Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Permit
1' _ CITY OF TIGARD ELECTRICAL PERMIT III PERMIT #: ELC2007 -00389 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE ISSUED: 8/23/2007 tfd'A %D 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503.639.4171 PARCEL: 2S 102AA -04800 SITE ADDRESS: 08960 SW COMMERCIAL ST ZONING: CBD SUBDIVISION: MORINS ADDITION LOT : JURISDICTION: TIG PROJECT: COMMUTER RAIL STATION Project Description: Electrical RESIDENTIAL UNIT TEMP SRVC /FEEDERS MISCELLANEOUS 1000 SF OR LESS: 0 - 200 amp: PUMP /IRRIGATION: EACH ADD'L 500SF: 201 - 400 amp: SIGN /OUT LINE LTG: 1 LIMITED ENERGY: 401 - 600 amp: SIGNAL/PANEL: MANF HM/ SVC/ FDR: 601 +amps -1000 volts: MINOR LABEL (10): SERVICE /FEEDER BRANCH CIRCUITS ADD'L INSPECTIONS 0 - 200 amp: W /SERVICE OR FEEDER: 25 PER INSPECTION: 201 - 400 amp: 1 1st W/O SRVC OR FDR: PER HOUR: 401 - 600 amp: EA ADD'L BRNCH CIRC: IN PLANT: 601 - 1000 amp: PLAN REVIEW SECTION 1000+ amp /volt: > =4 RES UNITS: > 600 VOLT NOMINAL: Reconnect only: SVC /FDR >= 225 AMPS: CLASS AREA/SPEC OCC: Owner: Contractor: TRIMET TEAM ELECTRIC CO 710 NE HOLIDAY ST 9400 SE CLACKAMAS RD PORTLAND, OR 97232 CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 Phone: 503 - 962 - 2169 Contact #: PRI 503 - 557 -7180 FAX 503 - 557 -8201 FEES Description Date Amount Reg #: ELE 3 -225C (EL.PRMT] ELC Permit 8/23/2007 $379.90 LIC 173043 [FAX] 8% State Surcharge 8 /23/2007 $30.39 SUP 4416S Total $410.29 REQUIRED ITEMS AND REPORTS This Permit is issued subject to the regulations contained in the Tigard Municipal Code, State of OR. Specialty Codes and all other applicable laws. All work will be done in accordance with approved plans. This permit will expire if work is not started within 180 days of issuance, or if work is suspended for more than 180 days. ATTENTION: Oregon law requires you to follow rules adopted by the Oregon Utility Notification Center. Those rules are set forth in OAR 952 - 001 -0010 through OAR 952 - 001 -0100. You may obtain copies of these rules or direct questions to OUNC at 503.246.6699 or 1.800.332.2344. . / Issued By: •� ' �_ .- Ae _/, Permittee Signature: ry) `j �'C�"`�TYL.J OWNER INSTALLATION ONLY J �� The installation is being made on property I own which is not intended for sale, lease, or rent. OWNER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: CONTRACTOR INSTALLATION ONLY SIGNATURE OF SUPR. ELEC'N: DATE: LICENSE NO: Call 503.639.4175 by 7:00 a.m. for an inspection that business day. This permit card shall be kept in a conspicuous place on the job site until completion of the project. Approved plans are required on the job site at the time of each inspection. JUN. 8. 2007 2 :40PM TEAM ELECTRIC NO 55 P 2/ . ,_}�.e cal Permit Application ; 4 , ' ,y ° : , :, > ff j� , ° I 0R (H 1 I& it t1:.) t )N1 x,, a,.� , > ;, Receive /y a _�fti. '� Ci of Ti xrd l 1Datc/B r . ' 7 151 _ o 't 131 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97 ; – Plan R pj - 1 ,1 ' Phone: 503,639,4171 Fax 503.598 -1960 p nate/13 : OcherPermigi r °aoo1 oo tr'"S"I!f" Inspection Line: 503.639.4175 JUN 0 8 2007 Dare Ready/13y: ES See Pago 2 for y l'rc.,nR'li Notifcd/Mediod: Suprdemontnllnfor'mation r Internet; wvvw.tigatd- or -gov r Nh 1(I{ r Y �4N W a1,� - � r t` , , t �.i � ,��.. ..,P`�•il � n . + . . , 1/ � , ;n / r 1 );� R p a� fly i.l t 1r��tiiff i 4 wy�, v t', t 4: 'I U; , 'Y„"Nl t :si�`i' :,fil ,�;N,Y ; 3tr 11 'f9n ''''"K',. (, • 1 , ' 1Y'1 x�' 1P :'` !Hi 'ai lt5Yt' a 1:1.4,,, :b., :, ,r dl,ik.,`tl . J Al , f• New construction ❑ Additi0rl /ttlteration/replaeement Please check all Thar apply (submit 2 sets of plans w /items check law): ❑ Service or feeder 400 amps or more ❑ Building over three stories. ❑ Demolition ❑ Other: where the available fault current ❑ Marines and boatyards. 1tt!1,�.y � �" �1 l I t i0 t o , ! �, l I li + m11y1; { , �Tf ii l �� v'1 � a �u ' ' i ii" , l i f i4 6n " " "�� l ,i exceeds 10,000 amps at 150 wits or ❑ Floating buildinns. 1,4'i�k11�,C2 ", t tiN 1 leas to ground, Orexc ads 14,000 ❑ Commm'ciel -use agrioUltural ❑ 1- and 2- family dwelling ❑ Commercial/industrial ❑ Accessory building amps for an other installations. buildings. 0 Multi ❑ Master builder ❑ Other: 0 Fit: pump. ❑ Installation of 7$ I(VA or . t , ❑ Emargency eystem. larger separately derived system. 7� � I li ,), ;fir 't :y„% o ' ! ,, i ,'''•, legi <t iE t , 8y Z t 1 . IAN' ) . 1 1 ' , 1 1 ;!i4�''2 ", 'r, ,,, ' ,. 5 ,,; l ii.:, Q AdditiOA of new motor load of ❑ "A", , 'EH .. ., -3 „ O LOOHP or more- Occupancy Job no 61100 l Job site address: $ i ` v .$ (J C ° fit flies ! bi 5t ❑ Six or raze residential units. ❑ Redenrional vehicle parks. Cityl5tate/ZIP: ID Health -core facilities. 0 Supplyyly pur f more titan 'T�i5 X11 i L , .�.., _ in Hazardous locations. Suite/bld ./a t. no., Projtct name '`=� t C I P i ❑ Service or feeder 600 amps o more. y�p�� $ P '(y,Q�' Op°tMU 1 ;:ru 1:.,41).,:,4,,,..1 ll . "I � "I err �'�E1l ^ }, ''r. '' nrv, y. Cross street/directions to job site: Description Qty. Ilea Taint • ' New residential single- or multi - family dwelling unit. Includes attached garage. Subdivision; I Lot no.: — 1,000 eq, ft or less 145.15 4 - Ea. add'! 500 sq. ft. or portion 33.40 1 Tax map /parcel no.: (with above sq. ft.) �yp� �q ` y� • �p� k t',.7.1.7,,, Limited energy, residential 78.00 2 t N 75. 00 ,; 1���'I� P,...'pa l'11` i M�l it , ' . it i :9 1 tai l T1it,1.dA i1 � ''`r i L:L7 '�'" rgy, multi - family ' , Limited the 2 Ct� �& tt o, \ Sine 1 v ( coc Mt'_. residentialjwith above sq. ft.) Services or fcedera installation, alteration, and /or relocation 200 amps or less 80.30 2 1771 J d' ! .1�)� �7 :1 ) °,n �r, 1 ' i1 - , ' ` ; . t i ,d {,,111, yi . h , ",'I 1 201 amps to 400 amps 106.85 `t 4. 2 401 amps to 600 amps 160.60 . 2 � 11 � � { � ' b R • t , y �ty • l': 1 �l'I `;i ' � "' '� "' � � - Name: I t2' 601 amps to 1,000 amps 240.60 2 Address: c110 NE t oo o ad i Over 1,000 amps or volts 454.65 2 Temporary services or feeders installation, alteration, and/or City/Stata/ZTP: por+taval, 0 t elis.. 2 , relocation Phone; ( b) ) D1ps. Ip0( I Fax: 06 ) 1443 200 amps or less _ 66,85 1 Owner installation: This installation is being made on property that I own which is not 201 amps to 400 amps 100.30 2 intended for sale, lease, rent, or exchange, according to ORS 447, 449, 670, and 701. 