Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 08/10/1981
Mill 111 11 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 1981, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN-UP SHEET(S) LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM. PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK WILL THEN BE CALLED FORWARD BY THE CHAIR TO SPEAK ON THE INDICATED ITEM(S) . AGENDA: 1. CALL TO O RDF.R 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF, AND COUNCIL FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 5. CONSENT AGENDA: (All matters under this headin,, <ire considered to be routine by the City Council anc caill be enacted in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by any Council member or member of the audience, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately.) (a) Approval of Minutes: July 27, 1981 and August 3 & 5, 1981. (b) Approval of Expenditures and Investments: $ 162,450.30 (c) Written Communications - Receive and File . Transmittal from James L. Mater re: Boundary Commission Assessment for fiscal year 1981-82. 3 Transmittal from Citizens along Durham Road re: Petition for Load Limits on Durham Road (see agenda item No. 25 ) . (d) RESOLUTION No. 81-85 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTIPIG THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN BEREA SUBDIVISION. (Engineering Department recommends approval) (e) RESOLUTION No. 81-86 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN KEVINGTON ( 'OLD' MCCOY ESTATES) SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. 1 (Engineering Department recommends approval) (f) RESOLUTION No. 81-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS PANORAMA SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF Std 121st AVENUE AND NORTH OF M&NZANITA COURT. (Engineering Department recommends approval) (g) RESOLUTION No. 81-88 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING VACATION OF CERTAIN SIDE LOT EASEMENTS IN 14ORNING HILL SUBDIVISION, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. (To set public hearing for September 14 , 1981) (h) RESOLUTION No. 81-89 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING VACATION OF A PORTION OF SW 67TH AVENUE A 60 FOOT WIDE DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (To set public hearing for September 14 , 1981) (i) APPROVE CONSENT COVENANT - Fanno Creek Acre Tracts (a condition of. SDR 30-75 located at 72nd Avenue and Kable Lane) (Planning Director recommends approval) 6. RESOLUTION No. 81-90 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO BETSY CHICK FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD. (a) Presentation by Mayor and Council. 7. RESOLUTION No. 81-91 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO JAMES FUNK FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE TIGARD PLANNING C0MMISSION. (a) Presentation by Mayor and Council. 8. ORDINANCE No. 81- 68 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING TEMPORARY RULES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIOP: HEARINGS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of Legal Counsel. 9. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE No. 81-67 DEALING WITH THE TIGARD COMMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES TAX LEVY ELECTION, FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation. of City Recorder. 10. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE No. 81-66 DEALING WITH THE LOAVES AND FISHES SENIOR CENTER TAX LEVY ELECTION, FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of City Recorder. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE CU 6-81 DAVID SCHALAHT/ELECTRO-SPORT NPO #3 An appeal by David Schalaht of the Planning Commission denial for a request by Electro-Sport for a conditional use for a family game center, located in the Centerbury Shopping Center. Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10A, Tax Lot 1700 which decision has been appealed to the City Council. This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 10, 1981 (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Staff Report and Summary of Planning Commission proceedings by the Planning Director. (c) Argument: Appellants Respondents Appellants Rebuttal (d) Public Hearing Closed (e) Council consideration. and Action 12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 11-81 NPO r'r'1 A request by the City of Tigard for a Comprehensive Plan Revision to add the extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to Commercial Street to the NPO #1 Plan. This hearing will be a full evidential hearing. Both proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to give evidence and to cross-examine according to the rules set forth -:n Ordinance No. 81-68. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Commission Recommendation; mid Summation by Planning Director (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Director (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council (g) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1974 NPO #1 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ash Avenue Extension Burnham to Commercial - Planning Department Reference Information. 13. COMREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 10-81 PENTERRA CORPORATION NPO #7 A request by the Penterra Corporation for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from R-7 (Single Family Residential) to A-12 (Multi-Family Residential) on 11.54 acres located on the west side of 130th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 33D, Tax Lot 200.) This Learing ::ill be a full evidential hearing. Both proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to give evidence and to cross-examine according to the rules set forth in Ordinance No. 81-68. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Commission Recommendation and Summation by Planning Director (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Director (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council (g) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1979 NPO #7 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY CO TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Penterra Corporation - Planning Department Reference Information. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 10, 1981 14. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REPEALING SECTION 14.16 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of City Recorder. 15. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 81-30, CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 16. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 81-31 CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. (a) Recommendation of Manning Director. 17. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 81-32, CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 18. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTI1G AN ANNEXATION PETITION BE FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW C0124ISSION. (Short Title - Alderbrook Island) (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 19. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AN ANNEXATION PETITION EF FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMISSION. (Short Title - Durham Island) (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 20. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLITTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AN ANNEXATION PETITION BE FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMISSION. (Short Title - McDonald Island) (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 21. CONSIDERATION OF ICAP AGREEMENT (a) Report by. Chief of Police. 22. CIVIC CENTER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (a) Reco►mnendation of Mayor. 23. KNOLL DRIVE SANITARY SEWER LID - Award Contract and authorize Mayor and City Recorder to execute. (a) Report by Finance Director. 24. TIEDE14AN SANITARY SEWER LID - Award Contract and authorize Mayor and City Recorder to execute. (a) Report by Finance Director. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 10, 1981 25. PETITION REGARDING SW DURHAM ROAD LOAD LI14IT (a) Discussion by Council and Staff. 26. REPORT REGARDING LETTER FROM LIBERTY CABLE TV (a) Comments by Planning Director. 27. OTHER 28. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a) to discuss the City Administrator selection process. 29. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 5 - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 10, 1981 T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 16, L981---7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop (arriving at 8:09 P.M. ); President and Councilman John Cook; Councilman Tom Brian; Councilman Kenneth Scheckla (arriving at 8:16 P.M. ); Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Robert Adams, Chief of Police; Doris Hartig, Finance Director/City Recorder; Aldi.e Howard, Planning Director; Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel; Loreen Wilson, Administrative Secretary. 2. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF, AND COUNCIL FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. (a) Bob Tommy, 7820 SW Gonzaga inquired if Council was going to discuss the Tigard Triangle at this meeting. Council responded it was not on agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 27, 1981 and August 3 & 5, 1981. (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $162,450.30 (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Receive and File Transmittal from James L. Mater re: Boundary Commission Assessment for fiscal year 1981-82. Transmittal from Citizens along Durham Road re: Petition for Load Limits on Durham Road (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to receive and file. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. RESOLUTION No. 81-85 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN BEREA SUBDIVISION. (a) Engineering Department recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. RESOLUTION No. 81-86 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN KEVINGTON ( 'OLD' MCCOY ESTATES) SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (a) Engineering Department recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. RESOLUTION No. 81-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS PANORAMA SANITARY SEWER. EXTENSION, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF SW 121ST AVENUE AND NORTH OF MA..NZANITA COURT. (a) Engineering Department recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 9. RESOLUTION No. 81-88 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING VACATION OF CERTAIN SIDE LOT EASEMENTS IN MORNING HILL SUBDIVISION, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. (a) To set public hearing for September 14, 1981. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. RESOLUTION No. 81-89 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING VACATION OF A PORTION OF SW 67TH AVENUE A 60 FOOT WIDE DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. (a) To set public hearing for September 14, 1981. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 11. APPROVE CONSENT CONVENANT - Fanno Creek Acre Tracts (a condition of SDR 30-75 located at 72nd Avenue and Kable Lane) (a) Planning Director recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian ' to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 12. RESOLUTION No. 81-90 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO BETSY CHICK FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD. (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, Seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (b) President of Council, John Cook, presented the resolution to Betsy Chick and expressed Council's appreciation of her time, effort, and service on the Library Board. Ir 13. RESOLUTION No. 81-91 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO f`. JAMES FUNK FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. st!1. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 14. ORDINANCE No. 81-68 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING TEMPORARY RULES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION HEARINGS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Mrs. Ball, Secretary of DJB, Inc. , questioned how to apply for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and what the process would be with the new ordinance. (b) Planning Director stated she should file her request with his office and the ordinance would set up temporary hearing rules until the zoning ordinance was updated. (c) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. (d) Legal Counsel recommended approval. Motion to adopt, approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 15. ORDINANCE No. 81-69 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE No. 81-67 DEALING WITH THE TICARD COMMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES TAX LEVY ELECTION, FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Legal Counsel noted a typographical error in the first paragraph and requested it be amended to read as follows: "Section 1: That the special election of September 15, 1981, as called by Ordinance No. 81-67 for the Tigard Community Youth Services Tax Levy is no longer necessary and the Tigard City Council therefore repeals ordinance No. 81-67 in its entirety." (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to adopt as amended. (c) Finance Director recommended approval. Motion to adopt, approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 16. ORDINANCE No. 81-70 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE No. 81-66 DEALING WITH THE LOAVES AND FISHES SENIOR CENTER TAX LEVY ELECTION, FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) City Recorder recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 17. ORDINANCE No. 81-71 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REPEALING SECTION 14.16 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. (b) City Recorder recommended approval. Motion to adopt, approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 18. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 81-30 CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. (a) Mrs. Ball, Secretary of SJB, Inc. , stated that the ordinance should not be passed since tax lot 5200 was not listed on Ordinance No. 81-30 and should not be added as it was annexed in the late 1970's. (b) Council requested staff consider this matter and report back at the meeting of August 24, 1981. 