential land, which will accommodate an estimated 6,714 housing units. This estimate of capacity does not include two mixed use districts which are planned to house many future residential units: the Mixed- Use — Central Business District (MU-CBD) zone, and the Mixed-Use Employment zone. These zones are not included in this capacity inventory because they are primarily commercial zones. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS P. ?5 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEED (2032) The last section projected a total need for 6,545 new housing units over the next 20 years (Figure 12). As Figure 13 shows, there is an estimated capacity for over 6,700 units. Therefore, total capacity exceeds total 20-year need. However, when the types of housing needed are compared to the distribution of buildable sites and zoning, there is a modest projected shortage of buildable lands for single family detached homes. Single-family detached homes are the most prominent existing form of housing in Tigard, representing an estimated 65% of permitted units over the last decade. The projection of future needs (Figure 12) estimates that going forward they will make up 53%of new units. As the following table shows, the total projected unit need of 6,545 when distributed among the remaining buildable land by zone, finds capacity for only 6,457 units (or 88 less than the total need). The distribution presented below finds capacity for all needed attached units and mobile home units, but insufficient capacity for all single-family detached units. FIGURE 14: PROJECTED NEW UNIT NEED BY ZONE,TIGARD(2032) TOTAL NEW UNITS NEEDED(2030) S.F. S.F. Duplex or 4- S.Units Moble Total Capacity of Comp Plan Designation Doodad Attached plea MFR mWits ts vacant Lands units Per 3,494 1,267 150 401 1,198 36 6,545 (Inurutsl' Net Acre R-1 Low-Density Residential 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1.5 R-2 Low-Density Residential 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2.2 R-3.5 Low-Density Residential 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 148 6.5 R-4.5 Low-Density Residential 834 0 50 0 0 0 884 1,085 7.3 R-7 Medium-Density Residential 585 0 0 0 0 36 621 628 8.7 R-12 Medium-Density Residential 200 325 0 0 0 0 525 525 14.3 R-25 Medium-Density Residential 0 139 100 401 600 0 1,240 1,240 29.4 MUR-1 Mixed-Use Residential 0 0 0 0 191 0 191 191 50 0 MUR-2 Mixed-Use Residential 0 0 0 0 60 0 60 60 50.0 [Area 63) West Bull Mountain 637 63 0 0 0 0 700 700 6.7 (Area 64) West Bull Mountain 1,045 740 0 0 347 0 2,132 2,132 13.0 Totals/Averages: 3,406 1,267 150 401 1,197 36 6,457 ' 6,714 11.6 I From assessment of capacity of Buildable Lands Soo-ces- Real urban Geographies,City of TIGARD.Johnson Reid tic While the theoretical capacity of the zones allows for nearly 6,714 units, this assumes mostly attached or multi-family units in every zone above R-2. This leaves little capacity to accommodate the projected need for single-family detached housing. Once most of the detached units are accommodated in the lower-density residential zones (as in the above scenario), the actual achieved capacity of these zones is less than the theoretical capacity. The MU-CBD and MUE zones mitigate the impact of this shortfall. These two mixed-use zones are not included in the capacity analysis, because they do not have any dedicated residential zoning. In other words,the mixed-use zoning allows for residential development, but does not require it. CITY OF TIGARD 1 GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 26 However, it is anticipated that both of these areas (the Downtown Tigard and Tigard Triangle areas) will accommodate many residential units in the future. Downtown Tigard alone is anticipated to accommodate up to 2,000 residential units. If one assumes that these mixed-use areas will absorb even a few hundred additional multi-family units, this would free capacity in lower-density residential zones to absorb the remaining projected demand for detached units. With the inclusion of the MU-CBD (Downtown) and MUE (Tigard Triangle) zones, Tigard has sufficient land capacity to absorb the projected 20-year housing demand. CITY OF TIGARD I GOAL 10 HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS PAGE 27 EXHIBIT 1 GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE TIGARD, OREGON POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, FAMILIES, AND YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS 2000 2010 Growth Rate 2012 Growth Rate (Census) (Census) 00-10 (Proj.) 10-12 Population' 41,223 48,035 1.5% 48,798 0.8% Households/ 16,507 19,157 1.5% 19,456 0.8% Families' 10,739 12,470 1.5% 12,665 0.8% Housing Units' 17,369 20,068 1.5% 20,357 0.7% Group Quarters Population' 221 347 4.6% 353 0.8% Household Size 2 48 2 49 0 0% 2 49 0.0% PER CAPITA AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2000 2010 Growth Rate 2012 Growth Rate (Census) (Est) 00-10 (Proj.) 10-12 Per Capita($) 25,110 32,009 2.5% 33,545 2.4% Average HH($) 62,439 79,267 2.4% 83,072 2.4% Median HH ($) 51,581 59,245 1 4% 60,904 1.4% SOURCE Llamas,Census,and Johnson Reid Population growth rate from 2011 to 2012 is based on'10-'11 growth rate from PSU Population Research Center 2 2012 Households=2012 population/2012 HH Sire 3 Ratio of 2012 families to total HH is kept constant from 2010 '2012 housing units are the 2010 Census total plus new units permitted from'10 through April'12 lsource' HUD State of the Cities Data System) s Ratio of 2012 Group Quarters Population to Total Population is kept constant from 2010 EXHIBIT 2 PROFILE OF CURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS TIGARD, OREGON CURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS(2012) SOURCE Total 2012 Population: 48,795 US Census,PSU Pop Research Center -Estimated group housing population: 353 (0.7%of Total) US Census Estimated Non-Group 2012 Population: 48,445 (Total-Group) Avg-HH Size: 2.49 US Census Estimated Non-Group 2012 Households: 19,456 (Pop/HH Slee) Total Housing Units: 20,357 (Occupied+Vacant) Census 2010+permits Occupied Housing Units: 19,456 (=#of HH) Vacant Housing Units: 901 (Total HH-Occupied) Current Vacancy Rate: 4.4% (Vacant units/Total units) Est.Ownership Vacancy Rate: 3.0% 2010 ACS 5-Year estimates Est.Rental Vacancy Rate: 6.0% 2011 ACS 5-Year estimates Sources Johnson Red,ILC,Gly of TIGARD.PSU Populatwn Research Center,U S Census EXHIBIT 3 CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS-2010 BY AGE AND INCOME COHORTS Cohort Tenure Number %of all Units by Tenure of HH HH pent Range once Range Alta 1 Income Owner%1 Renter% 19,456 100% Owned I Rental . Less than$15,000 2.9% 97.1% 182 0.9% 5 177 $0 $380 50 $1C 515,000-$24,999 3.1% 96.9% 196 1.0% 6 190 $380 $620 $70,000 $120• $25,000 $34,999 4.9% 95.1% 143 0.7% 7 136 5620 $870 $120,000 5170 535,000•549,999 6.3% 93.7% 220 1.1% 14 207 $870 $1,060 $170,000 $240 15-24 550• $74,999 9.3% 90.7% 186 1.0% 17 169 $1,060 51.410 $240,000 $310 575,000.599,999 25.3% 74.7% 