401 amps to 599 amps 133.75 2 Branch circuits– ne walteration, or extension, r panel Owner signature: `' Date: _ A. Fee for branch circuits with ne I Sr e+ i, �, ^� riff IN r' " q ' t 1 IJ ' ' • jp,!, 1 4 1 ,• I ' l i, : , 1 '(4: i d . l ell', „i. !tier 9 + ' { p 1 above service or feeder firs 6.65 �af�7 2 • ' , 4 " each branch circuit WWW Business name: 1%.64 vin ale cfri G CO - B. Foc for bretich circuits without service or feeder fee, 46.85 2 Contact name: t..4.1 ke W e i _ first branch circuit Each add'1 branch circuit 6.65 2 Address: 614 alai.* al/14 a . Miscellaneous (service or feeder not included) ,_ City /State/ZIP: C,1 G.G l/1. OIL ' 1 DIT Each manufactured or modular 90.90 2 1 dwelling, service and/or reader_ `c, Phone: ebb ) 551 -11$ O I F"-: : ' S5'' ) P r.2q – 87,01 Reconnect only 66.85 2 E-mail: rn j k-1- + - el WI 1 C • - • v Pump or irrigation circle 53.40 3,x#0 2 I.' I �, ,,, r t M • #;mod` 1 F' �¢ ' J I ,...' Sign or outline lighting 53,40 x 2 j 1 �. a ' +;M, I ,i , l,'l)SS111, , 0). ' ;t ?,G.ln � . T 4. - . ;I . m , �• '� ,1' ; i . , . , Signal circuit(s) or limited - Business name: '� i(e ( r U C 0 - energy panel, alteration, or extension. Describe: Page 2 2 1 Address: D SO ' - cAa tk a levtaS Rzt City/State/ZIP: Q ��Q (S E ach a dditional Inspection ove allowable in anted the above CAa .0 ( Per inspection 62.50 Phone: (s � - 15D Pax: V0S )5J " get. 1 Investigation pot hour (1 hr min) 62.50 CCB Lie.: 13Dt� I Electrical Lic.:21 7 , – I Suprv. Lie.: 4 Indu strial plant per hour r 3.75 Suprv. Electrician signature, required: _ Subtotal: ?j al) Plan review (25% of permit fee): ■ Print name: A'1 Ghae 1 I SI4 e tM Date: to ( (D'7 State surcharge (8% of permit fee): ?jp , Authorized signature: / ° / TOTAL PERMIT FEE: ii I. 0 ,'7M This permit application expires If a permit is not obtained within 1130 Print name: 1,4 Yields we 1 VV1 Date: ip days after It boa been accepted na complete. t Number of lnapoeuons allowed per perirtit. I: Tull ding ynormitt,ELC- Pcrmirnpa.doe asI23 /06 44a- 4615T(II /0S /COM/WEI CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: ELC2007•00386 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 6/15/2007 Phone: (503) 639-4171 Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639-4175 INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 10/4/2007 TIME: 7:02AIVI PAGE: 36 SITE ADDRESS: 08934 SW ELENA LN CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: OAK STREET CONDOMINIUMS LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: OAK SIREFT CONDOMINIUMS DESCRIPTION: Ganged meters over 22K. Includes units 8918, 8922, 8926, 8930 & 8934; MST2006-201, 200, 199, 198 & 197. OWNER: OAK STREET TOWNHOhAES, t.LC, PHONE #: 503-639-3104 CONTRACTOR: ROSS ELECTRIC INC PHONE #: 503-642-2800 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 10/4/2007 Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description COnfirm # Contact # Message 116 ice \ 056966-01 503-642-2800 'ons/Comth st ons: n .„ , \ \\ \\\\\ \ • El PARTIAL APPROVAL El CANCEL El NO ACCESS fl FAIL CALL FOR INSPECTION H ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: . Date: KO a )7 Phone #: (503) 718- Jo. -- CITY OF TIGARD . BUILDING DIVISION ` - PERMIT #: r :a I;i.C:�rzcl7 -c;� 96 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 6 /lf.;'2007 Phone: (503) 639 -4171 ° 1 , i,:�1�ii 1 Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 -4175 INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: •101007 • TIME: 7:04AM PAGE: 79 SITE ADDRESS: 08934 SW ELENA LN CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: OAK STREET CONDOMINIUMS LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: OAK STREET CONDOMINIUMS DESCRIPTION: Ganged nneters over 22K. Includes units 8918, 8922, 8926, 8930 & 8934; MST2006 -201, 200, 199, , ;...198 & 197. OWNER: OAK STREET TOWNHOMES, LLC, PHONE #: r;03--639-3104 CONTRACTOR: ROSS ELECTRIC INC PHONE #: 503•60_2800 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 10/7/2007 Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description Confirm # Contact # Message 115 • Electic al service 056733 -11 503.642 -2800 N Corrections /Comments /Instructions: N p P - a - c ri' -s`f 1 eALR(t_ INS a 'Y N6 e , E ,,, R.,i) . ka 25-0, • PASS 1 1 PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ CANCEL ❑ NO ACCESS A FAIL A CALL FOR INSPECTION 1 1 ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: „ I t Date: 1 " 1 Phone #: (503) 718 - - 1J414 .1 CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: E.LC2007- 00399 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 812312007 Phone: (503) 639 - 4171 Atoill ~ ,„ ; p lil0 , Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 -4175 INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 9/19/2008 TIME: 7:00AM PAGE: 30 SITE ADDRESS: 08960 SW COMMERCIAL. ST CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: 1RI - MET COMMUTER RAIL LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESCRIPTION: Electrir.:al OWNER: TR(ME1 , PHONE #: 503-962-210 CONTRACTOR: TEAM ELECTRIC CO PHONE #: 503.551 -7180 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 9/19/2008 Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description Contact # Message 199 Electrical final 075660 -01 503.680 -3892 N Corrections /Comments /Instructions: Il k PA -- ) ri PARTIAL APPROVAL n CANCEL n NO ACCESS FAIL ❑ CALL FOR INSPECTION n ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: `r_Q%)O L Date: 01 111 Phone #: (503) 718 -1. 6 Gary Noble c a-)3 From: Cooper, Simon [CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:09 AM To: Gary Noble Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, - follow up to my voice mail see email from PGE below re Bollards at Tigard P &R Please call - or email to discuss. Thanks Simon Cooper 503 962 2146 From: Bill Kraxberger [mailto:Bill.Kraxberger @pgn.