19. ORDINANCE No. 81-72 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 81-31 CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. (a) Planning Director recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 20. ORDINANCE No. 81-73 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 81-32, CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. (a) Planning Director recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 21. RESOLUTION No. 81-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AN ANNEXATION PETITION BE FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMISSION. (Short Title - Al.derbrook Island) (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to adopt. (b) Planning Director recommended approval noting that a public hearing with the residents was held August 3rd. Motion to adopt, approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 22. RESOLUTION No. 81-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AN ANNEXATION PETITION BE FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMISSION. (Short Title - Durham Island) (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Briat, to adopt. (b) Planning Director recommended approval noting that a public hearing with the residents was held August 3rd. Motion to adopt, approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 23. RESOLUTION No. 81-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AN ANNEXATION PETITION BE FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMISSION. (Short Title - McDonald Island) (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to adopt. (b) planning Directot recommended approval noting that a public hearing with the residents,was held August 3rd. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES _ AUGUST 10, 1981 a WIN EMU 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 24. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 11-81 NPO NF1 A request by the City of Tigard for a Comprehensive Plan Revision to add the extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to Commercial Street to Pthe NPO #11 ian. This hearing will be a full evidential hearing. Both proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to give evidence and to cross-examine according t , the rules set forth in Ordinance No. 81-68. (a) Public fearing Opened (b) Planning Director gave summation of issue and noted items which Council had in their packets. (c) Public Testimony: Mr. Fred Anderson, 8865 SW Commercial Street, appeared on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Davis and noted opposition to the project. Mayor Bishop arrived: 8:09 P.M. Mr. Anderson stated he did not object to the Mayor voting in the matter even though his testimony has already begun. Mr. Anderson continued to discuss the matter and noted his objection to the lack of surveying or engineering cost studies having been done. He further objected to the Council reading the Planning Commission transcript when this hearing was to be a full evidential hearing. He stated that the road extension would blight the Davies' Property and was inverse condemnation. Councilman Scheckla arrived: 8:16 P.M. Lengthy discussion followed regarding whether Councilman Scheckla should be allowed to vote as he arrived Late and missed most of Attorney Anderson's testimony. Mr. Anderson stated he would allow Councilman Scheckla to vote. Mr. Anderson concluded by adding that he felt this was a misguided, premature approach to the traffic circulation needs in the downtown core area. Mr. Roy Hummel, Southern Pacific Transportation Company representative, stated that the location of the project was poor since there would be required a crossing of two railroad tracts within just a few feet from Hall Blvd and Main Street crossings. the He stated the S.P. 's objection stems from a lack of necessity and poor planning of the project. J. B. Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. , Portland, Or 97219, expressed his feeling that the CPR is inappropriate and the staff report does not substantiate a need for the street to be put through. `- Craig Eagleson, 8100 SW Commercial Street (Farmcraft) , read a Letter into the record noting his objection to the proposed street stating ,? after the improvements and .land are purchased the cost benefit ratio is negative. PAGE :5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 �r K . A lengthy presentation followed by Mr. Eagleson noting his objection to the extension and matters surrounding the issue. John Butler, NPO #1, read into the record the majority and minority reports from NPO #1 regarding their objection to the proposed street plan. Planning Director, stated he felt that it would be more cost effective to place the street on the comprehensive plan now than to wait 10 or 20 years and then have to possibly buy a building that could be constructed on the property, just to extend a street. Cross Examination: Fred Anderson, Planning Director, Mr. Hummel, Mr. Eagleson, I:egal Counsel and Council participated in the cross examination. Planning Director noted that to have a traffic study for the downtown core area it would cost $27,000 or more. (d) Public Hearing Closed (e) Councilwoman Stimler moved to study matter and get the facts that are needed to make a street extension determination. Motion seconded by Councilman Cook. Motion failed 2-3, Mayor Bishop, Councilmen Scheckla and Brian voting nay. (f) Councilman Brian stated that the Planning Commission did take a hard look at this issue and had concerns, however, they were directed to approve the issue and let Council make the final determination and deal with the concerns. At this time, he felt that the street extension was not justified since no technical studies have been completed. (g) Mayor Bishop stated that if the CPR were approved that the City would be committed to purchase the land for street use and there were no funds available now. (h) Councilman Scheckla moved to deny CPR 11-81 with the following findings. I. A lack of sufficient justification in terms of either public need or fiscal resources to under-take this issue. 2. Not being able to put the street through all the way due to the full cost of the street right-of-way purchase, railroad crossings and improvements. 3. The P.U.C. questions and concerns regarding the railroad crossings. Motion to deny approved by unanimous vote of Council. RECESS: 10:07 P.M. RECONVENE: 10:24 P.M. V . PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 25. APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE CU 6-81 DAVID SCHALAHV ELECTRO-SPORT NPO #3 An appeal by David Schalaht of the Planning Commission denial for a xequest by Electro-Sport for a conditional use for a family game center, located in the Canterbury Shopping Center. Washington County Tax Map 2S1 10A, Tax Lot 1700, which decision has been appealed to the City Council. This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. (a) Councilman Cook noted that he owned a business in the Canterbury Square Shopping Center however, he has no financial interest in this request and feels there would be no conflict of interest. (b) Councilman Scheckla, Mayor Bishop and Councilwoman Stimler stated they had received phone calls regarding this issue but felt they could impartially hear the appeal and vote on the issue. (c) Legal Counsel stated that as long as Council reveals for the record the receipt of phone calls or contacts regarding an issue and feels there would be no influence from that contact, they can decide to vote in the case. (d) Public Hearing Opened (e) Planning Director stated the Planning Commission had denied the request and gave summation of facts in the issue. (f) Argument: Appellants- Mr. David Schalaht, applicant, addressed Council and requested they approve the conditional use with the conditions as set forth in the staff report. He did state that his hours would be generally coinciding with the school year. Between Monday and Friday during the school year, children under the age of 18 must be accompanied by an adult prior to 3:00 PM and after the hour of 9:00 PM Monday through Friday. During the summer he would abide by the City's curfew law. He stated that vandalism caused by the kids in the shopping center would not be increased due to his use of the building. His hours are going to be Noon through 9 PM Monday through Thursday, Noon to 10:00 P.M. Friday and Saturday and 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Sunday. Respondents- Mr. Walt Boule, 14355 SW Pacific Highway, expressed concern that this use was not compatible with other businesses and felt that with electronic games in Thriftway and the Pizza shop, he did not want any more in the shopping center. Mr. Beno Britz, Thriftway owner, stated this would not enhance the shopping center and noted that an access problem would be created by the location of the fun center.. PAGE 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 Cross Examination - Sehalaht and Council discussed issue. (d) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (e) Council discussed the issues surrounding the appeal and Councilman Brian stated that with conditions he felt that the business deserved a chance with a 6 month review set up to consider any problems presented. (f) Planning Director stated that there had not been this type of restriction placed on other businesses in the City. (g) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to uphold the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission decision and allow the Electro-Sport business to operate with the following conditions: 1. Applicant obtain a sign permit. 2. If a"nuisance" is created as defined in Code Section 7.40, and the Tigard Police Department finds that the applicant is in part in violation of the Code, the applicant shall be brought before the City Council and may be subject to revocation of this Conditional Use. 3. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are approved by that department. Application for chang-s will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. 4. Between Monday and Friday, during the school year, persons under the age of 18 years must be accompanied by an adult prior to 3:00 P.M. and after the hour of 9:00 P.M. 5. Some form of bike rack must be provided. 6. Patrol will be provided by Electro-Sport of a litter barrel outside the building. 7. Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District Fire Marshall shall review this proposal for fire life safety and the applicant shall correct deficiencies if they are found to exist prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 8. There will be a mandatory review of this permit at the end of 6 months. Motion approved by 4-1 majority vote of Council, Mayor Bishop voting nay. (h) Legal Counsel stated staff would prepare an ordinance with the conditions as noted in the motion for Council adoption at the August 24th meeting. 26. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 10-81 PENTERRA CORPORATION NPO #7 A request by the Penterra Corporation for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from R-7 (Single Family Residential) to A-12 (Multi-Family Residential) on 11.54 acres located on the west side of 130th Avenue, South of Scholls Ferry Road (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D, Tax Lot 200.) This hearing will be a full evidential hearing. Both proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to give evidence and to cross-examine according to the rules set forth in Ordinance No. 81-68. PAGE 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Director stated Planning Commission recommended approval. (c) Public Testimony: Proponents: Mr. Larry Finer, Penterra Corporation, expressed his agreement with Planning Commission action. (d) Cross Examination: Mayor Bishop and Council asked if Mr. Finer would be willing to zone the land A-20 instead of A-12. Mr. Finer stated he would. (e) Public Hearing Closed. (f) ORDINANCE No. 81-74 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1979 NPO #7 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING EFFECTIVE DATE. Penterra Corp. - Planning Department Reference Information. (g) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (h) Consensus of Council was to have applicant initiate a request by filing a preliminary and general plan review before Planning Commission for A-20 zoning with a waiver of a fee since Council was requesting the change from A-12 to A-20. Council_ felt that this area could stand heavier density since it had good access to Scholls Ferry Road and stated that this action would also help the City come more into compliance with LCDC goal No. 10. 27. PETITION REGARDING SW DURHAM ROAD LOAD LIMIT (a) Mayor noted receipt of a petition requesting a load limit be placed on SW Durham Road. Councilman Brian requested staff notify the County of the request which was received and asked City staff report back to the September 21st Study Session. 28. La Valle Allen questioned Council if Agenda item number 15 would cause any problems with the Annexation Election scheduled for August 25th. Legal Counsel stated that with the information he had available, there would seem to be no problem with the election. Mr. Allen also requested Council send him a copy of the annexation election meeting which is scheduled for August 20th at Fowler. Council advised him that the notices were mailed out on this date. 29. CONSIDERATION OF ICAP AGREEMENT (a) Chief of Police reported on his discussion with Hal Spice regarding the rates for the ICAP agreement. Mr. Spice advised the Chief that the rates were not negotiable. The Chief also noted that if an agreement is not signed to commence work by August 17th, ICAP would not be able to begin work on the Tigard project until November 15th or later. PAGE 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 (b) Council expressed concern that the fees are extremely high. (c) Chief of Police noted that this cost is $30 under the budgeted figure and requested Council approve the agreement. (d) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Mayor Bishop to authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to sign the agreement and contract as amended with the fees left as originally submitted by ICAP, with the condition that the Chief of Police monitor and keep a loA of the time delivered by PAS on the Tigard project. Approved by 4-1 majority vote of Council, Councilman Cook voting nay. 30. CIVIC CENTER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (a) Mayor Bishop stated that Arvalene Love was unable to serve on the committee and he recommended Yvonne Burgess be appointed in her place. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to appoint. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 31. KNOLL DRIVE SANITARY SEWER LID (a) Finance Director recommended Council award the bid to Future West Construction & Development Company who was low bidder at $21,014.00. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to award the bid to Future West Construction & Development Company authorize Mayor and City Recorder to execute the contract on behalf of city and authorize staff to issue notice to proceed with construction. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 32. TIEDEMAN SANITARY SEWER LID (a) Finance Director recommended Council award the bid to Tobey's Excavators who was the low bidder at $91,970.70. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to award the bid to Tobey's Excavators, authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to execute the contract on behalf of city and authorize staff to issue notice to proceed with construction. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 33. REPORT REGARDING LETTER FROM LIBERTY CABLE T.V. (a) Planning Director requested Council disregard letter. He noted a public hearing will be held 7:00 P.M. August 12, 1981 at P.G.E. auditorium, where a presentation will be made by each company. �- After presentation the Committee will respond to the communication. Planning Director commented, copies of all documents available for Council perusal. PAGE 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 34. OTHER (a) Councilman Scheckla requested staff check tho parking problems on Gaarde Street noting especially that no parking signs seemed to be down on the north side of the street just off of Pacific Highway. (b) Mayor Bishop requested that Councilman Brian check the Chamber of Commerce brochure looking at the amount of information regarding the City of Tigard which is included. Mayor Bishop stated that if the City is going to participate in the cost of the brochure, he would like to see a little more information regarding the City included. (c) Finance Director stated that the Acting City Administrator has been advised by his doctor that he can come back to work for half days. RECESS: 12:•46 A.M. Meeting Reconvened 12:50 A.M. IBM SUMMARY OF MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Council reconvened in Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(a) . The Mayor asked Council members what they wanted to do about securing the background information of the prospective candidates. Council, City Attorney and Helen Terry discussed the alternatives. It was decided individ— ual Council members who had time should do the checking and report back to the group. Meeting adjourned: s/Edward J. Sullivan Active Secretary qty Recor er ATTEST: Mayor b' PAGE 11 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 i Date 8/10Z81 a I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) AGENDA ITEM. # 4 CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS Name, Address & Affiliation Item Description '"" ��.�•�s� �c.�ra.��a-mi .t �e��l P.�.�,.r.��Te �'/ G' -•' ,, w, Al -C��VJ c � �t.t.,.�:. ,�.Sl°•�.lG -.3'.-A Tist� � 7 X�.�.Ei �rJ.ti.�ft� J..-7"e 1,, /.� c wc��.. -�'r,--s-- � Li c.a9 Je a��CK b 7`4'1 i i i t r i i i 1 t ;.i C . Date -8r/-�n, fz_,_ I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) AGENDA ITEM 4- 11- Item Description: APPEAL DAVID SCHALAHT/ ELECTRO SPORT CU 5-81 i l ;/ �j,(7 ,.� '�1 .Ye�' ` � v.i YTS-L.�.._'�f_:..• Proponent (for) Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation � ; �,� , Name, Address and Affiliation 10 . � G Da to I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description:_ �,n,�� rTrnr # r--PR 3--1— EXTENSTON FROM E 7R Tx AI R: TOCL?PM- RCIAL SI Proponent (for) Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation ej Oe- TG /j4:�C. .P+�cTG�r�(� d��• 97L/y Date 8/10/81 `• I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: AGENDA ITE-A4 # 13 c`pu -81 PENTERRA CORPORATION roponent (for) Opponent (against) _- .V r `t a,e, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation22 y h PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL _ PROGR-01 BUDGET r" Community Protection JULY 31, 1981 Police 10,836.58 Public Works 4,574.44 Municipal Court 386.88 Planning 1 ,687.72 Building 1 .938-09 Total Community Protection 19,423.71 Home & Community Quality ` Public Works 5,914.77 Social Services Library 4,310. 13 Aged Services Youth Services Historical Total Social Services 4,314. 13 7 Policy & Administration Mayor & Council 351 .46 MEWLS Administration _ 174.59 ` Finance 1 , 127. 16 Total Policy & Administration 1 ,653.21 City Wide Support Functions Non-departmental 3,754.87 Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 322645.64 CAPITOL BUDGET Community Protections Road Acquisition & Dev. Parks Acquisition & Dev. Storm Drainage Total Community Protection 31 ,837.00 Support Services Building Improvements DEBT SERVICE General Obligation Bond __ 62.910.97 Bancroft Bond UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Contract TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 162,450.30 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON AOTICE OF APPEAL File No. , 1 . Name : �— =�� David Allyn Schlaht 4ecAry 3 2 • Address :-2134 N.E. Stanton Street P.O. Box Portland Oregon Ci ty S tate 97212 3. Telephone No. : 281-0161 Zip Coae 4. If serving as a representative of other persons, list their names and addresses : 5. What is the decisionyou want the City Council to review? -- (Examples : denial of zone change; approval Of variance. ) I would like the City Council to review the denial of a Conditional Use Permit for Electro Sports Family Game Center Located in the Canterbury Square Shopping Center. 6. The decision being appealed was announced b the Planning on Jul 7 1981 y o Commission Date 7. On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section I Tigard Municipal Code. ) 8. 92. 020 I David Schlaht w-s the origina-I applicant. 8• Grounds for reversal of decision. -- l sheets necessary. ) Your response should deal ewithithenfollowing: if (a) Explain how your interest is damaged. (b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (d) Describe what decision you are asking �r� C'lty Council to make. A. I ersonall have incured over $21000.00 in e-ee-nses in trying to obtain this location. A great deal of time and research has gone into choosing this location. Page 1 of 2 B. The comments made at the Planning commission Metting by _a few of the local merchants that Electro Sports Family Game Center would creat an environment ,f vandalism, loitering, hot rodding, and creating a parking problem in my opinion and that of others Just simply would not happen, These opinions were based on fear, and not fact One man complained of having his tires slashed and having personal property destroyed behind the center. I very much question why he left these items behind the store in the first place. To the best of my knowledge, all the crimes commited against the center have occurred after the center was closed. At the appeal hearing I would like to propose that the Canterbury Merchants and myself set up an account withvyijch to hire an all night security guard that could use my location for his base station. The average cost for a guard is $6.50 per hr. 9. Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your argument to the City Council . (The Council will schedule more than 15 minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances. Each side will be given the same length of time for its presentation. ) (10 Minutes.) . Signed: Date. FOR USE BY CITY Date a-id time of filing: 7 /19W Date of Planning Commissi de inion: 7 Date set for Council consideration: Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: Amount paid: Receipt #: Qq� Page 2 of 2 Notice of Appeal Page 2. 'i;ity of Tigard July 17, 1981 City Council 12420 S.W. Main St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 B. Cont. The presence of a full time security guard would deter a great deal of the vandalisim the center is now experiencing. Not to mention a possible rate reduction in each store owner's insurance premiums. There would not be any additional loitering caused by my store than which is now the case with the 12 or more games located at the pizza parlor and the grocery store. The games in these locations would continue to be played by the patrons that are using them now. But if that is not the case, and the people that come to the center to play the games all end up in my store, isn't it better that these people are at my store congregated in one place away from the main center than to have them walking and parking between the pizza parlor and the grocery store using the prime parking spots? The majority of the patrons coming to the game center would be on foot or riding bicycles. Also parents will be more inclined to shop at the center if they know they would have a place to drop off the kids for a half an hour or more. It has been proven that a Family game center would not add to a hot-rodding situation for the same reasons stated above. Electro Sport is catering to the average good citizen and by our actions we feel that the people who cause the problems will know that their actions will not be tolerated. Peer pregapre plays a big part in achieving this good outcome. Also I must point out again, that Electro Sport will not have any loitering devices that promote loitering, such as, pool tables, foosball tables, juke boxes, and also we will not be serving any food or beverages. This has been the case in other game centers that are run the same way that glectro Sport would be managed. One Man wanted to know if Mr. Kolve, the shopping center owner had given his approval for our business, Another person said that he had not given approval. Well that is simply not true. Mr. Kolve would not have given his approval and signed the lease with me if he had not wanted me there. Also I have been assurred in writing that Mr. Kolve does approve of our proposal. C. Electro Sport would be in a C-3 and 4 zone which complies with the code, and therefor I feel my rights have been violated by the decision of the Planning Commission. D. I ask the City Council to reverse the decision of the City Planning Commission, with regards to the proposal of Electro Sports Family Game Center in the Canterbury Square Shopping Center. Thank You Very Much. David Schlaht. 1 TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING July 7, 1981 - Agenda Item 5.5 - Conditional Use CII 6-81 Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon Present for this hearing: Commission: President Tepedino, Commissioners Helmer, Herron, Kolleas, Moen, Owens, Speaker Staff: Planning Director Howard; Newton Legal Counsel Ed Sullivan Tepedino: I would like to call for Item 5.5, please. May we have the staff report and recommendations? Howard: (He read the Staff Report and Recommendations, which see.) Tepedino: Thank you, Staff. May we have the presentation by the applicant? Schlaht: Good evening. My name is David Schl.aht. I will be the owner and manager running Electra-Sport. I would like to point out Mr. Howard said this is a family game center--this is not an arcade. We will also have retail sales of Atari home computers, Atari cartridges. I will be obtaining;aatelevision which is put out by myself after ??? which I am not exactly sure who the parent corporation is on that, but they are forms of Atari cartridges. We Will also be selling hand-held games, miscellaneous TV products also. I understand that there have been otherzproblems with other loca- tions--I donst know what they ares but I would like to point out what or how our company would be run. First, we would have no food, no drinking. We will not allow smoking on the premises, and definitely will not allow any drug paraphernalia or any drug- related activity in the parking area or within the building. All patrons ,must wear shoes, shirts appropriate .to.the center. Litter- ing +a -nnf v.ew..t aa�� � — r..d.�s..t.s.a vaa the premises, and the .COridUCt of patrons will be monitored in order to complement the pleasant atmosphere of the shopping center. Management will endeavor to attract all age groups--not Just catering to young people. This will be done through various promotional activities such as involving parent- child competition, lunch time competit�on�for the business commun- ity, etc. We'have other ideas to attract �a7-good crowd: one that I will mention is, every time a child 'receives a report card, we will hand out two tokens for an A and one for a B. It isn't on the report that I gave you--I forgot to put it on-- that we :wI11 be -using tokens. We will-not: be using quarters. The reason for thaat is that we can give.more plays on those par- ticular games..per dollar--the standard is-a� quarter apiece. Our t manager will be -tralned for family center game- operation, having -1- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center { July 7, 1981 Schlaht: the ability to relate to young people as well as adults. Super- (COAt.) vision will be provided during all hours of operation. I will mention we will not be hiring --will endeavor not to hire anyone under the age of 30. Managers and employees will be responsible for enforcement of the rules, demeanor of patrons, and maintenance of leased premises. Hours of operation will generally coincide with hours of the shopping center. And between Monday and Friday during the school year, children under the age of 16 must be accompanied by an adult prior to 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, and after the hour of 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. During the summer months the management will abide by the local curfew laws set by the City of Tigard, and these laws wi7.1 be posted cL ou: location. I have had the experience of being able to objectively look at other locations, and the biggest things that can be done to better the so-callod arcade atmosphere, which has been quite tarnished in the past . . . no smoke, or no food. If you have, say, a paper cup with coke in it in a room set aside for food and drink, someone can bring in a bottle of 3,1-quor and mix their own drinks. I have seen that happen. So that is one of the things I am going to stay away from, and just try to run it with a family-oriented atmosphere --a lot of competition trying to include adults. Most of the experience I have seen with properly run organizations, we are getting about.40: per cent adults, under:the same system. I have a gentleman here with me who is don't know exactly what his title is -- he is with Danis Distributing -- they are the distributor for probably most of. the'.major games in Portland, and he can back.up some of the thl#&p that I tell you. He will be providing me with all my games and he will have a lot to say how we will .run our business, since we are .basically in partnership. He has been In business for -- 40 years? (Responding to prompting) 43? So they are not new to it; they know what works and what doesnot -work. . Some of you may have frequented .the place at Jantzen Beach--he used to have the Fun-Genter down there -- well. that was his operation. So we feel werarb� going into this With a lot of experience, and definitely with a lot of cash outlay. We reel`it will be run right. That, basically, is all I have to sem.: Tepedino: Thank you,_Kr. Schlaht. Are there aAy:-otaer: parties wishing to spear in favor of this proposal? Yalhar: I am Glen Kalhar. I represent Dunk Distributing. I Will make this very short. -As he said, Dunle Distributing has been in the amusement or game business for 42 years. We have seen a lot of different