12 0.1% 3 9 $1,410 51.770 5310,000 $370 5100,000-$124,999 33.0% 67.0% 10 00% 3 6 $1,770 52.210 $370,000 54601 5125,000-$149,999 33.7% 66.3% 3 0 0% 1 2 $2,210 52.650 $460,000 $550 $150,000-$199,999 58.9% 41.1% 3 0 0% 2 1 $2,650 $3,530 $550,000 5640 I 5200,000• 56.1% 43.9% 1 00% 1 0 $3,530 na $640,000 - Less than$15,000 12.3% 87 7% 189 1 0% 23 166 $0 5380 SO 570 •, $15,000•$24,999 12.9% 87.1% 303 1.6% 39 264 $380 $620 $70,000 5120.000 525,000-$34,999 19.8% 80.2% 407 2.1% 81 326 $620 $870 $120,000 5170.000 535,000-$49,999 24.4% 75.6% 578 3.0% 141 437 $870 $1,060 $170,000 $240,000 25 34 550,000-574,999 33.4% 66.6% 811 4.2% 271 540 $1,060 51,410 5240,000 $310.000 $75,000-599,999 64.2% 35.8% 553 2.8% 355 198 51,410 $1,770 5310,000 $370,000 5100,000-5124,999 76.5% 23.5% 344 1.8% 263 81 $1,770 52,210 5370,000 5460,000 5125,000-$149,999 76 5% 23.5% 164 0.8% 125 39 $2,210 $2,650 5460,000 5550,000 $150.000 5199,999 94.6% 5 4% 93 0 5% 88 S $2,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 5200,000+ 86.0% 14.0% 53 0 3% 46 7 53,530 na 5640,000 na Less than 515,000 25.3% 74.7% 222 1 1% 56 166 SO $380 $0 571,000 $15,000.524,999 26.3% 73.7% 243 1 I% 64 179 5380 $620 570.000 5120,000 $25,000.$34,999 38.7% 61.3% 303 1.6% 117 186 5620 5870 5120,000 5170,000 $35,000-$49,999 45.1% 54.9% 541 2.8% 244 297 5870 51.060 5170.000 $240,000 35 44 550,000-574,999 56.7% 43.3% 916 4.7% 520 397 51,060 51,410 5240.000 5310,000 575,000-$99,999 84.1% 15.9% 805 4.1% 677 128 $1,410 51.770 5310.000 5370.000 5100,000-$124,999 93.9% 6.1% 480 2.5% 451 29 $1,770 $2.210 5370.000 5460,000 $125,000-5149,999 93.9% 6.1% 241 1.2% 226 15 52,210 S2.650 5460.000 5550,000 5150,000-5199,999 100.0% 0.0% 269 1.4% 269 0 52,650 53.530 $550,000 5640.000 _ _ 5200,000• 94.0% 6.0% 189 10% 178 11 $3,530 na 5640.000 na less than 515,000 38.8% 61.2% 164 0 8% 64 100 50 5380 50 570.000 515,000-524,999 44.9% 55.1% 243 1 2% 109 134 5380 $620 $70,000 $120.000 525,000-534,999 56 3% 437% 341 18% 192 149 $620 $870 $120,000 $170.000 $35,000-S49.999 62.6% 37 4% 549 2 8% 344 205 $870 51,060 5170,000 5240.000 45-54 550,000-574,999 73.5% 26 5% 824 4.2% 606 218 $1,060 51,410 5240,000 $310,000 575.000-599.999 93.6% 6 4% 661 3 4% 618 42 51,410 51,770 5310,000 5370,000 5100.000.5124.999 100.0% 0.0% 563 19% 563 0 51,770 52,210 5370,000 5460,000 $125,000-$149,999 100 0% 0.0% 284 1 5% 284 0 52,210 52,650 5460,000 5550,000 5150,000.5199,999 100.0% 00% 216 1.1% 216 0 52,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 $200,000. _ 97 0% 3.0% 257 1 3% 249 8 53,530 na 5640,000 na Less than$15,000 29 1% 70.9% 84 0.4% 25 60 SO 5380 50 57` 515,000-524,999 33.9% 66.1% 152 0 8% 51 100 5380 5620 570,000 512, 525,000-534,999 43.9% 56.1% 172 0.9% 75 96 5620 5870 5120,000 $17 $35,000-549,999 50 4% 49.6% 324 1.7% 163 160 5870 51.060 5170,000 524, 55-59 $5•000'$74.999 62 0% 38.0% 398 2.0% 247 151 51,060 $1,410 $240,000 $31 S75.000•599.999 874% 12.6% 331 1.7% 289 42 51,410 $1,770 $310,000 $37•- $100,000 37i$100,000•$124,999 96.6% 3.4% 221 1.1% 214 8 51,770 52,210 $370,000 546.. 5125,000•$149,999 96.6% 3.4% 127 0.7% 122 a 52,210 52,650 $460,000 $55 5150.000 5199.999 100.0% 0.0% 107 0.6% 107 0 52,650 53,530 5550,000 9.4 5200,000• 95.1% 4.9% 53 0.3% 50 3. 53,530 na $640,000 EXHIBIT 3 CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS-2010 BY AGE AND INCOME COHORTS Cohort Tenure Number %of all Unas by Tenure of HH A, HH Rent Range Price Range AR, I Income Owner%'Renter% 19,456 100% Owned I Rental less then 515.000 30 7% 69 3% 55 0.3% 17 38 50 5380 $0 570,000 515,000.524,999 35 7% 64 3% 99 0 5% 3S 64 5380 5620 570,000 5120,000 525.000.534999 45 9% 54 1% 112 0 6% 52 61 5620 5870 5120,000 5170,000 535.000.$49.999 52.5% 47.5% 212 1 1% 111 101 $870 51,060 5170,000 5240,000 550.000-$74,999 64.1% 35.9% 261 1 3% 167 94 51,060 51,410 5240.000 5310,000 $75.000•$99,999 88.6% 11.4% 216 1 1% 192 25 51.410 51,770 5310,000 5370.000 5100,000.5124,999 97 5% 2.5% 145 0 7% 141 4 51.770 52,210 $370,000 $460.000 5125.000.5149,999 97 5% 2.5% 83 0 4% 81 2 52.210 52,650 5460,000 5550.000 5150,000.5199,999 :00 0% 0.0% 70 0 4% 70 D 52.650 $3,530 5550.000 $640,000 5200.000« 95 5% 4.5% 35 0 2% 33 2 $3,530 na 5640.000 na Less than$15,000 38 5% 61.5% 162 0.8% 6I 99 SO $380 50 570,000 $15,000.524,999 44 6% 55.4% 270 1.4% 121 150 $380 5620 570.000 5120,000 525,000 $34,999 560% 44.0% 219 1.1% 123 97 $620 $870 $120,000 5170.000 535,000-549,999 62.3% 37.7% 276 1.4% 172 104 5870 51,060 5170.000 5240.000 65-74 550,000-574,999 73.2% 1 26.8% 341 8% 249 91 51.060 51,410 5240.000 $310,000 575,000-599,999 93.4% 6.6% 153 0.8% 143 10 51,410 51,770 5310000 5370.000 5100000.5124,999 100.0% 0.0% 90 0.5% 90 0 51,770 52,210 5370.000 $460,000 $125,000.5149,999 1000% 0.0% 27 0.1% 27 0 52,210 52.650 5460,000 5550,000 5150,000-5199,999 96 9% 3.1% 40 0.2% 39 1 $2,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 5.200,000• 96.9% 3.1% 53 0.3% 52 2 $3,530 na 5640,000 na Less than 515.000 32 8% 67.2% 208 1 1% 68 140 $0 $380 50 570,000 515,000•524,999 38.1% 61.9% 227 1 2% 86 140 5380 5620 570.000 $120,000 525,000•534.999 48.7% 51.3% 274 1.4% 133 140 5620 5870 $120,000 $170,000 535,000•$49,999 552% 44.8% 173 0.9% 96 78 5870 51.060 5170.000 5240.000 75 84 550.000•$74,999 64.8% 35.2% 224 1.1% 145 79 $1,060 51.410 5240,000 5310,000 575,000-599.999 87.5% 12.5% 113 0.6% 99 14 51,410 51,770 5310,000 5370,000 5100,000-5124,999 94.2% 51% 49 0.3% 46 3 51,770 52,210 5370,000 5460.000 5125,000-5149.999 98.7% 1.3% 5 0.0% 5 0 52,210 52,650 $460,000 $550,000 5150.000 5199.999 95 9% 4.1% 17 01% 16 1 52,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 5200.000. 95 9% 4 1% 17 0.1% 16 1 53,530 na $640,000 na Less than$15,000 41.8% 58.2% 100 0.5% 42 58 50 5380 SO $70,000 $15,000-$24,999 48.3% 51.7% 92 0.5% 44 47 5380 $620 570.000 $120,000 525,000-534,999 59.9% 40.1% 104 0.5% 62 42 5620 5870 5120,000 5170,000 535,000-549,999 66.0% 34.0% 59 0.3% 39 20 $870 51,060 5170,000 5240,000 85* 550.000-574,999 74.3% 25.7% 73 0 4% 55 19 51,060 51,410 5240,000 5310,000 575.000-$99,999 90.5% 9 5% 38 0 2% 35 4 51,410 51,770 5310,000 5370,000 $100,000.5124,999 93.2% 68% 16 01% 15 1 51,770 52,210 5370,000 5460,000 5125,000.5149,999 93.2% 6.8% 2 00% 2 0 52,210 $2,650 $460,000 5550,000 $150.000-$199,999 97.4% 2 6% 9 00% 8 0 52,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 5200.000« 97 4% 7 6% 7 0 0% 7 O $3,530 na 5640,000 na TOr4Ls 19,456 100.0% _ 11,877 7,571 EXHIBIT 4 CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS(2010) INDICATED BY TENURE AND COST Ownership a of Price Range Households Income Range Tota Cumulative 50k-$70k 362 Less than 515,000 3.0% 3.0% 570k-$120k 556 515,000- 524,999 4.7% 7.7% 5120k-$170k 842 $25,000-$34,999 7.1% 14.8% $170k- 5240k 1,323 535,000- 549,999 11.1% 26.0% $240k- 5310k 2,276 $50,000- $74,999 19.2% 45.1% 5310k-$370k 2,411 $75,000- $99,999 20.3% 65.4% 5370k- 5460k 1,786 5100,000- $124,999 15.0% 80.5% $460k- $550k 873 5125,000- 5149,999 7.4% 87.8% $550k-5640k 816 $150,000- 5199,999 6.9% 94.7% $640k+ 632 5200,000+ 5.3% 100.0% Totals: 