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:01 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Engineering and Line Construction do not recognize any problem without bollards. Our concern with bollards so close to a pole is it creates a hazard for the lineman working on the pole. Occasionally, it happened just the other day, a lineman will cut -out and fall from the pole. A bollard is not something you want to land on before you hit the ground. Also, there is more than code clearance between the curb and the pole /conduit. And, ample room (71 ") to accommodate any vehicle overhang from a vehicle backing across the parking area. We don't think it needs bollards. Bill From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:05 AM To: Bill Kraxberger Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? 1 From: Schlupp, Paige EL i Z60 1 co 5&- c Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:36 AM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? The conduit on the utility pole is 71" from the end of the island and 17" from the edge. Paige Schtupp, RLA Project Delivery /Engineering Support' Capital Projects TriMet I SchluppP®TriMet.org 8962 Commercial Street Tigard, OR 97223 ph: 503.962.8823 1 mobile: 703.720.0026 I fax: 50 ;.962.8830 2 lc C ( Gary Noble From: Cooper, Simon [CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:10 AM To: Gary Noble Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Attachments: IMG_0025.JPG; IMG_0026.JPG; IMG_0027.JPG; IMG_0024.JPG From: Schlupp, Paige Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:36 AM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? The conduit on the utility pole is 71" from the end of the island and 17" from the edge. Paige Schiupp, RLA Project Delivery/Engineering Support! Capital Projects ; Tr'iMet i SchtujpP @TriMet.orq 8962 Commercial Street Tigard, 08 97223 ph: 503.962.8823 I mabi e: 503.720.0026 I fax: 503.962.8830 1 7 x i — o&3 Gary Noble From: Cooper, Simon [CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:28 PM To: Gary Noble; bill.kraxberger@pgn.com Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, Bill I want to facilitate a solution to this issue. Given he conduit in question is 'back of the meter' ( not on the customer side) - is this a PGE or a City call ? The conduit was inspected and 'blue tagged' prior to the service being activated. TriMet went through a number of changes prior to approval - including relocating the meter base on the outside of the service cabinet. Sorry to question details - however the project field office wont issue a change order for additional work without a clear understanding of the issue. Thanks for your help. From: Gary Noble [mailto:Garyn @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:10 PM To: Cooper, Simon Cc: Hap Watkins; Albert Shields Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, The reason for writing this correction is to protect the public from the possibility of an electrical explosion that can result from the accidental damage to these un- fused, and inadequately protected, service entrance conductors. If you look closely at the correction notice I wrote to Team Electric on July 31, 20088, you will see two Article Numbers which refer to the National Electrical Code. The first article is Art. 110.3 (A) which states: Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (2) Mechanical strength and durability. The second article is Art. 230.50 Protection Against Physical Damage. (A) Underground Service - Entrance Conductors, and (B) All Other Service— Entrance Conductors, 1. Service Cables, where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by any of the following: (1) Rigid Metal Conduit, (2) Intermediate Metal Conduit, (3) Schedule 80 PVC Conduit, (4) Electrical Metallic tubing, (5) Other Approved Means. In judging an appropriate method to protect the conduit and conductors which emerge from the ground and run up the pole, I chose to allow bollards to be installed instead of requiring the contractor to replace the Schedule 40 PVC currently in place with an approved conduit. An approved conduit in this case would be Rigid Metal Conduit, Intermediate Metal Conduit, Schedule 80 PVC Conduit or Electrical Metallic Tubing. I must add that using Electrical Metallic Tubing would not protect the service entrance conductors from physical damage if a car or truck were to accidentally run into them with any force what -so -ever. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write or call. 1 Gary Noble Z x 1— ic3 Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @ trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:09 AM To: Gary Noble Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, - follow up to my voice mail see email from PGE below re Bollards at Tigard P &R Please call - or email to discuss. Thanks Simon Cooper 503 962 2146 From: Bill Kraxberger [ mailto:Bill.Kraxberger @pgn.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:01 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Engineering and Line Construction do not recognize any problem without bollards. Our concern with bollards so close to a pole is it creates a hazard for the lineman working on the pole. Occasionally, it happened just the other day, a lineman will cut -out and fall from the pole. A bollard is not something you want to land on before you hit the ground. Also, there is more than code clearance between the curb and the pole /conduit. And, ample room (71 ") to accommodate any vehicle overhang from a vehicle backing across the parking area. We don't think it needs bollards. Bill From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:05 AM To: Bill Kraxberger Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? 