thlagk-c=e and go. The Video:type-,of entertainment now is a whole '-new situation. We have been very, very reserved about -2- Will MANSCRIPT OF PLANNING CO2MISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 Kalhar: arcades or games situations. This has been out for about three (Cont.) years, and has a popular sweep. I think six months ago was the first time that we ever placed games out in a ?topout? version like this, and these people have to meet a very, very tight criteria. Mr. Schlaht has met that -- a very well lighted, a very well run, very strict rules --the kind of place you could bring your son or daughter by and feeling very comfortable walking in with them. You don't have a lot of kids hanging out in front; you don't worry about the type of atmosphere inside. Like he said, we have a lot of money invested in equipment. This is something he wants to see go, and this is something he wants to see go with your community, that all you people feel happy with and comfortable with, and feel that it will be part of the community. Thank you. Tepedino: Thank you --- Sc4laht: If I could, I would like to say one other thing. Tepedino: Mr. Schlaht? Schlaht: We also will not have a Juke box. We will not have a foos ball table. id's will not have pool tables. There will be no other loitering equipment or loitering type of equipment on the premises. People will be coming in to play the games. We will not encourage them to stay unless they plan on purchasing something. Otherwise It will be up to our decision; but if they are there after 20 or 30 minutes and Just hanging around, we will politely -- (breaking off). We have known this--Glen and I have figured this is a problem with a lot of places. It can be. And this is one of the reasons we picked this particular location. It isn't that large -- 1200 square feet -- and it is totally surrounded by a parking lot. In respect to that parking lot, it provides excellent police and fire protection= It iz n't ;-Y-sa, :tely adjacent to anything else that can cause a problem, and my personal feeling was it is the best lighted area I could find in Tigard. I know that can be a problem for loitering, especially in the evening. A well lit parking lot--they are not going to stand around or smoke marijuana or do something like that -- they just are not going to do that. One other thing; one of the parents I have talked to has asked me how I will decorate the insides and their biggest complaint is every one they have been into is black. The ceilings are dark, the rooms are darts. Well, this is all glass -- well, it is glass on two Sides, and it will be ceiling lit and everything else will be basically white. It will be a pleasont,- clean atmosphere, new carpeting: it will be done right. -3- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? Any parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal -- those against? Yes, sir? Boule: My name is Walt Boule, 14355 SW Pacific, Coast-to-Coast Stores, and I am the chairman of the Canterbury Square Businesmens Associ- ation. I am not speaking in behalf of that; I am speaking only as myself. I oppose having this type of business in our Square. We have been striving very hard to-keep a clean and convenient and pleasant atmosphere. I can appreciate that he states that he will have white ceilings and so forth, but it will create loitering. We have loitering now, and this is not going to help the situation. It will create vandalism, of which we have some now, and we are trying very hard to avoid that. Itis just not a good influence, I don't think, for the youth; and to call it a family center -- I am afraid they don't turn out that way; maybe it is intended that way, and maybe all the efforts he has would be pointed toward that, but it doesn't come out that way. It just creates a problem, and I for one am speaking against it. I have talked to 13 of 14 business owners in the Center. I mean I have talked to 14, and 13 of the 14 object. Some of the people are here tonight. That's all I have to say. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Boule. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition? those against the proposal? Britz: Mr. Speaker and Planning Commission: I am Benno Britz. I live at 14340 SW 144th. I own the Big B Thriftway, and Z lease about 25 per cent of the shopping center,: and I am very much in opposition to having this amusement center in our shopping center. First of all, it's just like Walt said: we are trying to upgrade our shopping center, and I don't think that this in any way would ?operate in? our center at all. I think it would be working in reverse_ The r_.lientele -- you tend to operate a business providing, like he said -- you spend a lot of money -- you can't arsena R lot of money on a business and then not have any business. So the things that induce the juvenile--the one that's going to spend his money--that will attract aAd build up his business will tear down ours. It's something that will, just go-against our business. We've been there. I established it. I was there when the place opened, and I intend to be there for a long time, and I am not happy with- this type of business coming in, because we have a lot of older people -- hot rodding doesn't go with this kind of people, and there are so many things that enter into it. We .have just installed 4 complete alarm system because we have had break-ins--we have had juVenil.e problems--we are not trying to encourage them, we are trying to discourage them in the Center; and if we have this kind of thing it is going to attract them to -4- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 Britz: us, and are will have more problems than we had before. I very (Cont.) much want to help the City of Tigard, to help the community, but I don't think this is one thing that is going to help us. Thank you. Tapedino: Thank you, air. Are there any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this measure? Buckley: I am Bob Buckley, Pet 'V Pond, Tigard-min the Canterbury Shopping Center. I oppose this. My main concern is vandalism. I have had my car within the last year, my car hit and ran In the parking lot. I have .had ??? blown out from behind my shop. I have had aquariums broken and left back there when I was painting them. I have had cages destroyed back there, and garden hoses stolen from there. So this is my main conVern. You can go there just about two nights out of the week, and you can go, not in front of the building, but between the building and the apartments behind, and you will see kids smoking marijuana back there. This is one of the bad areas; and it is well lighted In front, but back there it is not. There has also been a case where cars parked in the lot--a van had sold keg beer to the kids because they couldn't buy it at Penny Hoke's (Hokie's Pizza House). They did go out there and buy it for a dollar a cup because they couldn't get it inside. You go to Rico's up by the pie place up there, and McDonald's up on Barbur Boulevard. They took a large carrousel out and put electronic games in there. Now they have to post security guards because of the drug problems in there. I think the same thing will happen here, and I am very much opposed to it. I don't want any kids in my pet store. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Any other parties in opposition -- to speak in opposition to this measure? S. Albo: I am Sandra Albo from the Diamond Loft Jewelry Store. My lusband and I are co-owners of at. in opening our store we looked around many shopping centers. We have lived in Tigard for a very long time, and also in looking, we found Canterbury Square, knowing the type of clientele it has and the environment that It st±mulates the family unit, decided to go into the Canterbury Shopping Center. Our store is a fine jewelry store. I feel that our customers would be very offended by the type of clientele and element that would loiter in the parking lot, like Mr. Britz and Mr. .9oule have already said. We are fighting vandalism constantly. We have had vandalism--writing taken off the wall three or four times in the last two months, which is awfully codtly to the shopping center owners. We are under heavy security in'our store, and I know that the grocery store is. We have had to have the pay phones moved -5- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 S. A1bo: because of the loitering that went on from the apartment houses, (Cant.) and the young teen-agers who have nothing better to do than to sit there and make obscene calls, or call people, or sit out there and drink beer, or break pop bottles, or one thing and another. The Center has undergone a tremendous turn around in the last year. Every one of the merchants has worked very hard to upgrade It. They have done a lot of additional landscaping; the Center has been repainted. It has brought in more business into the Center. All the vacancies in the Center have been rented. The only vacancy that is availabZa right noir was originally designed to be an office building. 1 feel that the mants position is very well meant, but I think he would find that once he gets into business there, the controlling of the loitering that would hang around outside of his building would be very difficult. He may be able to control inside, but he is going to have a full time Job running a business and not be able to control the large parking lot that surrounds that business; and we do have Tigard Police protection; we do have fire department protection; but we are not the only shopping center In Tigard that has to have this protection, and I feel that this Mould just place an added responsibility on the Police Department. Thank you very much. Tepedino: Thank you, matam. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this measure? Those opposed? Seeman: My name is Bob Beeman. I have a business at 14375 SW Pacific W-Shway in the shopping center also. I feel one of the Important things that no one .has mentioned here is the access problem we have in and out of that Center. Tepedino: What is your business in the shopping Center? Beeman My business? Itts known as Sleep N Den; itis a sleep shop located nest to the .Thrlftwey market. We have had a constant problem with access in and out of the shopping center. The City will certainly verify this. There has been numerous times they have mentioned something about redesigning access in and out of the Center. Having a business, I feel, of that nature in that location will only create a more serious traffic problem to even get in and out of the shopping center itself. And also, I feel that we have had many problems with vandalism. I myself .have had three truck tires flattened last week, which cost me 840.50 to .have someone come out and stake care of that problem for me. I also had at banner stolen which was in front of my store, which for $35 had to be replaced, and just things lUer `thiLs. I feel that the business would be a good type of thing to have in the community, but I feel the loARtSon would be all wrong in that particular spot. Thank you. -6- TRA14SCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 19$1 Tepedino: Thank you, s:Lr. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Those opposed? (No response.) Now is an opportunity for cross-examination and/or rebuttal of the evidence presented, testimony presented tonight. M. Albo: I have some questions. Tepedino: Yes, sir? M. Albo: My name is Mike Albo, owner of the Diamond Loft. And he stated it is well lit. It is not a well lit area where the area existing now. What is his intention about lighting the area to the left as you face the .highway? Schlaht: My intention is around the complete building, around the soffit-- under soffit lighting--not great intensity, but enough to light up the area probably 20 feet around -- completely around the building. M. Albo: okay; another question I have is, you said it will be well super- vised. What happens when the manager is busy with his personnel and there are drug or drinking problems--who is going to handle that? Schlaht: I will be there about 40 to 50 hours a week. M. Albo: And what time element--early evening, or the day, or what? Schlaht: During the day and in the evening. I plan on only being open about 65 hours a week, and hiring someone to work maybe 20 hours. M. Albo: And what hours are you planning to be open? Schlaht: Well, probably about 11 to 10; maybe 11 to 11 on the weekends, and during the week, 12 to 1, to maybe 30. M. Albo: Your responsibility to the Center as far as littering in the area-- what is yourintention there? The kids coming and going? Schlaht: Definitely to keep it clean around my particular location. I talked to Mr. Cole's agent ;,.ith Art I,ut:, -- says that there is somebody cones along and cleans the parking lot. I do-aft know if that is true or not. M. Albo: We pay for it. Schlaht: Okay. I would be willing to enter into that also. -7- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 Tepedino: Thank you. Any other questions on cross-examination or rebuttal? You are -- Mr. ? Britz: Britz. We have a parking problem here as it is on busy nights, and that is one reason why the building was built there; and it was the type of building that was built there because they thought that it would be using a minimum of parking. When you get a bunch of kids fooling around there it is really going to really be a problem for us, because we have a parking problem. Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Any other questions? M. Albo: I have one other question: Has Mr. Colby indicated to you that he is in favor of this? Schlaht: Yes; he is. Mr. Colby is the owner of the --- H. Albo: M.r= Colby--I spoke to him this afternoon, and he said he is not In favor of it. Schlaht: That is not what I was told by Art Lutz -- Art Lutz himself. M. Albo: Have you talked to Mr. Colby personally and got this assurance? Schlaht: No; but I talked to Art Lutz -- M. Albo: (Cutting him off) Thank you. Tepedino: Okay; any other questions or cross-examination? I close the public hearing portion of this issue. Commissioners? Commissioner Herron? Herron: I .have a lot of concerns about it, and most of them have been mentioned here; but the traffic problem on the frontage road that goes in front of the shopping center -- it's very bad now trying to get out of the shoPpIn g center to go back out onto SW Pacific Highway, if people come off the highway to rush up to Bull Mountain Road, to go on up there without having to use that light. And I can't see that this is going to work. That's one concern. I am also concerned about the traffic leaving there and going back to the Colony Apartments to get back onto Gaarde, because there are a lot of children back in those apartments; and like in the da'v time if -- I am assuming there would be a lot of young teen-agers using the games during the week in the summer time, and when the young children are playing in the apartment areas ? ? ? ? I don't see really a true need for two of these centers in Tigard-- I really don't. And I am concerned about the hours that you say you are going to keep, because the pizza parlor is open, which does -8- OEM - TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 Herron: serve beer, and then there is a Chinese restaurant that has hard (Cont.) liquor; and I just dontt see that they all go together right there. Because this is a family center shopping center. Tepedino: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Kolleas? Kolleas: Like Mr. Britz says, the parking area is not adequate at all because It is crowded most any time that you go to any of the stores right noir; and I shop there all the time; and like Susan said, the traffic Is really bad on the frontage road, and there is a lot of cutting through to the apartments behind, and I really don't think there is another need for another electronics store, because there is one on top up by Burger King that sells electronic equipment also; and having one of these centers at this time, to see how it works, Is adequate. Schlaht: There is another one by a Burger King? Kolleas: Up by the .burger King, they sell games. . . . . shopping area. Tapedino: Okay, thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Speaker? Speakers Well, I knot in reviewing our packet I figured this was a well thought out thing; but after hearing the testimony I feel itts really not compatible with that Canterbury Square shopping canter, tw.hlch I am familiar with; and I am inclined to agrees to that. Tepedino: Commissioner Helmer? Helmer: I don't beliove we should have this type of business in that center. It's just incompatible. Tepedino: Okay. Commissioner Owens? Owens: Well, I guess I have different thoughts. I think the thing that Impressed me was how well thought out it is, and this type of activity is probably going to be a part of our society for a while, you :know -- I don't know how long -- I don't think it's a passing fad -- and I am impressed with somebody who has given some thought to try to upgrade what has been the pattern up to now, from what I have seen; and I am inclined to want to encourage the effort to make it -- to take the risks to wake it a more positive environment. The problems with the juveniles already exist; and I don't know that we can really know right now that having that there is going to increase that problem. We just don't know. Tepedino: Commissioner Moen? Moen: Well, I think that for one thing the Planning Commission here has -9- TRAJJSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1931 Moen: become somewhat a forum for complaints of the other tenants that (Cont.) don't particularly like this businees. r hove come concerns that I think it somewhat unfair to have passed the unit that we had previously with very little fanfare other than worry about whether the stereo was up too loud, and then tonight a very similar appli- cation that is really making every effort and maybe more effort than the first applicant, in my mind. I am not totally convinced that this is the proper place for this unit, but I am not convinced It's not. Now one thing i want to make a comment here -- in reading the text of 5.5 vs. 5.1, I would be willing to suggest that the text Of 5.1 is much more stringent in that it said that the original other applicant had one year from this date, in effect, and after that he had to reapply; and No. 2, if there is a pablic nuisance In the opinion of the Police Chief, the operation would be terminated immediately- And one other thing missing from this application that we don't have, and that is a comment from the Police Chief regarding the suitability of this area for this application. If this is a problem if they are having a real problem with vandals and with Juveniles hanging around in this area--and it may very well be--I am not saying it isnot--I think we should have some input here from the Police Chief before we act on this. And do you have any comments on that, Aldie? Howard: Yes. In the first instance the operation has been carried out in a nonconforming way for approximately two months before we got the guys to get their conditional use. In this particular case the building is now vacant. He has made no -- Moen: (Interrupting) Well, I guess I would ask -- Howard: (Continuing) . overall shopping, you are talking about Canter- bury, then good. Moen: P,11 aigut; 1 am rz&kang the comment that before we could -- in order to be fair to the applicant -- we should have that here before that; and I would make a motion that we table this until that could be here. And it might give the people here time to Iron out their problems with their landlord and so on, and work this out in a better fashion; eo I make that motion. Tepedino: Okay; a motiOA as made for tabling this item until the re the Police Chief is obtained port from Moen: An opinion of the Police Chief as to the suitability of this area for this operation. Tepedino: Motion is made. Do I hear a second? -16?- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July ;, 1981 Owens: I second that. Tepedino: Motion made and seconded, llftrther discussion: Speaker: Not discussable. Tepedino: Motion for tabling. It is suggested is isnIt discuoeable. Is that right? (Several voices in affirmation.) Okay, I call for the question: all those in favor of the motion for tabling signify by saying aye- Several: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed? Several: No. Roll call by Howard: Tepedino, no; Speaker, yes; Moen, yes; Kolleas, no; Omens, Yes; Herron, no; Helmer, no. Three yes, four no. Tepedino: Okay, that motion failed. I have some comments. I, like Commis- sioner Speaker, thought this was going to be fairly Aim„io_ I guess I have a couple concerns. I understand what the present tenants are saying, and that strikes a very responsive chord as a matter of fact in my judgment. I think they voice some valid, relevant concerns about their ongoing business and the character of their neighborhood and business establishments, and the diffi- culties they are already having and some of the difficulties they foresee by the addition of this business. On the other hand, I am torn by the tension of the small businessman who wants to open a business and perhaps is being denied that right because of some presupposed difficulties which may or may not eventuate. Now historically we have to point back and say, "Well now, some businesses we know we have had problems with in the past,_ and we should all learn from history;10 but on the other hand, I am just orkdarsng is we in some P&rocblal viewpoint may dissuade an otherwise successful business entrepreneur from going into that business by perhaps a stand that lacks enlightenment. I am not saying it does in this case. But I am Just concerned about that; and I think Commissioner Moen struck also a point that hit me. Perhaps we ought to Say to a person who wants to establish this business, "We will give you a tentative schedule :within which you can operate your business; and then if it doesnwt perform the way we fully expect it to perform in accordance with the statutes and ordinances of -the City, then you cannot pass Go;" rather than to say today, 'You cannot pass Go." That bothers me a little bit; and frankly, I guess :U, bothers me a lot. But I think I come down on the side of the son, the entrepreneur who would like to open. a business to the .degree that I will say, ':Fine, I want to ..ij- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1987 Tepedino: allow you to do what you think best within the guidelines of the (Cont.) statutes and ordinances; but should you violate those ordinances. or should you cause a nuisance as evidenced by facts and circum- stances at some later date, then you will have to go elsewhere." That would condition, I think -- similar to what we did in the other shopping center -.. we said, you know, "You cause problems, then -- Is So that's where I guess I am coming down, between saying "Na, you carrot do it" and "Yeah, you can do it if you like." Commissioner Moen? Moen: Well, I would make the comment that on the last one Aldie commented that this was one of the severest restrictions we had ever put on a business--basically we have left it up to the Police Chief to say "Yea" or "Nay", almost to make --- Howard: Why donut you write them both the same? Moen: I think they should be, with the added conditions that you have here. I guess the only reason that I made a motion to table it w•ss that we have no input now from the Police Chief--the Police Chief may very well say right now that, "Hey, this is a bad scene," and if that's the case, then we are really giving our friend here, who want to start a business, sort of a bad shot. We are saying, "Go ahes.4," but the Police Chief mi,-,,ht come back and say, "Hey, this is a bad thing" beforo we even got started. I think he ought to know that before he goes into it. That was why my-motion to table. I think if we brought this back before us again with the Police Chief's input, we could rephrase the language here, strike Item 2 and insert instead all the stuff that is from 5.1 and keep on Item 3, and make a decision right away. I think the Police Chief has some valid input; so that's why I made the motion. Howard: I might suggest you can do that--switch the language around--make them both the same, and that obviously with the concerns shown h®re this evening from the people that are in the shopping center -- GOU"cilia-an Cook lives right there, too, and thatos where his pharmacy is, you know; and he has had some difficulties, with a gun at his head -- "Give me all the drugs you got, buddie, and lie down" -- That ain't too cool -•• right? And I think there are some.difficulties. But I think that we can address those difficulties through Staff and through working with the Police Department and working with the people in that shopping center, and try to resolve some of these issues. But with the same conditions: one year,:and you have difficulties -- that's it. Helmer: I have got a question: What I really feel is there isn't sufficient room to put the traffic in there that he is going to generate with the kids coming in there, whether it be bicycles, tricycles or cars, or maybe kiddie cars -- who knows? But that is a horrible -12- TRANSCRIPT OF .TIGARD PLANNING COM14ISSION HEARING Electro-Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 Helmer: site to get into and to get out to, and there is traffic comes (Cont.) off the Pacific Highway, chomps over to Bull Mountain Road and goes lip the hill; or goes down to Beef Remi or to whatever way they are going. Also to get out of the Center, you are coming right past this gentleman's, where he plans to put this business, to get out onto the side road--to get out of the Center. Plus back a year or so ago we have allowed Mr. Randall, who is adjacent to Mr. Cook's or right behind there, to access through this property to get out of his property. So, you know, we have this problem some time down the line. You know; if we let this gentleman in here, he is going to spend a bundle of dollars, and we can say, "Hey, move out." You know, that isn't fair to him either. And I just don't feel he fits into this particular shopping center. The other center is larger, yFoigo an get in and out of it two or three ways, and this one you ort of stuck; either you go behind the apartments to go out, or down the side road to Bull Mountain Road and fight.-that problem. But I don't think that we need any more traffic in that Center than:is generated there right now with this type of business. If it was a real estate office-- which it was at one time--you are not going to have the problem With the traffic, plus we do have the liquor being sold, plus beer on the other side and Bennie sells beer at his place too; so you have that problem that could be generated out of there real easy; and there is problem in that Center for vandalism-, and I don't think, you blow, this is the right place for it. Tepsdino: Commissioner Kolleas? Kolleas: Well, I am with Mr. Helmer; and these people are sitting here telling us already that there's vandals--we don't need the Police Chief to tell us this; and when they are painting their walls over again, they're doing the work--the Police Chief isn't. He may have a record of this, but you are going to get the same record that these people have told us. And with the traffic: I just -- no way -- It's not that I am against the man's business; but what he's doing, I think there's just a better place for it. Helmer: I have to agree with Mrs. Kolleas: I think that -- I am not against that particular business, but I think this particular location does not fit his business. Herron: I have to go along with Commissioner Helmer. I am just worried about the traffic and what it is going to cause to the other businesses that are already there. Plus those of us that use the shoPpIng center, and coming and going, and this isn't the right place for it -- some place else is right, but not right there. Tepedino: Commiss oner Sriaker? -13- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMISSION HEARING Electro—Sport at Canterbury Square Shopping Center July 7, 1981 Speaker: I agree heartily. I think that probably the building he would like to use was designed for something that attracted less traffic. Now you mentioned a real estate office--I think that would be very much in order. But I don't think something that would attract as many young people; and I thought in this connection, and in a lot of others that have come before us -- well, we are kind of hard on the young people; but of course, the young people are kind of hard on us, too. And even though we have to recognize that we were all one time young people -- I don't know: in a way it is kind of sad. But I don't think that's the place because of the traffic situation and the access and egress--the access is certainly unfavorable to the people that are there without anything more like this being added to it. Tepedino: Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Helmer? Helpers I move for denial, based on poor traffic flow and incompatibility with the other tenants -- if I can do that -- is that right? Tep®dino: Sounds ars? =,ioh'_ •• wj.,+ion ==dc for disapp=o al, b:.