11,877 %of All: 61.0% Rental Rent Level Houaseholds Income Range Total Cumulative $0-$380 1,005 less than$15,000 13.3% 13.3% 5380- 5620 1,268 515,000- $24,999 16.7% 30.0% 5620- 5870 1,232 525,000- 534,999 16.3% 46.3% 5870-$1060 1,608 535,000- $49,999 21.2% 67.5% 51060-51410 1,758 550,000- 574,999 23.2% 90.7% $1410-$1770 472 575,000-$99,999 6.2% 96.9% 51770-$2210 132 $100,000-5124,999 1.7% 98.6% $2210-$2650 62 5125,000 5149,999 0.8% 99.4% $2650- $3530 8 $150,000-$199,999 0.1% 99.6% $3530+ 34 5200,000+ 0.4% 100.0% All Households Totals: 7,579 %of All: 39.0% 19,456 Source: Johnson Reid LLC EXHIBIT S CURRENT HOUSING INVENTORY BY PRICE/RENT RANGE OWNERSHIP HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Price Range Duplex %of Units Ci.mmulative ti Detached Attached plea MFR home other temp Units _ _ 50k-$70k 53 9 0 3 2 42 0 108 i:.9% 0.9`; $70k-$120k 65 12 0 43 29 0 0 149 1.2% 2.1% 5120k-5170k 179 31 0 102 69 0 0 381 3.1% 5.2% 5170k-5240k 2,100 193 0 61 41 0 0 2,395 19.6% 24.8% 5240k-5310k 1,901 175 0 55 36 0 0 2,166 17.7% 42.5% 5310k-5370k 1.949 176 0 35 21 0 0 2,180 17.8% 60.4% 5370k-5460k 2,262 200 0 12 12 0 0 2,486 20.3% 80 7% 5460k-5550k 1,135 99 0 0 0 0 0 1,235 10.1% 90 8% 5550k-5640k 532 47 0 0 0 0 0 579 4.7% 95.5% 5640k+ 501 44 0 0 0 0 0 545 4.5% 100.0% Totals: 10,676 985 0 310 211 42 0 12,225 %OM Units: 60 1°- , Percentage: °- Percentage: 87.3% 8 1% 0 0% 2 5% 1 7% 0 3% 0 0% 100 0% RENTAL HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5•Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Price Range Duplex %of Units cunwinds/lee% Detached Attached pies MFR home other temp Units _ $0 5380 0 0 0 7 18 20 10 55 0.7% 0.7% 5380-$620 0 4 6 12 50 42 9 123 1.5% 2.2% 5620-5870 467 135 188 395 1,770 23 0 2,978 36.6% 38.8% $870-51060 418 125 173 358 1,582 10 0 2,666 32.8% 71.6% 51060-51410 184 50 69 145 648 0 0 1,096 13.5% 85.1% 51410.51770 42 11 16 33 146 0 0 247 3.0% 88.1% 51770-52210 136 36 50 105 467 0 0 794 9.8% 97.9% 52210-52650 20 5 7 15 67 0 0 115 1 4% 99.3% 52650-53530 10 3 4 8 34 0 0 58 0 7% 100.0% S3530• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00% 100.0% Totals 1,276 369 513 : 079 4,782 95 19 8,132 %d A!Units: 39 9`, Percentage: 15.7% 4.5% 6 3% 58.8% 1 2% 0 2% 100 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS Single Family Single Family 3-Or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat.RV, Total Detached Attached Duplex %of Units plea MFR home other temp Units Totals. 11,952 1,t54 513 1,389 4,993 137 19 20,357 100% Percentage: 58.7% 6 7% 2.5% 6.8% 24 5% 0.7% 0 1% 100 Sources Clritas Inc..Census,Johnson Reid • Q N _ 6, 7 lO to a0 N N t d G 0) .-A n ill O N l8 411 in m 6J ] V .r �D V1 D Z VI 13 r LI' ,11 ill '� 1-4 ,4E .., C _, C1 r. � O v 13) "'i '" 0 p ] ] rry N r1 ^ aO I-I In U w p W N f. C V _ C -a S 00 N 60 00CI CL fa a! al 0 4.2N N m O 6r, NA Q 1's daJ O N N 4.2 I-... P+ M IA 6C m U1 3 Z .4 . . - a . 1 N N V W Z W IA rX0 p o N 0 oIn m u 0 0 f• N LOLel N m V 0 CCi 0 0 ppapp .r +op 1n t~A .Nn .Nis .Mn Z C' Co to to N I I + H m LIJ Q oCO 0 0 00 0 0 0 01t1D1 0 LO 0 p[ O m t] CD rl -I .-+ N N m 0 W I to Vs to to U's to to to to vl. I- 00 Q Z a x s yr 4 N .1�,pp mol 8 W 04,1 0 C a! ] N 0• d N O N N. INIm o3 n Q LijZ N W < UJ u Z V. LJ v Z w r in LCv1 Z o CI C cm ' I C, ID Co oo m CI In .--. N+7U 41.„.0 N N N N .-. N1 If1 , N .- O g w S L ' F, .L P. V1 Ln C Ceca W C fa 4J d .7 in ar m N .7 A f.. ..-I M CO m 0 O CC - Z r-i V1 CO ,� fV rY .-i CO 00 .r Cn O OI C CC O at V .-+ .+ IN L D W 0 V 3 N NC N ] Li m M « C a C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C > > :° .n . I I + _y In C dv" ' . . Y . . Y . - Q. Q ? QI 0 IN N. O 0 0 Lel v U == 172 v CD � - .+ N m m v1 60 oQ .n tel V's Vs +n tt Vs tel In Lel F 0 4 I- v cu cc 1.11 Ill d 0 u v, CC ,/i c WL R N C 3 U c 3 O4 C oN v a v c bem N i0 be O IAW Z o Q A • Nvi c.. d H_ c O c O LI u ,_, c p m Z I o a a, D ac 2 11 _ pp N v c v o o V a' E d -o A .0 C m m Z 3- ° d °' , _ Al ° E E f� L/1 L� ▪ t w Y v T O _ Y m O 0 — G S 0 L E c C W L N d E Z > j t wQ N O `- V. cc y �6 m Q, I.1.1 x cc Q m U 0 F- 0 ^1 a^ e r„ N m N. CA Ai a O N .7N V V CO IC N N VD N vi LL .-4 00 ~ .--. .-1' 11I (xi L!1 .-i Ly 0 Q cc 4.0 IN IN IN O N W `n J 2 0 N LL o �- 10 Ci _t — c O CC Z CtvL a a 0 L 0 0 0 C U a a iy 0 7 0 O. a, Q 7,, %,_,- 0m Z 3 3 aea O O O N C 'n a rn N D 10 s yp G 0 O o c d N = pa 3 I c p c 3 fry C v ra ce 2 Lo 2 t o o o ` C T H' c c a. in D c c 3OD U. c 0 0 - O O to 3 a u ea 0 Q ea- 6.oq ro Z .- C I O 7 > IA a a s a oo D o 0 = au La, d u d e W in S = = a c u O N 6! N f0 E E: f0 7 rp 4J , p^ 1'1 .. 3 m .a u v o OC O L O v, O N v > a u ra L CL. N a ry UJ ►- W Z Q F- 0 > a EXHIBIT 8 TOTAL FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS-2032 BY AGE AND INCOME COHORTS (INCORPORATES CURRENT NEED&VACANCY ASSUMPTION) ber Cohort Torture N of %d ell NH Units by TenureINN Runt IMP Prete RortOe Ass I Income Owner%I Renter% 26,904 100% Owned I Rental Less than 515,000 2 9% 97.1% 280 1.0% 8 I 271.8 50 5380 50 570,000 $15,000-$24,999 3.1% 96.9% 270 1.0% 8.3 262.2 $380 5620 570,000 $120,000 $25,000-534,999 4.9% 95.1% 221 0.8% 10.8 210.6 $620 $870 5120,000 5170,000 535,000-549,999 6.3% 93.75 158 1.3% 22.4 335.7 5870 51,060 5170,000 5240,000 15 24 550.000-574,999 9.3% 90.7°, 282 1.0% 26.3 256.0 $1,060 51,410 5240,000 5310,000 575,000.599,999 25.3% 74.r.. 42 0.7% 10.6 31.1 51,410 51,770 5310,000 5370,000 $100,000-$124,999 33-0% 67.0% 12 0 0% 4.0 8.1 51,770 $2,210 5370,000 5460,000 $125,000-$149,999 33.7% 66.3'''4. 4 0.0% 1.4 2.7 52,210 52,650 5460,000 $550,000 5150,000-$199,999 58.9% 41.1°,4- 13 0 0% 7.6 5.3 52,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 5200,000 or more 56.1% 43.9% -2 0.0% -0.9 -0.7 53,530 no 5640,000 no Less than 515,000 12.3% 87.7% 152 0.6% 18 7 133.7 50 5380 50 570,000 515,000•$24,999 12 9% 87.1% 232 0.9% 29.8 202.0 5380 5620 $70,000 5120,000 525,000•$34,999 19.8% 80.2% 335 1.2% 66.5 268.5 5620 $870 5120,000 5170,000 535,000•$49,999 24.4% 75.6% 479 1.8% 116.7 362.3 5870 51,060 5170,000 $240,000 25 $50,000-$74,999 33.4% 66.6% 655 2.4% 218.7 436.1 51,060 51,410 5240,000 $310,000' $75,000•$99,999 64.2% 35.8% 455 1.7% 292.1 162.8 51,410 51,770 5310,000 $371 $100,000-$124,999 76.5% 23.5% 302 1.1% 231.0 71.2 S1,770 52,210 5370,000 5461 5125,000-$149,999 76.5% 23.5% 146 0.5% 111.7 34.4 $2,210 $2,650 $460,000 $551. 