2 Cic_2O07- )3 Gary Noble From: Cooper, Simon [CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:24 PM To: Gary Noble; bill.kraxberger@pgn.com Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - PGE pole bollard Attachments: Tigard PGE Bollard Dtl.pdf Gary, I understand your position. As PGE does not want a bollard under the pole due to crew safety reasons. The options may be: 1) Install a removable bollard - see attached. PGE will have a padlock 2) Add a shield (lag bolt to the wood pole) over the existing conduits What do you think ? From: Gary Noble [mailto:Garyn @tigard- or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:50 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Although this seems to be unclear, the National Electrical Code is regulated by the State of Oregon, in conjunction with Municipalities. The Municipalities are required to administer the State adopted Codes. This installation is under the jurisdiction of the Utility, but the fact that it does not conform to the National Electrical Code makes it an unsafe installation. And the City of Tigard is responsible to insure the installation conforms to the Code. I am not going to final the permit until the corrections are made. I hope this clears it up for you. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:28 PM To: Gary Noble; bill.kraxberger @pgn.com Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, Bill I want to facilitate a solution to this issue. Given he conduit in question is 'back of the meter' ( not on the customer side) - is this a PGE or a City call ? The conduit was inspected and 'blue tagged' prior to the service being activated. TriMet went through a number of changes prior to approval - including relocating the meter base on the outside of the service cabinet. Sorry to question details - however the project field office wont issue a change order for additional work without a clear understanding of the issue. Thanks for your help. 1 From: Gary Noble [mailto:Garyn @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:10 PM To: Cooper, Simon Cc: Hap Watkins; Albert Shields Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, The reason for writing this correction is to protect the public from the possibility of an electrical explosion that can result from the accidental damage to these un- fused, and inadequately protected, service entrance conductors. If you look closely at the correction notice I wrote to Team Electric on July 31, 20088, you will see two Article Numbers which refer to the National Electrical Code. The first article is Art. 110.3 (A) which states: Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (2) Mechanical strength and durability. The second article is Art. 230.50 Protection Against Physical Damage. (A) Underground Service- Entrance Conductors, and (B) All Other Service — Entrance Conductors, 1. Service Cables, where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by any of the following: (1) Rigid Metal Conduit, (2) Intermediate Metal Conduit, (3) Schedule 80 PVC Conduit, (4) Electrical Metallic tubing, (5) Other Approved Means. In judging an appropriate method to protect the conduit and conductors which emerge from the ground and run up the pole, I chose to allow bollards to be installed instead of requiring the contractor to replace the Schedule 40 PVC currently in place with an approved conduit. An approved conduit in this case would be Rigid Metal Conduit, Intermediate Metal Conduit, Schedule 80 PVC Conduit or Electrical Metallic Tubing. I must add that using Electrical Metallic Tubing would not protect the service entrance conductors from physical damage if a car or truck were to accidentally run into them with any force what -so -ever. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write or call. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS©trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:09 AM To: Gary Noble Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, - follow up to my voice mail see email from PGE below re Bollards at Tigard P &R Please call - or email to discuss. Thanks Simon Cooper 503 962 2146 2 - 6o3 From: Bill Kraxberger [ mailto:Bill.Kraxberger @pgn.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:01 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Engineering and Line Construction do not recognize any problem without bollards. Our concern with bollards so close to a pole is it creates a hazard for the lineman working on the pole. Occasionally, it happened just the other day, a lineman will cut -out and fall from the pole. A bollard is not something you want to and on before you hit the ground. Also, there is more than code clearance between the curb and the pole /conduit. And, ample room (71 ") to accommodate any vehicle overhang from a vehicle backing across the parking area. We don't think it needs bollards. Bill From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS©trimet.org] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:05 AM To: Bill Kraxberger Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? From: Schlupp, Paige Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:36 AM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? The conduit on the utility pole is 71" from the end of the island and 17" from the edge. Paige Schtuupp, RLA Project Detiverv'8ngineering Support I Capital Projects I Tr Met. I Sch t,ppP ®F0Me1..org 8962 Commercial Street Tigard, OR 97223 pr?: 503.962.8873 I mobile: 503.720.0076 fax: 503.962.88.30 3 G 2u� 7- ? Gary Noble From: Gary Noble Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:10 PM To: 'Cooper, Simon' Cc: Hap Watkins; Albert Shields Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, The reason for writing this correction is to protect the public from the possibility of an electrical explosion that can result from the accidental damage to these un- fused, and inadequately protected, service entrance conductors. If you look closely at the correction notice I wrote to Team Electric on July 31, 20088, you will see two Article Numbers which refer to the National Electrical Code. The first article is Art. 110.3 (A) which states: Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (2) Mechanical strength and durability. The second article is Art. 230.50 Protection Against Physical Damage. (A) Underground Service - Entrance Conductors, and (B) All Other Service— Entrance Conductors, 1. Service Cables, where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by any of the following: (1) Rigid Metal Conduit, (2) Intermediate Metal Conduit, (3) Schedule 80 PVC Conduit, (4) Electrical Metallic tubing, (5) Other Approved Means. In judging an appropriate method to protect the conduit and conductors which emerge from the ground and run up the pole, I chose to allow bollards to be installed instead of requiring the contractor to replace the Schedule 40 PVC currently in place with an approved conduit. An approved conduit in this case would be Rigid Metal Conduit, Intermediate Metal Conduit, Schedule 80 PVC Conduit or Electrical Metallic Tubing. I must add that using Electrical Metallic Tubing would not protect the service entrance conductors from physical damage if a car or truck were to accidentally run into them with any force what -so -ever. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write or call. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:09 AM To: Gary Noble Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, - follow up to my voice mail see email from PGE below re Bollards at Tigard P &R Please call - or email to discuss. Thanks Simon Cooper 503 962 2146 1 • Zool- Goa From: Bill Kraxberger [ mailto:Bill.Kraxberger @pgn.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:01 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Engineering and Line Construction do not recognize any problem without bollards. Our concern with bollards so close to a pole is it creates a hazard for the lineman working on the pole. Occasionally, it happened just the other day, a lineman will cut -out and fall from the pole. A bollard is not something you want to land on before you hit the ground. Also, there is more than code clearance between the curb and the pole /conduit. And, ample room (71 ") to accommodate any vehicle overhang from a vehicle backing across the parking area. We don't think it needs bollards. Bill From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:05 AM To: Bill Kraxberger Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? From: Schlupp, Paige Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:36 AM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? The conduit on the utility pole is 71" from the end of the island and 17" from the edge. Paige Schlupp, RLA Project Detive y/En9ineyrin9 Support I Capitat Projects . 1 r Met I SchluppP®TriMet.org 8962 Cornmerc0e Street Tigard, OR 97223 96: 503.962,8823 I rrtob9e: 503.720.0026 fax: 503.962.8830 2 E Ic_ au7-- 6c.34 Gary Noble From: Gary Noble Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:50 PM To: 'Cooper, Simon' Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Although this seems to be unclear, the National Electrical Code is regulated by the State of Oregon, in conjunction with Municipalities. The Municipalities are required to administer the State adopted Codes. This installation is under the jurisdiction of the Utility, but the fact that it does not conform to the National Electrical Code makes it an un -safe installation. And the City of Tigard is responsible to insure the installation conforms to the Code. I am not going to final the permit until the corrections are made. I hope this clears it up for you. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:28 PM To: Gary Noble; bill.kraxberger @pgn.com Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, Bill I want to facilitate a solution to this issue. Given he conduit in question is 'back of the meter' ( not on the customer side) - is this a PGE or a City call ? The conduit was inspected and 'blue tagged' prior to the service being activated. TriMet went through a number of changes prior to approval - including relocating the meter base on the outside of the service cabinet. Sorry to question details - however the project field office wont issue a change order for additional work without a clear understanding of the issue. Thanks for your help. From: Gary Noble [mailto:Garyn @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:10 PM To: Cooper, Simon Cc: Hap Watkins; Albert Shields Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, The reason for writing this correction is to protect the public from the possibility of an electrical explosion that can result from the accidental damage to these un- fused, and inadequately protected, service entrance conductors. If you look closely at the correction notice I wrote to Team Electric on July 31, 20088, you will see two Article Numbers which refer to the National Electrical Code. The first article is Art. 110.3 (A) which states: Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (2) Mechanical strength and durability. The second article is Art. 230.50 Protection Against Physical Damage. (A) Underground Service - Entrance Conductors, and (B) All Other Service— Entrance Conductors, 1. Service Cables, where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by any of the following: (1) Rigid Metal Conduit, (2) Intermediate Metal Conduit, (3) Schedule 80 PVC Conduit, (4) Electrical Metallic tubing, (5) Other Approved Means. In judging an appropriate method to protect the conduit and conductors which emerge from the ground and run up the pole, I chose to allow bollards to be installed instead of requiring the contractor to replace the Schedule 40 PVC currently in place with an approved conduit. An approved conduit in this case would be Rigid Metal Conduit, Intermediate Metal Conduit, Schedule 80 PVC Conduit or Electrical Metallic Tubing. I must add that using Electrical Metallic Tubing would not protect the service entrance conductors from physical damage if a car or truck were to accidentally run into them with any force what -so -ever. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write or call. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS©trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:09 AM To: Gary Noble Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, - follow up to my voice mail see email from PGE below re Bollards at Tigard P &R Please call - or email to discuss. Thanks Simon Cooper 503 962 2146 From: Bill Kraxberger [mailto:Bill.Kraxberger @pgn.