-sd or poor traffic flow and incompatibility with the other tenants. Kolleas: Second. Tepedino: Seconded. Further discussion? I call for the question. All in favor of the motion as made and seconded, signify by saying Aye. Chorus: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed? Tepedino: May I have a division of the house, please? Howard: . (Calling roll) Tepedino, Aye; Speaker, Aye; Moen, Nay; Kolleas, Aye; Ovens, Nay; Herron Aye; Helmer, Aye. Five yes, two no. Tepedino: The motion carries, it is denied. -14- e, _ r J rte:: TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING July 7, 1981 - Agenda Item 5.7 - Comprehensive Plan Revision Extension of Ash Avenue between Burnham and Commercial Applicant - City of Tigard awler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut St., Tigard, OR Present for this hearing: Commission: President Tepedino, Commissioners Helmer, Herron Kolleas, Moen, Owens, Speaker Staff: Planning Director Howard; Newton Legal Counsel Ed Sullivan (Note: This hearing opened at 10:35 and ran until 11:30.) Tepedino: I would like to call for Item 5.7. May we have the staff report and recommendations, please? Howard: (He read the staff report, which see.) Tepedino: Thank you. Staff. MAY we hEye the YrOseut&tion by the applicant, please? -- Or the City of Tigard -- Very good. And they did a fine job. Are there any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? Those in favor of this proposal? (No response.) Are there any parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal-- those against? Anderson: Mr. Chairman, other members of the Planning Commission: I am Fred Anderson, lawyer, who has an office here in Tigard, and I know many of you. I appear here on behalf of the public interest, I believe, and the two innocent landowners--Mr. and Mrs. Davis. Well, there's many aspects of this matter that, unless you have taken an interest in it, you are probably unaware of. Amh Ai,- as proposed to be extended to Commercial has to make a "wow" and go through the police station. In other Words, the poor policemen got no plane to stay, you got to move their house or move it out of there, because it's offset--this property 1s small-- maybe, I don't know, as much as 50 feet away on a direct line from the projection of Ash Street. Now the Daviseo are not asking--have not asked--anybody to do anything; but they were put in this position where they don't know where they are by prospective purchasers who may want to buy their property or their own thoughts about development, and so forth. They went to City Hall and they were told the City had in embryo, at least some thought, about putting Ash Street through �.' their land. And that creates a problem. It creates a legal problem; it creates a financial problem; and creates a use problem. -1- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PL_,5_h1NING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Anderson: Now I have been around here quite a while. In fact, 2 hate to (Cont') admit its but I graduated from Tigard High School 51 years ago. And so I have seen what is happening in our community. And I watch it even now--I live in your community. Now I was City Attorney when they had the big go-around to get the present crossing on Main Street--the railroad crossing put in safe condition--there were no lights, there were no arms, there were no warnings. You are going to have a duplication of that problem again if you want across the railroad at that point. I suggest to you, there is ample properly developed--ample means of getting across from Burnham to Commercial, elsewhere; and I suggest to you that Ash Street--not Ash Street, but Burnham--is partially -- has additional dedicated area already to widen it to four lanes. The landowners-- I can prove that--I know the people, I represent some of them-- so I am suggesting to you that the p1a)'-ble answer is to not go across from Burnham to Commercials but to go out to Hall Boulevard or come out to Main Street. Now T go to the at cf.'ice, a:,u FdOOt of you do, a couple times a days particularly in the morning. I find there is quite a little congestion already on Main Street; but if you get up to Commercial, how are you going to get anywhere else? You could oo through the fire hall; you could go through the apartment buildings; you could get up to Scoffins. So I say, why do it at all? Why don't you Just face reality and go out to Hall if you want to go ahead with your Ash Street projection across the creek and up through the countryside--or put another diversion somewhere else? But I don't think it is logical to expect that by going across the railroad from Burnham to Commercial you are going to solve anything, because Commercial has its problem too, already. Now we talk about potential development in the future downtown. Where are you going to put it? Of courses maybe I am overimpressed. The school I went to was an," old ??? afair. I can remem_er ' --- than was a gravel street through el"i Tig�d--Main Street. I can well remember we had trouble finding it.--"Piling it--nobody ever knew It was there except the cows. But I am suggesting to you thatts a strong point. Now there is no benefit as I see it from this proposal to take 50 feet of the Davises lased to them whatever. The highest and best use of their land is necessarily MM-4, the present zoning as I understand it. But if you are going to strike a 50 foot road through their land, on their land--because as I recall, there is a building on thu neat property right close to the line so you wouldn't be able to do anything particularly with their land-- you are going to create some additional problems legally as well as financially. First, who is going to pay for that? Now we have possibilities. -2- T. SCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING C01101ISSION HEARING CPR - tension of Ash Avenues, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Anderson: If I had saved my gust money when I went to Tigard High School, (Cont.) I could have been a mi.11iapAlre--I could have hired somebody to appear in my place. But the point is, that there is no benefit conferred upon the landowners, and therefore I question whether there would be any baste for a LID, local improvement district, against the adjoining, the abutting property;- so you would have to get the money somewhere else. And I suggest to you if you are going to go along with the idea of developing Ash Street beyond there, that creates a problem -- it'e not unrealistic to say, of course, to the developers of the land along Ash Creek (the creek In that area), let them pay for it, too, if you are going to go that far. Now you have interference with property rights here. Okay. Now I recognize that there is a theory in law--I have read it many times, and am not swearing--called damnum abeque injuria. It means damage without legal injury. Some folks find themselves in a position where no matter what they do, they are the innocent victims of problems--that's the Davises. Now their property is 171 feet along Burnham, and the runback is about 300 and some feet. =G total ty.Of Z.1161r square footage is 6200 feet. Now if you take 50 feet out of there, and giving 20 foot setbacks, you are getting down to where you have a very narrow strip of land; and I suggest that you can avoid all that by going out to Hail or going some other xray--you are not going to cure anything by going out to Commercial. Now the City, I don't believe, has any project or any proposal or any real thought to this .subject. It looks maybe from the air--and I used to fly quite a bit--that that would be the way for the street to go if you got around the police station. But there Is no applicant now that I am aware of--this is strictly a City project. And it arose from the fact that people asked about that piece of land and they were told that there would be a street across there. Now the only logical way to do this is not to l gYiQ Y.l44Q .-.a '..'.n.a.600 yF._71i get the means and the sure outlook that there is going to be a street there. Because what you do -- and.even though we have developed around Tigard over the years -- I don't think that street is going to be developed any faster than many of the others, and we already have -- you can go down by Bonita to get across the railroad--you can go to Hall Boulevard and get across the railroad, Main Street and get across the railroad, Tiedeman Street and get across the railroad, and Southwest North Dakota. Now how far is it from Hall Street at the end of Commercial to Main Street? I travel that area not infrequently--it's not that far--maybe a thousand feet. SO why impose upon the public, the railroad, and everybody else, another crossing for no reason? For no reason?! 1 mere are you going to go when you got on -3- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPQ - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 78 1981 Anderson: Commercial? Why can't you take care of it by going to Hall or (Cont.) by some other outlet without moving the police station? I feel sorry for them, too. So in summary, I ask you not to approve this proposal. I recognize It has to go further to got in the Plan, but you are in a little different position in this one than you are in many of the others. The others, you have a private party asking you do do something for them so they can use their land. But here's people that ask you not to mess up their land, not to make it impractical to develop it or use it, and to save the public considerable money and problems in the city (?) frame of market (?)• Now one more thing. Mr. Howard's report says Southwest Ash Avenue will eventually be extended north across Fanno Creek. Well, I presume that's true, but eventually--the important mord there-- when? How many years are the Davises going to have to wait and wait and wait to see if you can go along with this project when they get any money out of their property? It's 50 feet--are they going to grow blackberry vines, or ghat are they going to grow on it in the meantime? SO I ag;.in exhort .you not to approve this proposal. It has nothing to recommend it, either publicly or privately. Thank you. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Those against? Butler: I am John Butler. I am secretary of NPO 1, and we called a special low meeting on June 30, and I can read you -- it should be in your packet -- but I will read it anyway into the public record. (Note: See copy of these minutes attached. It was stated the consensus was that no action be taken on the CPR because there are no factual studies of the need or cost of this extension, and the cost may be considerable.) Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Are there any other parties wishing to speak in opposition? Yes, sir? Eagleson: Ladies and gentlemen, I am Craig Eagles n. My family and I own the other lot that hasn't beta 8awatioif' ere--namely the lot between the railroad tracks and Commercial. Street. Incidentally I have occupied one of the lots there as Farmcraft Chemicals for very many years--since long before there was a City of Tigard here. So I count myself with Fred Anderson to be one of the old-timers around here. I would like to suggest that it isn't feasible to push Ash Avenue across Fa4nno Creek or across the two railroad crossings. No. 19 the expense is very great. The gentleman at the Burlington Northern Railroad Track Department advises me that to create a safe crossing across one of the railroad tracks would cost a minimum of $100,000. -4- TRANSCRIPT of TIGARD PLANNIKa C©MHISSIom HEARING CPR = .Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Eagleson: We have two railroad crossings to maintain. It has been spoken (Cont.) that to put Ash Avenue from Burnham to Commercial has no point whatsoever unless there is a connection across Fanno Creek to the remainder of Ash Avenue in the residential district. A proper bridge across Fanno Creek would admittedly cost something like a half million dollars. My question is, where will the City of Tigard get the $750,000 more or less to create this extension, of two blocks from Burnham Street to Commercial Street, and from the and of Ash Avenue to Burnham Street? Pio. 2, I find that there has been no showing of public demand or public need to support this project--no showing at all--excepting the ideas of the Planning Commission, or a planning Staff, rather-- not the Commission. I would suggest that even though urban renewal funds may be contemplated, maybe desired -- they haven't been allocated and it is very probably illusory to dream In this day and age of getting the six or seven hundred thousand dollars from the federal government (I assume) to put this project into reality. n T_c mGntion Was rdade hD 17 at r. avid As li, w ho �a ...v aaoiiO4ttrtL Commissioner of Public Utilities in Salem, has been^contacted on this project. I don't question that--as a matter of fact I called him--and you may remember that nothing was said as to his remarks upon contact. Mr. Astil told me by phone that the Public Utilities Commission would, be very reluctant to approve a railroad crossing across an Ash Street extension unless this be shown to be required by public convenience and necessity--unless there is a demonstration of major civic demand for such railroad crossings. Mr. Astil expressed to me a great skepticism that the PUC would ever grant construction across the railroad tracks at Ash Avenue, which is only about a block and a half from Main Street, two blocks from Hall Avenue. The final thing is, I guess, is that this whole thing, it seems to me to be a rather slick maneuver to foreatall the sale or the use of our property until such future time as the City might choose to go across Ash Avenue. Now in the last six months I have had two prospective sales of our property thwarted by the fact that a person in City Hall mentioned to my prospective buyers that there was an easement for Ash Avenue across the property. Gentlemen, that is not true. Thank you very much. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Eagleson. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition--those opposed to this proposal? Hummel: My name is LeRoy Hummel. I am Public Projects Engineer for the Southern pacific Company. I have never been contacted, and so far as I have been informed the Company has never been contacted TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 19$1 Hummel: with regard to this project. Some years ago we had a team track (Cont.) on the north side of Main Street, referred to by the gentleman over here, in the area that is the parkway now. We removed that track from that area to give the City better conditions for that crossing. we moved our team track down to Hall Boulevard, and at that time there was a platform that Air Bing had on our property, and a switch near Hall Boulevard. We reversed that switch in closer to the property of this gentleman here so that we wouldn't cross Hall Boulevard or Main Street when we switch this team track area. We also had a spur track that serves his property and has a switch that comes from the Hall Boulevard side of his property Into his property. The proposed street that you are proposing there comes between these two switches. We agreed with the City of Tigard to get out of Main Street, giving you a nice crossing in there, improve that in every way-- we moved to another area, and now, without any consideration at all, you are coming in between two switches that we have for serving these two spurs, and you are going to put a street in there. The two streets that are adjacent--Hall Boulevard and Main Street, w-4...L 9 c_... • 9 Mil .. ic- arG 1600 Muari 19000 f6et from this proposed Curet, area both fully signalized with gates and the most modern means of signalizing them today. To signalize another street at Ash Street now would require interconnecting all the signalization between theme two streets, besides patting gates in there -- and this is the only way the street would be opened up. As the gentleman said, 2dorthern Pacific says it will cost a hundred thousand, and Southern Pacific says it will cost a hundred thousand for gates for this, and this includes the interconnecting and the signals and that. But we See no reason for this new crossing when you have two adjacent crossings that are fully signalized--we participated in the installation of these crossings--we maintain them for you; and now you are coming along and wanting to come into the area that we provide the team track service. If you went out there tonight you would probably see cars near Hall Boulevard being unloaded or parked In the .area down there. it i zn a t_ -- that I-Sn't u_oed-- ites the only area that you have the track service in there. And if you put that street through there you are limiting the track service in the area. The grades of the tracks have always presented a problem to the City because the track and the streets are not really compatible. Regardless of where you put them, the r llxaad to built so that It is built to move all the time. The streots are made to stay In one place. In other words, when you go walking up the tracks and you see the ballast that is all loose there, that is loose for a purpose. Every once in a while you see a little car come along there and lift the track up and tamp it and loosen it up. And that's for a purpose--to keep it flexible so it moves. When you f put a street down, that street is solid. And when you put the two -6- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 19$1 Hummel: of them together you got one moving and the other one solid, and (Cont.) you've always got a problem, and we want to reduce the number of problems you have in your town, and we hope that you will help us reduce the problems we have in maintaining these streets. So we are definitely going in opposition to this proposal. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Hummel. Are there any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Reiley: My name is Craig Reiley, and my business address would be Business and Industries Building, Salem, Oregon. I work for the Public Utilities Comm-4 ssioner, Have Astil, whose name has been mentioned a couple of times tonight--he is my boss. Just so that everyone is aware of where we are coming from, state- ments that have been made as to what Mr. Astil said regarding the proposed crossings that would occur at Ash Street, are fairly correct. We are governed by a statutory guidance to close or eliminate public grade crossings wherever possible. In this endeavor we also look very seriously, very hard, at the need for new public crossings. You have two public crossings, one on each side of twa proposed Ash utroat cs`essIng location--Hall and Main Street--which are both Fully signalized with as sophisticated equipment as we have available to us. The only way that we can improve safety at this crossing or in this locality better than what it is today is to build a separated crossing. Just so that you don't get your hopes up, there is no state or federal money that I am aware of that is earmarked for the construction of new public grade crossings. And the figures of what it is going to cost for new crossings -- you have heard some comments tonight. Multiple tracks having two tracks across creates a lot of problems. As you might be aware, Bonita Road, Hall Boulevard, Main Street-- all have multiple tracks. Those two tracks have to be inter- connected so that when trains on either tracks are approaching the signals operate at the crossings and alert the people that thVre is a trcaia coming. To Interconnect these two systems--this Is very costly. It also seriously restricts the availability of that crossing to the motoring public. There is a statutory guidance that you have to have 20 seconds of advance warning before a train can occupy a crossing; therefore your crossing is not av4lable for the public to move across for 20 seconds prior to a train. As a margin of error when you get multiple tracks, you have to increase that time. You are talking of a minimum of 30, 35 to 40 seconds before the train gets to the crossing. This excludes the time t$at it would actually take the train to move from the crossing, through and over. Before anything can be done at an Ash Street location, an applica- tion would have to be filed with the Public Utilities Commissioner. -7- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Reiley: Mr. Howard is aware of our procedures. We will be going through (Cont.) the process, notifying all parties and interests. We thought it best that you hear from the Commissioner, and I as his representa- tive am speaking for him, say to you that we are not in favor of the initial idea of new public grade crossings. We feel that with the amount of traffic that is generated in the City of Tigard and the surrounding vicinities, that the two protected crossings that you now have probably adequately serve the residents here. And our initial reaction is in opposition to an application for a new crossing--would be unfavorable--and that is the statement that I would like to make to you tonight. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Reiley. Are there any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Brown: Gentlemen, my name is Robert Brown. I am here essentially as an observer. I am a member of NPO 1; I am a member of the Downtown Committee; and for three or four years now have observed some of the things going on in this area and in other areas of NPO 1. I would lige to draw your attention to really only one particular area worth consideration that I don't think has been adequately amplified yet this evening, and that's a question of timing. The report we have from Staff alludes to actions of the Downtown Committee, and certainly what we hope is an impending action on their part to develop a plan for revitalization of downtown. We have seen--and I am sure that you are all aware -- the highest priority item of concern of that Committee is traffic circulation. Considering- the-- what we hope -- impending planning effort of that body and the funds that we hope to have to formalize some of these studies, and considering that most of the other action down here In this section of town has been deferred, it strikes me a little Incongruous to suggest a one-block modification of the compre- hensive plan when in fact the entire downtown is about to be studied--or it certainly needs to be--send there are demonstrated effort s under way rag ht now to do that'. So I would suggest that you focus, if nothing more, on that--on the fact that this issue is a one-block issue based not upon an impending request for building or construction, but rather on a simple effort for clarification on the part of the City Staff, and that you refuse It or that you find in favor of deferring any action on this until such time as you see a downtown plan of a comprehensive nature. That seems a far more appropriate time to consider a comprehensive plan change. Thank you. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this measure? . Bishop: J. B. Bishop, Portland, Oregon. Instead of even trying to summarize a couple of comments that I made notes on on the staff report, I think just two brief points need to be made from my point of -8- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Bishop: vier:: In attending NPO hearings, attending Planning Commission Cont. hearings, and working with the Downtown Improvement Committee; also as a property owner directly affected by many of the plans that are under way at this point and have been reviewed. I read the staff report as I think the NPO did, and the two property owners, as an approach to a one-block situation. And if you underline some of the points on page 2 that says, "this looks logical," "this is our stance," "Staff anticipates," 16this feeling" --that's in quotes from the staff report. If you go through this full staff report, and ghat I as an individual and we of the NPO reviewed In this, we believe that the City Staff at this point In time to pushing with clarification from the City Council, for it was discussed at the City Council, and that is why it was brought to you at the request of a three to one vote of the City Council -- that the intuitive approach the Staff is using is not a�*,bropriate at this point in time to clarify a major comprehensive d� ignation on the Plan. And I think many of the people that have addressed you tonight ahead of me have raised valid points, aerious points, points of concern--ones that will seriously be taken up by professional analysis that will have to be done, to worts when one DQw.+ :wn -.,...rittaa in some of their No. 1 and 2 priorities. I th'"k also need; to bo underlined, and your staff report has pointed out, that the City of Tigard, as you are well aware, has a five-year traffic/transY rtation plan, an improvement plan; and nowhere in that is that even addressed as an item for consideration, let alone for funding. And that in-depth study that Frank Currie and his staff in Public Works have been developing and working with the City Coun l-1 on, has not only priorities -- 26 -- and has an analysis throughout the City of Tigard where improvements need to be made; but it also specifies how we are going to fund that, and what the costs are. Nowhere on that list at this point in tizw--or even has it been suggested up to this point in time-- doeo-this consideration come in as an idea, let alone as a concrete possibility to be adopted by the Planning Commission And confirmed by the City Council. I find real difficulties with the Conclusionary Findings No. 1 that says, $$By the time this becomes a reality, significant develop- ment will have taken place in the downtown core area", and then goes on to say, "It is conceivable . . ./1 Next paragraph: "it can be concluded.that Ash Street may play . . ." "It can also be concluded that should . . ." I find a lot of ifs and ifs and mays. I think what we are going to end up with is a review of what happened at the last City Council meeting on Ash Avenue in the next 30 days review, involvement with the Downtown Committee, which has been charged by the City Council with costing up with concepts and plans, which many of those will have to be reviewed F-a TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Bishop in open public hearings X'Ith the Planning Commission and the City (Cont.) Council. I believe it is highly inappropriate at this time for consideration in a one block area, and I raise, just as the NPO does, the cost/benefit factor, let alone the practicalities of ghat can actually be done'. I find it incongruous that City Staff 'mould have pushed in this language in this staff report, in further clarifying What were the current guidelines with the Public Util- ities Commission, and Mr. Astil's background tonight quoted both by the property owners and also by his representative, I think should be heeded. Those are my basic comments. Speaker: May I ask a question of J. B.? You mentioned a three-to-one vote Of the City Council. Was that the one that was a week ago last night? Bishop: This was about -q weeks ago, that set this on this agenda. Speaker: Oh. Well, I think in behalf of the Staff, the way I read this is that they are presenting this because the Council told them to. �PG�a,aia. from Staff iommenv6Y) ll he City Counall directed Staff to prepare a Comprehensive Plan Revised Staff Report for presenta- tion!' -- now. Okay. And I think Aldie very properly said this Is a long-range planning issue, and ites extremely difficult to document. In other words, I think what Aldie is trying to get at Is, is this an option that we should leave open to us for imple- mentation at some time in the future, because if the property is developed it will either be impossible or very expensive to acquire the right of way. Is that essentially --- Howard: I was trying to find an answer for Mr. Davis for the last two years. Moen: Mr. Davis asked, according to this--Mr. Davis requested he be given some idea. I think Staff is just trying to give him some Idea. Helmer(?): I think that is a little bit wrong --- Tepedino: Well, okay; why donIt we hold off on the questions? Are there any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this? Then we will go on to cross-exam and rebuttal. Incidentally, before-- are we going to have enough time to hear the next issue? Howard: If we hurry. Tepedino: How long -- is that a pretty controversial thing? Howard: It shouldnIt take long. i Tepedino: Okay. -10- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Ebctenslon of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1951 Corless: I am JoAnne Corless, and we have a business at 9117 SW Burnham, and I suggest to you that Tigard has some severe street problems. Nowhere have I heard anyone on Burnham Street think that we need to have another entrance to downtown. I see no reason for putting a one-block street in at this point, and I urge you to wait and look at the total picture. I think it's -- I think you need to allow our neighbors, Mr. Eagle- son and Mr. Davis, to go ahead and develop their land within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan. I sat through all -- months and months of hearings of the NPO 1, and never at any time was there any consideration by NPO 1 of allowing a one-block street between Burnham and Commercial, and I am sure they referred to that, and wish you would deny this. Teped:no: Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other parties wishing to speak In opposition to this proposal? Those opposed? Let's move on now to cross-exam and rebuttal. I appreciate the people wanting to speak to be as brief as possible, because we have another agenda Item. Are there any questions of con.aaats on a oza-v±.a.T. or d obutta:? Hearin— none, I clowe zue public hearing portion on this issue. Commissioners actions? Commissioner Moen? Moen: Well, I don't know if this is quite proper; but it seems indicated here that Mr. Davis requested this--and maybe that's not true. But it seems to me the property owners by their representatives, and the other gentleman who was here, seemed to indicate they were having problems with their property now because of the uncertainty as to what's going to happen in the future. I think we owe them to as expeditiously as possible--and I think that's what the City Council's intent was--to decide where we think we are going to go. We might not go there, but we should really push to get a decision as to where we are planning on taking this--whether we are putting Ash Street through is a good idea or not. I don't know if we know that right