5150,000-$199,999 94.6% 5.4% 91 0.3% 85-8 4.9 52,650 53,530 5550,000 5641 5200,000 or more 86.0% 14.0% 47 0.2% 40.5 6.6 53,530 no $640,000 Less than 515,000 25.3% 74.7% 256 1.0% 64 8 191 2 SO 5380 50 570,000 515,000-524,999 26.3% 73.7% 298 1.1% 78 4 220.0 $380 $620 $70,000 $120,000 525,000-534,999 38.7% 61.3% 359 1.3% 139.1 220.0 5620 5870 5120,000 $170,000 535,000-549,999 45.1% 54 9% 648 2.4% 292.4 355.6 5870 51,060 5170,000 5240,000 35 04 550,000-574.999 56.7% 43.3% 1,186 4.4% 672.4 513.4 51,060 51,410 5240,000 5310,000 575,000-599,999 84 1% 15.9% 1,074 4.0% 902.8 170.9 51,410 51,770 5310,000 $370,000 $100,000•$124,999 939% 6.1% 721 2.7% 676.5 44.2 51,770 52,210 5370.000 $460,000 $125,000•$149,999 93.9% 6.1% 387 1.4% 363.7 23.8 52,210 52,650 5460,000 $550,000 5150,000-$199,999 100.0% 0.0% 391 1.5% 390.8 0.0 52,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 5200,000 or more 94 0% 6.0% 306 1.1% 287.4 18.3 53,530 no 5640,000 no Less than$15,000 38.8% 61.2% 179 0.7% 69.5 109.5 SO 5380 50 570,000 515,000-524,999 44.9% 55.1% 263 1.0% 118.2 144.9 $380 $620 570,000 5170,000 525,000-534,999 56.3% 43.7% 412 1.5% 232.2 180 3 5620 5870 5120,000 $170,000 535,000-$49,999 62.6% 37.4% 659 2.5% 412.9 246.4 5870 51,060 5170,000 $240,000 45-54 $50,000-574,999 73.5% 26.5% 1,012 3.8% 744.3 267 9 51,060 51,410 5240,000 $310,000 575,000-599,999 93.6% 6.4% 862 3.2% 806 5 55.4 51,410 $1,770 $310,000 5370,000 5100,000-5124.999 100.0% 0.0% 710 2.6% 709 7 0.0 $1,770 $2,210 $370,000 5460,000 5125,000-5149.999 100.0% 0.0% 436 1.6% 436.0 0.0 52,210 $2,650 $460,000 $550,000 5150,000-5199,999 100.0% 0.0% 325 1.2% 324.6 0.0 52,650 $3,530 $550,000 5640,000 5200,000 or more 97.0% 3.0% 425 1.6% 412 4 12 9 53,530 no $640,000 no Less than 515,000 29.1% 70.9% 135 0 5% 39 3 95.9 $0 $380 50 570,000 515,000-524,999 33.9% 66.1% 231 0 9% :8 3 152 7 5380 5620 $70,000 5120,000 525,000-534,999 43.9% 56.1% 297 1 1% 130 4 166 9 5620 5870 $120,000 5170,000 535,000-$49,999 50.4% 49.6% 523 1.9% 263 4 259.2 5870 $1,060 $170,000 5240,000 55-59 550,000-$74,999 62.0% 38.0% 709 2.6% 439 7 269.3 51,060 $1,410 $240,000 5310,000 575,000-599.999 87.4% 12 6% 579 2.2% 506.0 72.9 51,410 51,770 5310,000 5370,000 $100,000 5124,999 96.6% 34941 405 1.5% 391-5 13.9 51,770 52,210 5370,000 $460,000 5125,000•5149,999 96.6% 3.4% 235 0.9% 226.7 8.1 52,210 52,650 5460,000 5550.000 5150,000•5199,999 100.0% 00% 198 0.7% 197.8 0.0 52,650 53,530 5550,000 5640,000 5200.000 or more 95.1% 4.9% 120 0.4% 113.8 5.9 $3,530 no $640,000 nor EXHIBIT 8 TOTAL FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS-2032 BY AGE AND INCOME COHORTS (INCORPORATES CURRENT NEED&VACANCY ASSUMPTION) Less than 515,000 30.7% 69.3% 89 0.3% 27 1 61.4 50 $380 50 S?: 515,000-524.999 35.7% 64.3% 151 0.6% 54 0 97.3 5380 $620 $70,000 512, 525,000•$34,999 45.9% 54.1%. 195 0.7% 89.4 105.3 5620 $870 $120,000 $17c 535,000•549,999 52.5% 47.55 342 1.3% 179.6 162.6 5870 51,060 5170,000 5240 60-64 550,000•574,999 64.1% 35.9% 464 1.7% 297.3 166.9 51,060 51,410 5240,000 531:, 575,000•599,999 88.6% 11.4% 379 1.4% 335.7 43.3 $1,410 51,770 5310,000 5370 5100,000-5124,999 97.5% 2.5% 265 1.0% 258.8 6.6 51,770 52,210 $370,000 5461:.. 5125,000-$149,999 975% 2.5% 154 0.6% 149.9 3.8 52,210 $2,650 5460,000 5550.000 5150,000-5199,999 100.0% 0.0% 130 0.5% 129.5 0.0 52,650 $3,530 5550,000 5640,000 5200,000 or more 95.5% 4.5.k_ 78 0.3% 74.8 3.5 53,530 na_ $640,000 N. Less than 515,00X: 38.5% 61.5% 337 1.3% 1I9 9 207 1 50 $380 $0 $7: 515,000.$24,999 44.6% 55.4% 558 2.1% 248 9 308 9 5380 5620 $70,000 $12: 525,000-$34,999 56.0% 44 09* 475 1.8% 265 8 209 2 5620 $870 $120,000 517:: 535,000•549,999 62.3% 37 7% 553 2.1% 344.7 208 6 5870 51,060 $170,000 524. 65 74 550,000-574,999 73.2% 26 8', 737 2.7% 5.40 0 197.3 51,060 $1,410 $240,000 531:, 575,000•599,999 93.4% 6 6% 348 1.3% 325.6 22.9 51,410 51,770 $310,000 537c 5100,000-$124,99 100.0% 0 0': 222 0.8% 221.9 0 0 51,770 52,210 $370,000 $46: 5125,000-5149,999 100.0% 0.0%. 98 0.4% 97.7 0.0 $2,210 $2,650 5460,000 555u 5150,000-5199,999 96.9% 3.1% 75 0.3% 725 2 3 $2,650 $3,530 $550,000 $64: 5200,000 or more 96.9% 3.1% 116 0.4% 112.6 3.6 $3,530 na 5640,000 Less than$15,000 32.8% 67.29. 221 0.8% 725 148 7 $0 5380 50 57: 515,000-524,999 38.1% 61.9% 270 1.0% 102.9 167.1 5380 5620 570,000 512: 525,000-$34,999 48.7% 51.3% 341 13% 165.8 174-8 $620 5870 $120,000 517: 535,000-549,999 55.2% 44.8% 232 0.9% 128.1 103.8 $870 51.060 5170.000 524; 75 84 550,000-574,999 64.8% 35.2% 288 1.1% 186.3 101.4 51,060 51,410 5240,000 531, $75,000-599,999 87.5% 12.5% 171 0.6% 149.6 21.4 51,410 $1,770 $310,000 $37th $100,000-5124,999 94.2% 5.8% 73 0.3% 69.0 4.2 51,770 52,210 5370,000 546i $125,000•5149.999 98.7% 1.3% 18 0.1% 17.4 0.2 52,210 52,650 $460,000 555. 5150,000•5199,999 95.9% 4.1% 27 0.1% 26.0 1.1 $2,650 53,530 $550,000 564'. $200,000 or more 95.9% 4.1% 24 0.1% 23.4 1.0 53,530 na 5640,000 Less than 515,000 41 8% 58.2% 135 0.5% 56.5 78 8 50 5380 50 570.000 515,000-524,999 48 3% 51 7% 136 0.5% 65.8 70 6 5380 $620 570,000 512C 525,000-$34,999 59.9% 40.1• 155 0.6% 93.1 62 4 $620 5870 $120,000 517i $35,000-$49,999 66.0% 34.(7" 106 0.4% 70.3 36 2 5870 $1,060 5170,000 524; 85+ $50,000•$74,999 74.3% 25.7% 111 0.4% -2.2 28.4 $1,060 $1,410 $240,000 531( 575,000-599,999 90.5% 9.5' 63 0.2% 57.2 6.0 $1,410 $1,770 $310,000 5370 $100,000-5124,999 93.2% 6.8' 23 0.1% 21.6 1.6 51,770 52,210 5370,000 5461' 5125,000-5149,999 93.2% 6.8% 6 0.0% 5.3 0.4 52,210 52,650 5460,000 555i 5150,000-5199,999 97.4% 2.6°x% 11 0.0% 10-5 0.3 52,650 53.530 5550,000 564: $200,000 or more 97.4% 2.6% 9 0.0% 9.2 0.2 53,530 na 5640,000 rOTALS: _6,904 100.0% 17,200 9,704 Source Johnson Reid IL EXHIBIT 9 TOTAL FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS (2032) INDICATED BY TENURE AND COST (INCORPORATES CURRENT NEED & VACANCY ASSUMPTION) Ownership Price Range #Units %of Units Cumulative 50k - 570k 486 2.8% 2.8% 570k -$120k 785 4.6% 7.4% 5120k-5170k 1,193 6.9% 14.3% $170k-$240k 1,831 10.6% 25.0% 5240k-$310k 3,207 18.6% 43.6% 5310k-5370k 3,386 19.7% 63.3% 5370k- 5460k 2,584 15.0% 78.3% 5460k- $550k 1,410 8.2% 86.5% 5550k- 5640k 1,245 7.2% 93.8% 5640k+ 1,073 6.2% 100.0% Totals: 17,200 %of All: 63.9% Rental Rent #Units %of Units Cumulative 50-5380 1,298 13.4 13.4% 5380-5620 1,626 16.8% 30.1% $620-$870 1,598 16.5% 46.6% $870 -$1060 2,070 21.3% 67.9% 51060-$1410 2,236 23.0% 91.0% 51410-51770 587 6.0% 97.0% 51770-52210 150 1.5% 98.6% 52210- $2650 73 0.8% 99.3% $2650-$3530 14 0.1% 99.5% 53530+ 51 0.5% 100.0% All Units Totals: 9,704 %of All: 36.1% 26,904 Source. Johnson Reid LLC EXHIBIT 10 TOTAL FUTURE NEEDED HOUSING INVENTORY(2032) BY PRICE/RENT RANGE (INCORPORATES CURRENT NEED&VACANCY ASSUMPTION) OWNERSHIP HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5.Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Price Range Duplex %of Units Cummuiatrve% Detached Attached plea MFR home other temp• Units ,_k-$70k 59 1 14 13 51 48, 2.8% 2.E'., 570k•5120k 642 95 2 22 20 9 0 785 4.6% 7.4% 5120k-5170k 976 144 3 34 31 0 0 1,193 6.9% 14.3% 5170k•5240k 1,498 221 5 52 48 0 0 1,831 10.6% 25.0% 5240k-$310k 2,625 388 9 91 83 0 0 3,207 18.6% 43.6% $310k-5370k 2,771 409 10 96 88 0 0 3,386 19.7% 63.3% 5370k-5460k 2,115 312 7 73 67 0 0 2,584 15.0% 78.3% 5460k-$550k 1,154 170 4 40 37 0 0 1,410 8.2% 86.5% 5550k-5640k 1,019 151 4 35 32 0 0 1,245 7.2% 93.8% 5640k. 878 130 3 30 28 0 0 1,073 6.2% 100.0% Totals: 14,078 2,080 50 487 446 59 0r 17,200 x atm units: 63.9% Percentage' 81.8% 12.1% 0 3% 2.8% 2.6% 0.3% 0.0%_ 100.0% RENTAL HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Price Range Duplex %of Units Ginn Aathre% Detached Attached plex MFR home other temp Units SO-5380 :83 12 8 174 768 _., 10 1,298 13 4% 13 4% $380-5620 230 91 103 218 962 47 9 1,626 16.8% 30.1% $620-5870 226 89 101 215 946 28 0 1,598 16.5% 46.6% 5870-51060 292 116 131 278 1,226 15 0 2,070 21.3% 67.9% 51060-51410 316 125 141 300 1,324 0 0 2,236 23.0% 91.0% 51410-51770 83 33 37 79 347 0 0 587 6.0% 97.0% 51770-52210 21 8 9 20 89 0 0 150 1.5% 98.6% $2210-$2650 10 4 5 10 43 0 0 73 0.8% 99.3% 52650-53530 2 1 1 2 8 0 0 14 0.1% 99.5% 53530+ 7 3 3 7 30 0 0, 51 0.5% 100.0% Totals: 1,370 542 612 1,304 5,744 113 19 9,704 %of Aaunits: 36.1% Percentage 14.1% 5.6% 6.3% 13.4% 59.2% 1.2% 0.2% 100.0% TOTAL HOUSING UNITS Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Detached Attached Duplex %of Units pies MFR home other temp Units Totals: 15,446 2,621 1,62 1,790 6,11 172 19 26,904 100% Percentage: 57.4% 9.7% 2 CA., 6 7% 23 0% 0 6% 0.1% 100 0% Source Johnson Reid LLC EXHIBIT 11 FUTURE NEW UNITS NEEDED(2032) BY PRICE/RENT RANGE (TOTAL FUTURE NEED MINUS CURRENT INVENTORY) OWNERSHIP HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Price Range Duplex %of Units Curnmuahve x Detached Attached plex MFR home other temp Units , 50k-$70k 345 50 1 11 11 9 0 427 8.6% 8 6% 570k-5120k 577 83 2 -20 -9 9 0 642 12.9% 21.5% 5120k-5170k 797 114 3 -68 -38 0 0 808 16.2% 37 7% 5170k-5240k -602 28 5 -9 6 0 0 •571 -11.5% 26.3% 5240k-$310k 724 213 9 36 47 0 0 1,029 20-7% 46.9% 5310k-5370k 822 234 10 61 67 0 0 1,194 24 0% 70 9% $370k-5460k -147 112 7 61 55 0 0 89 1.8% 72 7% 5460k-5550k 19 71 4 40 37 0 0 170 3.4% 76.1% 5550k-$640k 487 104 4 35 32 0 0 662 13.3% 89 5% 5640k• 377 86 3 30 28 0 0 524 10 5% 100.0% Totals: 3.401 1,095 50 177 236 17 0 4,975 %All Units 76.0% Percentage: 68.4% 22.0% 1.0% 3.5% -1 7% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0% RENTAL HOUSING Single Family Single Family 3-or 4- 5+Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Price Range Duplex %of Units commuati e% Detached Attached plea MFR home other temp Units 50-$380 183 12 82 lb/ /50 5 0 1,260 80.2% 80.2% 5380•5620 230 87 97 206 912 5 0 1,536 97.9% 178.1% $620-5870 -242 -46 -87 -180 -824 5 0 -1,374 -87 5% 90.6% 5870-51060 -126 -9 -42 -80 -356 5 0 -609 -38.8% 51.7% 51060-51410 132 75 72 155 676 0 0 1.110 70.7% 122.4% $1410.51770 41 22 21 46 202 0 0 331 21.1% 143.6% 51770-52210 -115 -28 -41 -85 -378 0 0 -647 •41.2% 102.4% 52210-$2650 -10 -1 -3 -5 -24 0 0 -43 -2.7% 99.6% 52650-53530 -8 •2 -3 -6 -26 0 0 -45 -2.9% 96 8% 53530. 7 3 3 7 30 0 0 50 3.2% 100.0% Totals: 93 173 100 225 962 18 0 1,570 %All Units: 24.0% , Percentage: 5.9% 11.0% 6 4% 14.3% 61.3% 1 2% 0 0% 100 0% TOTAL HOUSING UNITS Single Family 3-or 4- 5.Units Mobile Boat,RV, Total Single Family Attached Duplex plea MFR home other temp Units %af Units Totals: 3,494 1,267 150 301 : 158 ii 6,545 100% Percentage: 53.4% 194% 2.3% 6.1% 18 3% L 10.0 0'.. Sources PSU Population Research Center,Clarrtas Inc.,Census,Johnson Reid EXHIBIT 12 PROFILE OF RESIDENTIAL COMP. PLAN DESIGNATIONS TIGARD, OREGON Net Vacant Capacity of Density ZONING DESIGNATION Buildable Vacant Lands (Units/Net Acres (Units) Acre)' R-1 Low-Density Residential 2.4 3 1.5 R-2 Low-Density Residential 1.0 2 2.2 R-3.5 Low-Density Residential 22.7 148 6.5 R-4.5 Low-Density Residential 149.5 1,085 7.3 R-7 Medium-Density Residential 72.1 628 8.7 R-12 Medium-Density Residential 36.7 525 14.3 R-25 Medium-Density Residential 42.1 1,240 29.4 MUR-1 Mixed-Use Residential 3.8 191 50.0 MUR-2 Mixed-Use Residential 1.2 60 50.0 [Area 63) West Bull Mountain 104.6 700 6.7 [Area 641 West Bull Mountain 164.3 2,132 13.0 Totals/Averages: 600.4 6,714 11.2 1 Density standards based on TIGARD Development Code Sources: Angelo Planning Group,City of Tigard,Johnson Reid LLC CU L, a uN Lfl m N m v o o N o 1.0 N QLn r 4.. r-1 N LLJ I. 00 .�-I N ° 6O LD r'1 •-• C 4! ti 0 2 N O 13 v - C M N QC N N O, l,D .-1r% > ra Tr O. C r, L11 N IN N - O O r, V7 0 C f to e-1 000 LD L!1 i NCT Z25 . ti J J W M u O CC a n, N Q. O O O OOOOOOO O 06M m en CI H m t W y 00 nW OaOO M U W3 z . O O O O O O al C C 7 u+ LLI Q 2cr Z F p n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qv W Q `^ M CC ce LD U LU I— Q = ct u3 a of O O O OO OOp O o 0 C R .f1 Q V9 J X Z~ Z Q ^ 'Cr ^ ULn O Qt LD JW Q `., NNO O O O O es, M O O N C N D Q N 0 9ce UJ Wc UJ a) p pun ct z . _- ^1 ry S M ar O O O O fel p v c LU W 0 co al N l0 .-+ fa. t C 0 n ac I— 4) rC5 < J LL dl I- a LL CO 19 J i+ i:+ C C C Or A O _ 7 0o C C C C 71 71 471 O1 01 01 ''. " C C C m U `� C C vi H co a -0 a a cc d cc aJ d '41 '� O D u 00 61 01 4+ G1 Z. Z. 7 7 c c f" ? a '^ CC C: oC CC p1 d a a Z' m ate, 0.1ce ccg° 2 n m C N VI VI VI O O N M u 61 > D a ami 03) ami Cr E E E m m ° O. o o G G >_ _> >_ "0 " .. c ra V, 2 V) X X sn N y L° 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 E 41 cu N cc r,1 N � V1J f0 l Ln N L11 ce ci r0 r0 E a u r1 IN rn N .ti N ) D a a O ci cC cc cc c[ r 2 2 Q Q o M ♦YOYff�6 Flu � ATTACHMENT B DSL Wetland Delineation Concurrence for Schmidt Property Department of State Lands Oregon 775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100 + � John A titvhat'er,MD.Gwernn Salem,()R 97301-1279 (503)986-5200 FAX(503)378-4844 July 24. 2014 www.oregonstatelands.us Venture Properties, Inc. State Land Board Attn: Kelly Ritz 4230 Galewood Street, Suite 100 Lake Oswego. OR 97225 John A. Kitzhaber, MU Governor Re: Wetland Delineation Report for the Schmidt Property, Washington County: T2S R1W Sec. 11 DA, Tax Lot 400; WD #2013-0255 Kate Brown Secretary of State Dear Ms. Ritz. Ted Wheeler The Department of State Lands has reviewed the wetland delineation State Treasurer report prepared originally by the Mears Design Group and revised later by SWCA Environmental Consultants for the site referenced above. Based upon the information presented in the report, site visits on December 6, 2013, March 19 and 26, 2014, and additional information submitted upon request, we concur with the wetland boundaries as mapped in revised Figure 9 of the report. Please replace all copies of the preliminary wetland map with this final Department-approved map. Within the study area, 2 wetlands (totaling approximately 1.74 acres) were identified. These wetlands are subject to the permit requirements of the state Removal-Fill Law. Under current regulations, a state permit is required for cumulative fill or annual excavation of 50 cubic yards or more in a wetland. This concurrence is for purposes of the state Removal-Fill Law only. Federal or local permit requirements may apply as well The Army Corps of Engineers will review the report and make a determination of jurisdiction for purposes of the Clean Water Act at the time that a permit application is submitted. We recommend that you attach a copy of this concurrence letter to both copies of any subsequent joint permit application to speed application review. Please be advised that state law establishes a preference for avoidance of wetland impacts. Because measures to avoid and minimize wetland impacts may include reconfiguring parcel layout and size or development design, we recommend that you work with Department staff on appropriate