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:01 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Engineering and Line Construction do not recognize any problem without bollards. Our concern with bollards so close to a pole is it creates a hazard for the lineman working on the pole. Occasionally, it happened just the other day, a lineman will cut -out and fall from the pole. A bollard is not something you want to land on before you hit the ground. 2 -- > 0^01_oo 35 Also, there is more than code clearance between the curb and the pole/conduit. And, ample room (71") to accommodate any vehicte overhang from a vehicle backing across the parking area. We don't think it needs bollards. Bill From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS@trimet.org] Sent: August 11, 3008 11:05 AM To: EUUKraxberger Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? ' ------- —~--- --- ----- -- From: Schlupp, Paige Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:36 AM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? The conduit on the utility pole is 71" from the end of the island and 17" from the edge. Pai0e6ch\vpp. RLA Project oeuve*/cngioeerixg Support | Capital Projects | rr|wet | Scx(opo 89az Commercial Street Tigard, 08 97223 ph: 503.962.8823 I mobile: 503.720.0026 fax: 503.962.8830 Gary Noble From: Gary Noble Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:44 AM To: 'Cooper, Simon' Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - PGE pole bollard Simon, There are a number of methods for improving the safety of this installation and bringing it into compliance with the code. The two methods you recommend are both acceptable, and I would approve either one of them. I will require the material you use to cover or shield the Sch. 40 PVC conduit be of sufficient durability and strength to prevent the impact of any automobile or small pick -up truck from damaging it. If you opt to install bollards, they may be removable, of course. Be sure they are installed to protect the Sch. 40 PVC conduit from damage by the impact of a vehicle. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:24 PM To: Gary Noble; bill.kraxberger @pgn.com Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - PGE pole bollard Gary, I understand your position. As PGE does not want a bollard under the pole due to crew safety reasons. The options may be: 1) Install a removable bollard - see attached. PGE will have a padlock 2) Add a shield (lag bolt to the wood pole) over the existing conduits What do you think ? From: Gary Noble [mailto:Garyn @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:50 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Although this seems to be unclear, the National Electrical Code is regulated by the State of Oregon, in conjunction with Municipalities. The Municipalities are required to administer the State adopted Codes. This installation is under the jurisdiction of the Utility, but the fact that it does not conform to the National Electrical Code makes it an un -safe installation. And the City of Tigard is responsible to insure the installation conforms to the Code. I am not going to final the permit until the corrections are made. I hope this clears it up for you. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector 1 From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:28 PM To: Gary Noble; bill.kraxberger @pgn.com Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, Bill I want to facilitate a solution to this issue. Given he conduit in question is 'back of the meter' ( not on the customer side) - is this a PGE or a City call ? The conduit was inspected and 'blue tagged' prior to the service being activated. TriMet went through a number of changes prior to approval - including relocating the meter base on the outside of the service cabinet. Sorry to question details - however the project field office wont issue a change order for additional work without a clear understanding of the issue. Thanks for your help. From: Gary Noble [mailto:Garyn @tigard- or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:10 PM To: Cooper, Simon Cc: Hap Watkins; Albert Shields Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, The reason for writing this correction is to protect the public from the possibility of an electrical explosion that can result from the accidental damage to these un- fused, and inadequately protected, service entrance conductors. If you look closely at the correction notice I wrote to Team Electric on July 31, 20088, you will see two Article Numbers which refer to the National Electrical Code. The first article is Art. 110.3 (A) which states: Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (2) Mechanical strength and durability. The second article is Art. 230.50 Protection Against Physical Damage. (A) Underground Service - Entrance Conductors, and (B) All Other Service — Entrance Conductors, 1. Service Cables, where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by any of the following: (1) Rigid Metal Conduit, (2) Intermediate Metal Conduit, (3) Schedule 80 PVC Conduit, (4) Electrical Metallic tubing, (5) Other Approved Means. In judging an appropriate method to protect the conduit and conductors which emerge from the ground and run up the pole, I chose to allow bollards to be installed instead of requiring the contractor to replace the Schedule 40 PVC currently in place with an approved conduit. An approved conduit in this case would be Rigid Metal Conduit, Intermediate Metal Conduit, Schedule 80 PVC Conduit or Electrical Metallic Tubing. I must add that using Electrical Metallic Tubing would not protect the service entrance conductors from physical damage if a car or truck were to accidentally run into them with any force what -so -ever. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write or call. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector 2 • From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS©trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:09 AM To: Gary Noble Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, - follow up to my voice mail see email from PGE below re Bollards at Tigard P &R Please call - or email to discuss. Thanks Simon Cooper 503 962 2146 From: Bill Kraxberger [mailto:Bill.Kraxberger @pgn.