site design before completing the city or county land use approval process. This concurrence is based on information provided to the agency. The jurisdictional determination is valid for five years from the date of this letter unless new information necessitates a revision. Circumstances under which the Department may change a determination are found in OAR 141-090-0045 (available on our web site or upon request). In addition, laws enacted by the legislature and/or rules adopted by the Department may result in a change in jurisdiction; individuals and applicants are subject to the regulations that are in effect at the time of the removal-fill activity or complete permit application. The applicant. landowner, or agent may submit a request for reconsideration of this determination in writing within six months of the date of this letter. Thank you for having the site evaluated Please phone me at 503-986-5232 if you have any questions. Sincerely. Approved by 7 Peter Ryan. PWS Kathy Verble, CPSS Wetland Specialist Acting Wetlands Program Manager Enclosures eci Stacey Reed, SWCA Environmental Consultants Troy Mears, Mears Design Group City of Tigard Planning Department (Map enclosed for updating LWI) Sean Tackley. Corps of Engineers Amber Wierck. Clean Water Services Charles Redon, DSL � •'� '' ti' 11 ` IF,. l . ' ',"%il'a 6V.,,:,1')..., \ • .:: .• i .. 111 •� 1 ~` -� C.'•ti• • ti T,. t rt •� �` It iL` 1 sti t2��.• r •, ` , 1� Yol • . / 1 . k , . _ , - . gliik).iiiit.. . . ....i. _ tr 1. It• - ". ; C3/1 ti, \ ; . J.,•, :,..1% iliiir l'1•• i e ..: 4‘ '• --- lb t ..... . ‘.- f• Altitlitt_ i 1 , . „ • ... 1 :n.TAl aft'' I aft'' Ir.;:i • , �$ r MI • ••; •1 .4141\I. �� ..ji,..ca �'� NiL P.ti F , ti f Al (Alir••• ' - ••—•- .. ••• .. .01 ljfi/AP)N"ZLIIIII i ii e f - - Y" --'' . i• ...15:1, ..77.-._-4- _ - .11 "."" erit,1 - •,, ,: O.. ••;*. ., 9511 1•4[/... 1110(4141 �~ 3iff ;; •`; cau> saiiidir , , .... ii \'"r '.4- .} , f { " , - . '� 7 •• r. —,rte \ Or 1, -i• ir-.-.i.A../iiel.g ,�' % U'\ • ;r '-•ems I 157:" ii. '',., "ktOpir''' Vilimq , 1..,7 1 1 I I ii.i.. k.L ,,,)4.... 0,_.It , . i 4,,,,,,moi. 1 ; ti , - 0.i,. .+ r 401 pc.., pItler 1 / . '� . if. _`` ` .it , 'r 1 l `.,„,. , Q N ly i r L: ��r • y 2 . 1 1-1 • ........::::.'' 1' .. r ir-.4 e, .,,,. - : -.v. -• ' ''. s ,iiit. • ' ' • '•-• 9.p. .... 1lllh is • • r•:X . � f. ti. ' •••• .• .` tt4 • f �. . .. p. ,dri •� • :sem .'d i _(�_ cl..,1:.• I :'K... isfejiii .;it' "`: ....' 0 : •dr)irt .. ' '. . 1 .; Ja .i. ....il , .4 . '.... - - . 'PA. :.' t- 1 1 41> ' . . • Ir.„..' ......::-....::.;, ,, 1,„ i A.,. . - ilk, .:*A\' ••• I \ r.ijr '.' 4.-• it: , .0., • , . i 3 l•v...• : qo . .4 , ...!.:..j.. , ii„ , 0 •• ... t i . .,1 k , 4 , " ;. ......1 •.. „, ,'"4, .:\I : : •t. , : 1::',..-WS' 1 ' 1 1 •e"' 'Pd.fi )e N,... f* -•ri. , „ I.. : A,, .4t....',•!;' -[• t i.)) )?'• •'//. �1 {1k _� �. ` w - • , I ♦ j.� �It i � y. '! i � •� 1111 (7"/ /.•'• BD N y +• � •�� . :, •• ♦ ham- \ +1 . }'. I /r J iii IP 1.43 IPIP.+10PS a ':' r iroa3aO r ` QHVOul E, a�`+►�a-4 }mss ,1 a� r/ •-- MATCH=MI dVW ONV1.13M 14^ ' LL 5.3r, NOIS1/11aBnS 141WHOS I •° a� X 1 [t it: I.: ,:: + _—� i � ' i [ i�_� I. 1:; iii r ` w mil W W _i CI W 0 Y °ii Y 1• cr N G N - - tJ O i a u 3 0 zd q a n t e < . t N N OFIYA310O6 11V14 MS _ I. =h: • �f ''-' * . f •Y D f • l I • I1 •=1,,,, . : � lit— • " •' it Ii ' •.1/ C ` • yam. • I • 0 W • • r I �� p , C• r 8CC • Q - ; p - y 111\ O''• moo. it Cf 1'`. • w q I •r a • •••\ q fo A• W `r - - bad•w CD \-.1c- s / N + ;+ •• • • • •i ']cL - o ry! `Q� • • t '• I_ 3f1N3AV OOOM31dda MS • Y �' '� • 8 • • \ +i1 r 4 t \ •~' ♦• t • `S 1• t iti• ), + ... . 0, ' A \ • ' • 1 Wy1 F 30VH143.1.b4108 MS N 4- a s , N t 3 0) ..I..•w+,UMW..It,.•...•a AM. ATTACHMENT C HGM Function and Value Assessment Data Sheets Page 1 of 10 SHEET FOR AUTOMATIC CALCULATION OF FUNCTION SCORES-resiled December 2003 Slope or Flats subclass Site Name: Schmidt Subdivision Date: October 2014 It is recommended to do a"Save As" from this blank spreadsheet for each use,assigning different file names. This will help reduce the chance of accidentally confusing new data with previously entered data. For reference,the function(s)addressed by each indicator are noted in column E. Codes are shown below next to the function names. The capital letter in the code(e.g.,sp-B)in column E refers to the code for the indicator in the published Volume IA. HFR=scaled to highest functioning site of this subclass found by DSL; LAR=scaled to least-altered site of this subclass found by DSL Scores greater than 1 indicate the capacity of the function at the site you assessed may be greater than in all sites of this subclass assessed by the DSL team during model calibration. Data must be entered for every indicator,unless the scale block for this subclass is shaded. Each value in column D must be less than or equal to 1. Calculated Function Capacity for SF sites Function: if HFR: if LAR: Water Storage& Delay (ws) 0.00 0.00 Sediment Stabilization& Phosphorus Retention(sp) 0.57 0.61 Nitrogen Removal(n) 0.39 0.39 Primary Production(pp) 0.32 0.32 Invertebrate Habitat Support(i) 0.18 0.18 Amphibian&Turtle Habitat(at) 0.53 0.70 Breeding Waterbird Support(bw) 0.00 0.00 Wintering& Migrating Waterbird Support(ww) 0.16 0.18 Songbird Habitat Support (sb) 0.45 0.69 Support of Characteristic Vegetation 0) 1) 1 0.36 Note I: Models and scores for ws,sp.n.and pp intentionally do not account for the area of the wetland,an especially important factor for these functions. Note 2: This method should be applied to an entire contiguous wetland, not just to the portion affected directly by a planned alteration or restoration. Indicator Raw Datum Scale for SF Scaled Function sites Datum Presence sof permanent surface water(water scar-round absent absent , 0 ll sb-P during most s ears)? Lp. 82 i present= 1.0 rf-X Percent of permanent zone that is open water(i.e., lacking none 100 =.1 0.2 at-M emergent and underwater plants) (p. 79) 80-99=.8 60-80= 1.0 (Answer"0"if no permanent zone is present) 40-60=.8 20-40=.4 0-?0 =2 Percent of site that is inundated only seasonally(i.e., none none=0 0 i-B watermarks,moss lines,debris lines,etc.) (p. 81) 1-10=.1 n-A 10-25=.6 ws-A 25-50=.8 >50 = 10 none=0 0 ww-A 1-20 =.5 20-40=.7 40-60=.8 60-80=.9 >R0 = 1 0 , At least 0.5 acre of surface water persists until at least July no Yes= 1 -\ 1 and water is mostly wider than 10 ft? No=0 HGM version 12-02 Page 2 of 10 Predominant water depth during biennial low water (p. 8=1 0 0"=0 1► h11-I) 1-2" =.6 2-24"= 1.0 2-6 ft=.8 >6 fl =6 0 =.1 (► 1 i-I) 1-2" = 1.0 2-24"=.8 >24" =.2 Percent of site occupied by the most extensive depth 0 100 =0 0 h11-B category at this site during biennial low water.(p. 81). 80-100=.1 (Delimit the low water zone first,then break into these 5040=.4 depth categories,then identify the category that 30-50=.8 predominates horizontally). <30 = 1.0 (Possible categories are: 0 inches; 1-2 inches; 2-24 inches; 'J faat' .1,fans 1 Difference between the predominating biennial high and 0 0)=0 I) n-13 low water levels (p. 71 1 I)=.3 2)=.5 hmm-I. 0)=No change 3)=.8 I)= Difference of I class 4)= 1.0 2)=Difference of 2 classes 3)=Difference of 3 classes 4)=Difference of 4 classes 0)=0 0 %%v. 1)= .25 Class I =0 inches 2)=.5 Class 2= 1-2 inches 3)=.75 Class 3 = 2-24 inches 4)= 1.0 Class 4=2-6 feet Class 5 =>6 feet Predominant vertical increase in surface water level(ft)in 0 0=0 (► ws-B most of the seasonal zone(i.e.,water marks,moss lines, .1 -.4=.25 debris lines,etc. Look at the highest point for 2 year flood .5- 1.0=.5 and measure the difference from biennial low) I -2=.75 >2= 1.0 Number of depth categories during biennial high water. (p. I I =0 u bw-C 77 2=.3 3=.6 Categories are: 4= LO 1 -2 inches 1 = .1 0.1 ww-E 2-24 inches 2= 3 2-6ft 3=.6 >6ft 4= 1.0 HGM version 12-02 Page 3 of 10 Percent&distribution of pools during biennial high water. 1 A=0 0 sp-C (p. 80) B=.6 ww-D C=.65 i-E,at-A (Note: if site is> 1 acre,select the condition that D=3 predominates in I acre sub-units of the site.) E,F=35 K=.8 A=None H=.85 1 =.9 czi6 ` ° o 4 1=.95 4 Ord G= 1.0 C:7Dcsi n2)1 ja 22N5,7 Percent&distribution of pools during biennial low water. A A=0 0 h"-A. PP-11- (p.80) p-1:.(p.80) B=.6 n-I C=.65 (Note: if site is> I acre,select the condition that D=.7 predominates in I acre sub-units of the site.) E,F=.75 A = None J =.8 od ` gb Y a Q H=.85 v l=.9 (1 ea K=.95 c r � ) Cl= 1.0 ��--' [?) el dnU Percent of the site occupied by hummocks 1 p. 7-4. 75 i 20 none = 0 0.8 at-B 1-10 =.6 ww-C 10-90=.8 sb-M >90 = 1.0 sp-B pp-C n-G i-F HGM version 12-02 Page 4 of 10 Maximum annual extent of vernal pools/shorebird scrapes a A=0 ' and mudflats: (p. 76) B=.6 A= none C =.7 B = 1 - 100 sq. ft. D=.8 C= 100-1000 sq. ft. E= 1.0 D= 1000- 10,000 sq.ft. E =>10.000 sq. ft Must meet ALL of the following: a)herbs are generally<4"and comprise< 80%ground cover during winter or early spring b)topography is basically flat c)inundated to a depth of<6"for 2 or more continuous weeks d)never shaded by trees,shrubs,or buildings e)not entirely a constructed ditch Presence of logs or boulders that extend above the surface abseru absent = 0 0 at-c; of permanent water (p. 84) present = 1.0 Predominant soil texture: (p 83) L GC =.1 0.8 tip-1) GC=gravel or cobble SA =.2 SA-sand.sandy loam,or loamy sand L =.S L= loam, silty loam,gravelly loam C/O= 1.0 C=clay.sandy clay,silty clay,clay loam,silty clay loam 0=organic particles<Imm Guidance: 1.Soil remains in a ball when squeezed YES...Go to 3; NO ...Go to 2 2. >50%of the particles(by weight)are> 1 mm YES._..,GC"; NO .. "SA'. 3.Squeezed soil forms an even ribbon YES•..Go to 4; NO ..."SA" 4.Soil ribbon extended> 1"without breaking YES..."CIO"; NO ...Go to 5 5.Soils feels very gritty YES... "SA"; NO..."L" Presence of some mottling and/or other features that present absent =0 1 n-X indicate oxygen deficits,or,permanent water is present present= 1.0 Mapped soil series is hydric(not simply a hydric yes I=yes 1 v-C inclusion). See county soil map and p. 75. 0= no at-D ww-G i-I Percent of site that was constructed on former uplands 0 6)=0 1 i-! (non-hydric soil)(p. 81): 5)_ .1 at-K 6)= recent,>90%of site 4)= .2 v-K 5)= recent. 10-90%of site 3)= .3 n-D 4)= recent. 1-10%of site 2)=.4 3)= >5 years ago.>90%of site 1)=.5 2)= >5 years ago, 10-90%of site 0)= 1.0 1)=>5 years ago. 1-10%of site 0)=none HGM version 12-02 Page 5 of 10 Tally the percent of surrounding land cover (exclude the site itself)as exists during a typical May. Answer each row independently. They do not necessarily sum to 100%. within 200 ft of the site boundary: a.%Water.wetland = 0 b.'14)Grassland,water,wetland0 c.%Grassland,row crops 0 d.%Wooded = 0 e.%Natural(not lawn,crops,paved,building)= 0 within 1000 ft: f 00 Water.wetland= 0 x. °o Grassland,water,wetland = i h.%Grassland, row crops I i.%Wooded = ii j.%Natural = within 5,280 ft: k. %Water,wetland= _u I.°o Grassland,row crops- 0 m.%Wooded = 10 - In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in 0 0= 0 0 bw-1 column B. (=a),above) 1-10=.4 ww-I 10-20=1 >20 = 1.0 , In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in 0 <10 =.1 0.1 sb-N column B. (=(b),above) 10-20=2 20-40=.4 40-60=.6 60-80=.8 1A1= t0 In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in U <10 = 0 U IA v,-1%, column B. (=(c).above) 10-20 = .1 20-40 = .3 40-80 = .5 80-90 = .7 90-i0n = 1 0 In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in 0 0=0 0 sb-I column B. (=(d).above) 1-10 =.1 10-20=.2 20-40=.4 40-60=.6 60-80=.8 ,>sn= 1n , In column D.enter the scaled value for the number in 0 <10 = 0 0 i-L column B. ( -(e),above) 10-20 = .1 at-O 20-40 = .3 v-R 40-80 = .5 80-90 = .7 90-100= 1.0 _ In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in 7 none = 0 0 4 ww-H column B. (=(a+f+k)/3),above) 1 - 10=.4 bw-J 10-20=1 >20_ =L0 _ _ HGM version 12-02 Page 6 of 10 In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in (i <10 = 0 0 ww-1 column B. (=(c+h+I)13), above) 10-20 = .1 20-40 = .3 40-80 = .5 80-90 = .7 411-10(1= 1 0 In column D.enter the scaled value for the number in 3.333333333 <10 =.1 !! 1 column B. (_(d+i+m)/3).above) 10-20=.2 20-40=.4 40-60=.6 60-80=.8 • = 1n In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in 0 <10 = 0 column B. (_(e+j)/2),above) 10-20 = .1 20-40 .3 40-80 80-90 In column D,enter the scaled value for the number in 0 <▪ 10 =.I (( 1 sb-O column B. (=(b+g)/2),above) 10-20=.2 20-40=.4 40-60=.6 60-80=.8 >R11= 1 Q Percent of land cover within 200 ft(but only in the 0 <10 =0 0 pp-F contributing watershed)that is"natural"-that is,NOT 10-20 =.1 cropland.lawns.pavement,or buildings (p. 79) 20-40 =.3 40-90 =.5 90-100= 1 0 <10 =0 (0 -�1 10-20 =.1 .-O 20-40 =.3 40-90 =.5 90-99 =.9 100 = 1n Percent woodland divided by percent grassland-crops 0 <.1 =.1 n-P within 200 ft of the site(p. 71) 0.1-0.8 =.6 0.8-1.2 = 1.0 1.2-2.0=.6 >�0 = 1 Distance(ft)to nearest busy road l p. 71) 5ft <100 =0 0 -( 100-300 =.3 dt-� This includes a)any road or parking lot in a develop area 300-600 =.5 -P that contains>4 buildings per acre, b)any road with a 600-1200 =.7 �h-R maximum traffic rate of>6 vehicles per minute,during 1200-2400=.8 an average day during the summer 2400-4800 .9 _;4/1150 - 1 11 HGM version 12-02 Page 7 of 10 dote: 1 he tuIIuming S rows must sum to 100%. The number of visitors is immaterial. ,Percent of site including 100-ft buffer that is visited 365 0 days a year or almost so= Percent of site including 100-ft buffer that is visited more 0 than 80 days a year(>20%of year),but less than daily = Percent of site including 100-ft buffer that is visited 20-80 80 days a year(e.R.,about once a week)= Percent of site including I00-ft buffer that is visited just a 20 few days a year= Percent of site including 100-ft buffer that is almost never 0 visited - Scale the calculated value in the box on the right(sum of 320 100-200=0 0.7 bw-H the above 5 rows)and enter the scaled value in column D 200-300=.3 v-0 (p. 721 300-400=.7 sb-Q 400-500=1.0 Percent of site affected by soil leveling 100 100=.l 0.1 at-C 10-99=.3 i-G (i.e.,portion previously leveled by equipment for farming) 1-10=.6 pp-D 0= 1.0 sp-F n-H Percent of site currently affected by soil compaction: 2 5/6)=.1 0.6 sp-G (i.e.,by equipment,vehicles,livestock,humans,fill) 4) =.2 v-M 6=recent,at>906/o of site 3) =.4 sb-K 5 =recent,at 10-90%of site 2) =.6 4=recent,at 1-10%of site I) =.8 3= >5 years ago. >90%of site 0) = 1.0 2= >5 years ago. 10-90%of site 1 = >5 years ago. 1-10%of site 0=none Percent of site's vegetation that is mowed or subject to 100 >90 =0 0 sb-L extreme grazing at least annually 1p. 81) 10-90=.2 v-N 1-10 =.4 none = 1.0 Most of site is burned,or harvested for hay or timber,at 0 no = 0 0 n-J least biennially? (p. 72) yes= 1.0 Percent of site currently affected by soil mixing(plowing, 6 5 or 6=.1 0.1 at-f excavation,bulldozing.etc.): (p.81) 4 =.2 i-H 6=recent,at>90%of site 3 =.4 v-L 5 =recent,at 10-90%of site 2 =.6 pp-A 4=recent,at 1-10%visite I =.8 n-C 3 = >5 years ago.