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:01 PM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, Engineering and Line Construction do not recognize any problem without bollards. Our concern with bollards so close to a pole is it creates a hazard for the lineman working on the pole. Occasionally, it happened just the other day, a lineman will cut -out and fall from the pole. A bollard is not something you want to land on before you hit the ground. Also, there is more than code clearance between the curb and the pole /conduit. And, ample room (71 ") to accommodate any vehicle overhang from a vehicle backing across the parking area. We don't think it needs bollards. Bill From: Cooper, Simon [ mailto:CooperS@trimet.org] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:05 AM To: Bill Kraxberger Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? 3 From: Schlupp, Paige 1 � 2c,c)-7-- 7 Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:36 AM To: Cooper, Simon Subject: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? The conduit on the utility pole is 71" from the end of the island and 17" from the edge. Paige Schtupp, RLA Project Detivery!Engineerircc; Support) Capital Projects ; TriMet l SchLuppP3 TriMet.orx, 8962 Commercial Street Ticard. CR 97223 ph: 503.962.8823 f mobile: 503.720.0026 I fax: 503.962.8839 4 • Cie: 2c0 7- (xS33 - � TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 08/12/2008 14:22 NAME : TIGARD BUILDING DEPT FAX : 5036243681 TEL . SER.# : BROD4J479592 DATE,TIME 08/12 14:22 FAX NO. /NAME 5035578201 DURATION 00:00:24 PAGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM CITY OF TIGARD ' T f — ; BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: �„ 07, 01;.–:; :1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 1�F - }3 3 Phone: (503) 639 -4171 ''' ` Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 - 4175,- INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 7/31/2008 TIME: 7 0 t, AM PAGE: 4'I SITE ADDRESS: {It'f' :n SIN COMMf."RCI €. ST CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: �'RI ♦'e ET c::C�#� IVI {JT F Ail.. LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: CoMMEt ?: RAIL SI l :)NI DESCRIPTION: t•:lc: Mir:al OWNER: 1 - I' PHONE #: 503962,210 , CONTRACTOR: 'MVO E1 C•TRIC CO PHONE #: (x3_56'7_71)10 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 7131/2 {)% Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description Confirm # Contact # Message 1.99 I: I4.si tir_ol fino1 073604 01 5M 3f3B2 N Corrections /Comments/ Instructions: . i 77 „e - S t.b. 0 A 9-. , .. t o : N.: 6 0 1 5_ N. k R I) GI a6 (2., 20*J q7R sr) cn ,4c`7om '�',s L Gary Noble From: Gary Noble Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:10 PM To: 'Cooper, Simon' Cc: Hap Watkins; Albert Shields Subject: RE: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Simon, The reason for writing this correction is to protect the public from the possibility of an electrical explosion that can result from the accidental damage to these un- fused, and inadequately protected, service entrance conductors. If you look closely at the correction notice I wrote to Team Electric on July 31, 20088, you will see two Article Numbers which refer to the National Electrical Code. The first article is Art. 110.3 (A) which states: Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (2) Mechanical strength and durability. The second article is Art. 230.50 Protection Against Physical Damage. (A) Underground Service - Entrance Conductors, and (B) All Other Service— Entrance Conductors, 1. Service Cables, where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by any of the following: (1) Rigid Metal Conduit, (2) Intermediate Metal Conduit, (3) Schedule 80 PVC Conduit, (4) Electrical Metallic tubing, (5) Other Approved Means. In judging an appropriate method to protect the conduit and conductors which emerge from the ground and run up the pole, I chose to allow bollards to be installed instead of requiring the contractor to replace the Schedule 40 PVC currently in place with an approved conduit. An approved conduit in this case would be Rigid Metal Conduit, Intermediate Metal Conduit, Schedule 80 PVC Conduit or Electrical Metallic Tubing. I must add that using Electrical Metallic Tubing would not protect the service entrance conductors from physical damage if a car or truck were to accidentally run into them with any force what -so -ever. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write or call. Gary Noble Senior Electrical Inspector From: Cooper, Simon [mailto:CooperS @trimet.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:09 AM To: Gary Noble Cc: Schlupp, Paige Subject: FW: Tigard Utility - bollard needed? Gary, - follow up to my voice mail see email from PGE below re Bollards at Tigard P &R Please call - or email to discuss. Thanks Simon Cooper 503 962 2146 1 MY OF TMMr R J • , Oh MALI O G BV9SBON ,T PERMIT #: t' _:::i «,; �,z 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: ;y' :f1: %t; l; Phone: (503) 639 -4171 it Ill. Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 -4175 ,A,L.41t, INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 71 TIME: 7.1FrrAM PAGE: qa SITE ADDRESS: moo �t (( r y. 5" y CLASS OF WORK: t +t•% Hl,'+Y y .k *; 5. ��1`.�:. ^S�S_i11� a wl ,. SUBDIVISION: 1.R1_l,,, +i^ ct as. !Vit•J "-s •.:-} 1.1.11_ LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: t'r.) ri i I ",;�gr i AlL ri AT; : m DESCRIPTION: Fel },: 1.,a1 OWNER: d-l > ' PHONE #: ?g[l;.i![b" 21 (5, CONTRACTOR: 11_.Att,.4 F ; i :; :::TRi c ('T) PHONE #: 6G - 3 _6 6 . ,, i o Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: tE.•"�1 / °rts< Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description Confirm # Contact # Message 199 1:=8«c.Yrivz51 fit 0.351)401 503.f;t 10 -369 N Corrections /Comments/ Instructions: . t i o P C.: .A o I itk9 Ai Ali P)4 5 KAL, 1)A t 'e'. 'I �-) .46 6- s C.z. Li o x R-4. : �� ? KS \Ii �L tbs. per,, P as L I $ • 4. P cmtft. c.7-8) 'I'ltiz■ sD c,._,o 0 b ‘.) a 006 0,ZE-.. .N.,\I\ILA 1 - 1 AR.". 1 Kik 0 tv - - --- C('` 1 : . NR71 , 1 I .3 (k) i (LA) .. The electrical installation defects noted on this report shall be corrected and an inspection request made within 20 calendar days per OAR 918-271-0030 I PASS I 1 PARTIAL APPROVAL 1 1 CANCEL I I NO ACCESS FAIL CALL FOR INSPECTION ❑ ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED i ,A Inspector: G ---, 'N. 6 Date: 1111 Cit Phone #: (503) 718 - Hi CITY'OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: I LC O(J7 0(I t133 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 8f Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 -4175 F- INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 7/31/2008 TIME: :00AM PAGE: 4.l SITE ADDRESS: 08 "W COMMERCIAL ST CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: TRI - MET COMMUTER RAIL LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESCRIPTION: Electrical l OWNER: TRIME"T, PHONE #: 503.962.2169 CONTRACTOR: TEAM EL Co PHONE #: 503 -567 -1180 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 7/31/2001 Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description Confirm # Contact # Message 199 Electrical final 073504-01 503 -6t30 -3892 N l i Corrections /Comments /Instructions: \ 0 VR.O. rte' 4W. SCA ► 0 0 a0si -- co a s_ Aa, t10.3( Q gym`(" P \I G c.®cJb arri IAoi Al N6 d P s i ckl, bAmA '. ,'S' "-' a6'gz.6 - C-b. 1 -1® A 2 . A I , Pc��1 '0.4 i3t wtmtQs P • P 6 es R, 2b ...- fr P to ji $ • sl RA s ip e.0 �b v a am Rie , -. R", g� 1 o N - 14. 118.3 ,o) _ The electrical installation defects noted on this report shall be corrected and an inspection request made within 20 calendar days per OAR 918 - 271 -0030 n PASS U PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ CANCEL 1 I NO ACCESS . )c FAIL CALL FOR INSPECTION ❑ ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: G 6e, 1, Date: 1 1 ( 01 Phone #: (503) 718- CITY OF TIGARD - BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: F:L..C2007 -003 9 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 8/23/2007 Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 -4175 .4.F'fl INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 2/21f2008 TIME: 7:0t}AM PAGE: 58 SITE ADDRESS: 08%0 SW COMMERCIAL ST • CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: TRI - MET COMMUTER RAIL LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESCRIPTION: Hectic:al OWNER: 1 HIME7, PHONE #: 603. 462.2100 CONTRACTOR: TEAM ELECTRIC CO PHONE #: 5113.657 - 7100 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 2/21/2008 Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description Confirm # Contact # Message 115 I Iechical servi 066312-01 503- 880.3802 N Corrections /Comments /Instructions: ►'1 PASS • ❑ PARTIAL APPROVAL n CANCEL n NO ACCESS n Li CALL FOR INSPECTION n ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: N (Oe c-L. Date: 1 -' 1 4. - 61) Phone #: (503) 718 - 1411'6' CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: l_l-c2oo7.0O F9 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: w23/2007 Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639-4175 INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR - DATE: 2/19/2008 TIME: 7 :O1AM PAGE: 44 SITE ADDRESS: 08960 SW COMMERCIAL 3 - 1 CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: TRI -m C COMMUTER RAIL LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESCRIPTION: Electrical OWNER: TRIMET, PHONE #: 503. 962 -2169 CONTRACTOR: `(CAM ELECTRIC CO PHONE #: 5'03-557-7100 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 2119/2008 Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description Confirm # Contact # Message 115 Elactoical service 065147 -01 503. 680 -3892 N Corrections /Comments /Instructions: QQ 3'�v D e vh ` f 140 For< cs•t car G13T2A0 ci c6L s ❑ PASS n PARTIAL APPROVAL CANCEL NO ACCESS A FAIL 10 CALL FOR INSPECTION n ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: � ," (W) Date: 7-_= `-L ` Phone #: (503) 718- 1-114. CITY' OF TIGARD . BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: E!.C2007 0 389 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 8/23/200/ Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 -4175 1I�_ INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 12/4/2007 TIME: 7 :01AM PAGE: , , c , SITE ADDRESS: 08960 SW COMMERCIAL ST CLASS OF WORK: SUBDIVISION: MORtNS ADDITION LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: COMMUTER RAIL. STATION DESCRIPTION: Electrical OWNER: TRIMET, PHONE #: 503.962-2169 CONTRACTOR: TEAM ELECTRIC CO PHONE #: 503 -L,57 -7180 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 12/4/2007 Pour Time: Code # Inspection Description C no fi • Contact # Message 105 Undryrground /s!ab cover 060670-01 503-680-3892 N Corrections /Comments /Instructions: n PASS PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ CANCEL I I NO ACCESS n FAIL n CALL FOR INSPECTION ❑ ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: NI VO� Date: 12; - 6) Phone #: (503) 718 - l iqk• CITY' OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT #: ELC2O07..00389 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 DATE ISSUED: 81;93/ 20(0 I Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Inspection Requests (24 Hrs.): (503) 639 - 4175 1I INSPECTION WORKSHEET FOR DATE: 11/15/200 TIME: 7 :01AM PAGE: 65 SITE Ac3DRESS: 08960 SW COMMERCIAL ST CLASS OF WORK: �IJE.OIVISION: fv1ORINS AD )I TlON LOT #: TYPE OF USE: PROJECT NAME: t. OMivMUTFR RAIL STATION DESCRIPTION: EIcctric:al OWNER: TRIMET, PHONE #: 503-962-2169 CONTRACTOR: TEAM ELECTRIC CO PHONE #: 503-557 -7180 Inspection Request Scheduled For: Date: 11/15/2007 Pour Time: Code # , Inspection cription Confirm # Contact # Message ,, 105 tirider4round/slab cover 059655 -01 \,\ 503-680-3892 N Corrections/Comments/Instructions: PASS VA PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ CANCEL n NO ACCESS ❑ FAIL n CALL FOR INSPECTION n ADDITIONAL FEES ASSESSED Inspector: N6ES il Date: 11 15 t�� Phone #: (503) 718- Z°I"fi I