>90%of site 0 = 1.0 sp-E 2= >5 years ago, 10-90%of site I = >5 years ago, I-10%of site 0=none Percent of the site that is vegetated(including submersed 100 <10 =.1 I sb-A aquatics)(p. 82) 10-20=.2 v-A 20-40=.4 40-60=.6 60-80=.8 .rRf= I n HGM version 12-02 Page 8 of 10 Percent of site with woody vegetation(p. 821 <10 =.1 0.1 sb-b 10-20=.2 20-40=.4 40-60=.6 60-80 =.8 >Rn= I n Percent of seasonal zone that is bare during most of the 0 >80=0 I pp-G dry season.(i.e_, devoid of vegetation,except trees) 60-80=.2 sp-H 40-60=.4 (Answer"0"if no seasonal zone) 20-40=.6 1-20=.8 0 =L0 Percent of site that is inundated permanent') and contains 0 0 =0 0 i-A emergent,floating,or submersed plants i p i 1-10=.9 >10 = 1.0 0 =0 1-10 =.4 10-30=.8 30-60= 1.0 60-90=.9 J� = Percent cover of herbs within the seasonal zone i p -21 100 0 = 0 1 at-I 1-30 =.I 30-50 =.6 50-70 =.75 .20-100= L0 Percent of whole site that has closed canopy(p. 8i►1 0 <10 =.1 u 1 Nh-( 10-20=.2 20-40=_4 40-60=.6 60-80=.8 >Rn= 1n Percent understory shrub&vine cover beneath the drip 0 <10 =.1 n I sb-D line of trees (p. 822) 10-20=.2 20-40=.4 (Answer••0"if no wooded areas) 40-60=.6 60-80=_8 >80= 1.0 HUM version 12-02 Page 9 of 10 Number&distribution of vegetation forms---herbs, a A=0 0 pp-B shrubs,trees. If only one form,answer"A". To count, B2=.60 v-B the patch must comprise>0.5 acre or>5%of vegetated C2=.65 at-J area. See p. 77 for enlargement of diagram. B I =.70 i-K C I,D=.75 sb-H wgMer a.wilt le Lmilliprt.w kmmkt" E2=.80 Mr ler Ir__*new�w karipmfaras ..4wrwpaglk: F2=.85 .'+M` poi 4141.11b. EI =.90 boom- ILdrserr.. CLd*sr - D 37%4114 G = 1.0 V" IILdNNW u CLdow*au. 111 all T[I i eer ctrl rn Ld>r as } f, /2i) "q4, • 01111 Itdussmiar,. Iid��s F 1, k‘itt Number of , N.21 0 unwooded=0 0 sb-E 1-2=.1 3-4=.25 5-6=.5 7-9=.75 10-18=.9 114= 1n \umber of native woody speciesi p. 78) ii 0 =0 (i -F 1 =.1 2-3 =.25 4-5 =.5 6-9 =.75 10-13=.9 >1a = 1 Percent of woody species list consisting of species that are 0 0 =0 c► native(p. 78) 1-57 =.1 58-66=.25 67-74=.5 75-79=.75 80-99=.9 HIS = 1 tl Percent of woody cover within stratum that is comprised of 100 100 =0 0 v-H non-native species(p.82) 80-99=.1 30-79=.25 (Use the greater of the tree, understor) shrub,or open 10-29=.5 shrub stratum's percent) 5-9 =.75 1-4 =.9 a =in Spatial predominance of non-native herbs i p 84) a A=0 I A= Non-natives predominate B=.5 B=Cannot determine(about equal) C= 1.0 C=Natives predominate HGM version 12-02 Page 10 of 10 Percent of herb species list comprised of species that are 1(n) 100=0 0 v-E non-native(p. 8)l) 80-99-.1 67-79=.25 60-66=.5 25-59=.75 1-24=.9 0= 1.0 Average diameter(inches)of the 3 largest trees. (p. 71) none none=0 0 sb-G 1-5 =.1 v-J 6-9 =.25 at-1 10-17=.5 n-F 18-25 =.75 26-35 =.9 >35 = 1.0 Number of deadwood types. Potentially 12types:lp. „) none 0 =0 0 -I•-I Class 1: freshly fallen,have bark& branches.4-8" I =.1 -I Class 1: freshly fallen,have bark& branches,8-20" 2 =.25 n-I Class 1: freshly fallen,have bark& branches,>20" 3-4=.5 ;n-I I Class 2: mildly rotted and mostly on ground:4-8" 5-7=.75 _Class 2: mildly rotted and mostly on ground: 8-20" >7 = 1.0 Class 2: mildly rotted and mostly on ground: >20" Class 3: well rotted,losing shape: 4-8" Class 3: well rotted,losing shape: 8-20" Class 3: well rotted,losing shape: >20" Standing stumps/snags:4-8- Standing stumps/snags: 8-20" Standing stumps/snags: >20" Artificial debris-check only if no others present CliA I I rata MO,a1.It 1[+. AAA a.L4l. lis 2 Class l Land cover in the vicinity of the site in the 1850's was y 1 - Yes I n-K 1+o oiled? 0=No pp-H at-R sb-S v-S • HGM version 12-02 M ATTACHMENT D Adjacent Property Owner Mailing Labels Easy Peele labels i ♦ OEM Bend along Zine to Use Avery Template 51600 I Feed Paper expose Pop-up fdgeT" AVERY 5160® j 1 Schmidt Acres LLC Joan Dreyer Richard Howard OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15435 SW Hall Blvd 8805 SW Hamlet St 8785 SW Hamlet St Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Carrie Meyer Dale Blue Christopher Crowder OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8769 SW Hamlet St 8743 SW Hamlet St 8721 SW Hamlet St Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Kimberly Wrolstad Kristin Erdmann Brenda Randall OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8705 SW Hamlet St 8653 SW Hamlet St 8665 SW Hamlet Ct Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Ryan Salstrom Christopher Mills Phillip Morgan OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8657 SW Hamlet Ct 8643 SW Hamlet Ct 8639 SW Hamlet Ct Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Danijela Krstic Katrina Hammel Jason & Sarah Shelton OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15326 SW Mcintosh Ter 8578 SW Bellflower St 8586 SW Bellflower St Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Ross Eng James Stiles Mario Peralta OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8592 SW Bellflower St 8646 SW Bellflower St 8690 SW Bellflower St Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Bryan Cluff Knebel Kathleen Curry OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8730 SW Bellflower St 8752 SW Bellflower St 8774 SW Bellflower St Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Ronald Mead Waked Nimer Michel Peterson OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15320 SW Empire Ter 15590 SW Empire Ter 15570 SW Empire Ter Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Michael Mitchell James Stephen Anderson Jr. Jeremy Knapman OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15520 SW Empire Ter 15490 SW Empire Ter 15450 SW Empire Ter Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 OR CURRENT RESIDENT Randy McAlister Philip Brandon Yee OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15410 SW Empire Ter 15370 SW Empire Ter Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Etrquettes faciles a peler Sens de Replier a la hachure fin de i www avery.com Lltilisez Ie aabarit AVERY.51606 ,._.-..-_ reveler le rebord Poo-uo' t-R(Ifl-GO-AVFRY