now, whether it is a good idea or not--we just know-- I think at least from the comments we have heard--that 3,t has not been a factor of consideration. It sort of has, and it hasn't. It .hasn't been formally brought up, but it obviously has; been thought about, and when you look at a map one would think it should be thought about--and maybe dismissed--but it should be done rela- ti.Yely quickly for their benefit. It should be decided once and for all, or at least as for all yon.can do in this kind of a body. I have some questions for Staff here. There was a comment made that to put this through there would have to be a jog in Ash Street at Burnham. Is that -true? Howard: That's correct. Moen: There is no way to run It straight through? TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 f Howard: No, not at this point. The Signcraft building is right in the way. We own the police station. If we would obtain the Crow building and move everybody in there, then you know you have the adequate right of way to make the Jog and gilt across. Moen: Okay; I notice there is -- my map isn't the best here -- I don't recall how this all fits together -- but it shows a spur of Ash Street going on to Scoffins, which apparently doesn't come through to Commercial at this point. Howard: Yes, it does come through. Moen: It does come through? Howard: Yes, sir. Moen: So if you are able to put this extension in, you would end up with a street that runs quite a distance through Tigard, all the way to Scoffins? Howard: Quite correct. Moan: All right, if there -- do you have any idea of what the procedures would be if the City should decide they granted to do this--where the funding would come from? Just comment. Howard; Well, as I mentioned in the Staff Report, that is one of the considerations Council has to make. All I am trying to do --- Moen: But that's only for them to make, really. Howard: Sure, I Brant to get an answer for Mr. Davis so we know which way-- either he develops the property or we condemn it or we tell ?? buy it, or someone else buys it, and the same Ray across the rail- road track. Moen: I think it should be considered, and my personal opinion in looking at it, it should be actively considered, at least as a possibility, because it looks to me on the surface in any case that the continu- ance of Ash Street all the way through could very well make sense, and I think it should be studied on that basis. I don't know if changing the Comprehensive Plan is the way to do it at this point. Maybe there is another way to suggest that this be studied. I don't think we can decide right now that this is the best--it should or shouldn't be. Howard: That's Just what I am asking for: that you forward it to the City Council, because that is a funding part of it. If they come up with the :coney--I point out this is not in the draft plan--it's not, but it can be added very easily. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of lash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Moen: You said Ash Street does come through from Scoffins now? to Commercial Howard: Yes. Moen: As a full street? Tepedino: (Interrupting) Commissioner Speaker to make a motion. has indicated he would like Helmer: I want to speak. Tepedino: Off, Helmer: Being a property owner on Burnham Street for ten Mr. Davis's property and Mr. Eagleson's years, and knowing with the railroad people: I Just property, I have to agree be put through. We have other options: tthe ekcorner this tofnBurnhamdand Hall can be widened to take care of the future(?) traffic. You r cross over Commercial going over to Hunziker or some of that. a-ez you have a tre=e ndous amouAt of problem -__- `-_ , went area there p going through the agart- s and to get onto Hall and Hunziker in that general area. Narrow conditions: not much chance of widening the street to gat any kind of a turn out arangement. Really we are dumping more traffic onto Commercial-..which I had my office over there, too, next to the Fire Department--and big enough problems down there with the shopping center and so forth, and I Just really don't feel that this should go across the railroad track as a property owner and as a Commissioner(?). Tepedino: Is that a motion? Helmer: I move for denial. Tepedino: Motion made for denial. Do I hear a second? Speaker: Well, based on what? Helmer: Based on -_ not really havin g any need for it. Speaker: I would like to - I agree with your motion. But I think to me it's the -- the rationale is for the railroad and public utility commissioner. I think I am recognized as a proponent of putting a street through, and I think I always Will be; and while I think It would be desirable to have that, I think there's valid objection on the part of the railroad--apparently they have moved their team track, and it would create real problems for that; and the Public Utility Commissioner, I are sure, is working with standards that have been worked out by experience, and I am afraid that those two main crossings In Tigard are what we are going to have to live Wath, and I am sorry. But that's the reason I -� _'3- TRANSCRIPT of TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HFURING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Helmer: I have to agree with Cliff on that. We just don't need another railroad crossing. Speaker: Well, we would like to have it -•- Helmer: Well, we need an overpass, not a grade crossing. And that's impossible to got in. Tepedino: Konen made for denial, based on the practicality and a host of other factors -- Helmer: Right. Tepedino: -- you mentioned for the record. Howard: Do you make "a host of other factors" a condition? Helmer: That will prick the City Council. Tepedino: Do I hear a second? Speaker: Second. Teuedino: Motion made and seconded. Further discussion? Owens: Yes, real fast. Just one comment. If we deny this now, when it would be inconvenient and costly to make these things now, what kind of nightmare are are going to have ten years down the road when we are faced with a Beaverton downtown situation? It's going to be twice, three tizrses--ten times as costly, and impossible to do it. That's my fear. Howard: That's why we have been looking at joint tracks; that is why we have been looking at eliminating the railroad going through the city. We have been looking at all sorts of alternatives for the city. If you close this one down, you are not going along with advance planning, and that is the basis of the staff report. Moen: I would submit that this should be a consideration. I think it should be at least a consideration that's involved in these people that are working on these different plans; and Aldie--correct me if I ata wrong--if we pass this it becomes a point of consideration, not necessarily law, that that is necessarily what's going to happen. or is there another way to put it -- Howard: Whatever it goes, ltfs got to go to the City Council; the Compre- hensive Plan Revision is going to be taken back up to them, because they asked me to initiate it. There are lots of alternatives. I am suggesting that we don't have the tools, nor has anybody come up with the money to make the study to tell us whether or not we -14- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD P7LANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Howard: can do it. All I am trying to do is--I tell you again--is to (Cont.) give Mr. Davis an answer. He has been yelling for 2J- years, " /hen are you going to make an answer to me?" and I tell him once the Council puts off Ash Avenue for 30 days. You know, I agree: the guy needs an answer. The only way he is going to get It is to go through this process, and I suggest to you you approve my recommendation and let the Council come up with the bucks for the study, or some alternative to these people's questions, and give Por. Davis an answer! He deserves itf Tepedino: I think by denying it, you really don't resolve the issue, because they are going to come back up --- Helmer: I have to disagree with you. I think that we are giving him an answer to this, because I know he has been put between a rock and a hard spot because of this 5.0 feet that Is more or less wanted through his property, which is really--you know, with the jog going through the Police Department--still isn't a good alignment. You would have to come across to the Hcy===: iat me throw ancther realuickie at '� you. Frontier is up for sale. The Green house may be, and Mr. Davis is third. If they all go together, you get a full street improvement going right half way across that railroad track as a condition of development tomorrow. It's possible. Frontier is on the market right now. Mr. Davis would sell. You have got one house in the middle. The price is right, they are gone. Helmer: Two. (Referring to the number of houses?) Howard: Okay, two; but you have your industrial development and you have the possibility to improve the street, and that's how fast things happen. You nail this one shut, you never get to look at it. If this man" that owns Farmcraft come6ln to us and we could negotiate a trade-off between the back of Prairie Market and a 50 foot right- of-way as a condition of development, he could have half the street Improvement. The City might be able to pick up half the street Improvement, and there you have the street all the way, completed. The Joint track, and you are in. That's hoe: the game's played. It's nothing new. But Mr. Davis needs an answer. I tell you to take it to City Council. These things are all possible, and let them mess with it. Speaker: Wells how practical is another grade crossing? From what we have heard from the railroads and the Public Utility Commissioner, I have very grave questions about it--much as I would like to see that street go through. Howard: I think you have got to look a little further down the road to mass tranait, too. If they bring a light rail situation in here, -15- '1TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 10,82 Howard: things are going to change in that railroad. And that's within (Cont.) ten years. And I think if you keep nailing these things closed, eventually you are going to have a Beaverton, and eventually are not going to have any avenue to get out of it. And that's all I am suggesting for advanced planning for this community is, you have to look further than the and of your nose. And these things happen so rapidly in this community that we need the option to at least expand our scope--to look a little bit further and find If it is possible to come across that. And a letter from the Fire Department--complete agreement: "We would like to have the street. It's really difficult to stand outside the police station and watch a building on Ash Avenue burn. We would like to get in a truck and go after the fire." Little things that I think you have to look at. Helmer: Mr. Chairman, I still don't think we are wing Mr. Davis an answer. We're--you know--it's either Yea or Nay from here. Howard: All I am suggesting is that Council give him that answer. Helmer: Yes, they are going to have to make the ultimate decision: either we are going to do it, or we are not going to do it. No riding the fence. Howard: That's correct. Helmer: Because he has ridden the fence for a long time. So has Mr. Eagleson. Let's give them an answer -- Yea or Nay. And mine's for a Nay. Tepedino: I guess I still have a problem, Aldie. I see what you are saying, and I agree with the concept of advanced planning, and I agree sometimes the Planning Commission see perhaps half the distance of their nose. On the other hand I am looking at a hypothetical situation: assuming the City of Tigard had the money to do these t�'''!"gs == would it be cost effective? Would it be beneficial to go ahead and do that, versus maybe using the funds in some other way? And I sense what you are saying is you can't measure traffic patterns by today--you have to look down the road ten years. But I still have a problem because we still have to deal with the problem of today. Howard: True, I agree. But I am sugg"ting to you that when the Main Street Project cam to us, Council squeaked with 25 hundred bucks to get a traffic study done. We didn't go quite far enough. We have been trying to get this urban renewal program off the dime and haven't been able to do it. There are two proposals setting on our desk right now, and we should have awarded that contract to either one Of those people by the first of July. We had the funds. Did we -16- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - tension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July ?, 1981 Howard: dna It? No. We havenvt even had the meeting yet. See? And I (Cont.) agree with Rodg(?) and some of the other folks--it's the cart- before--the-horse routs.nee but you have to go back and pick up some of theme pieces. All I am suggesting in this particular, you may be right: it may not be cost effective; it may not be needed. But I think you have to look--you Inow--City Council to say, "Here it is, folkxz. What would you like to do to give Mr. Davis an answer?" That is all I am asking for. Tepedino: Like you said, are we capitulating to the City Council when we should take a stand here? Howard: No. You can take a stand. Lets just do it. You have got five minutes to go in the meeting. Take a stand either way. It goes to the Council and they decide. But all I want to suggest to you Is that all of these things are possible--they all rattle around us--the things the Staff has to look at and take in all these concerns and bring it to you. Thatls all I am suggesting. Tepedino: Well, whatever position we take, City Council can review this, and they can reverse me or remand it or -- Howard: They directed that you review it --- Tepedino: We have a motion made and seconded on the floor for denial. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Speaker: I would ask this of Staff. If City Council doesn't like our decision for denial, what recourse would they have to bring it up to them? Howard: If they don1t like what you say? Speaker: Yeah. If we deny it? Howard: Deny it? They can deal with that. Speaker: They can still say, "we want to have it here"? Howard: No, all they can say is that we reverse the Planning Commission and we agree that it should go through, and we will fund it. They have that right. They are the final authority, and you are just making a recommendation to them. Moen: If I read you right, all we are saying, really, is that based on the facts we have here we think Ash Street is a good idea or not --whatever the vote is--as an indication of what the Commission feels. Howard: I think itta a little bit further than that, as I pointed out in TRANSCRIPT OF ^tIGARD PLA4NING COMMISSION HEARING CPR - Extansion of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Howard: the staff report. It's not just what you are getting tonight-- (Cont.) it's what you are looking at in the future, maybe. Hoea: Well, I agree; but we have only so many facts tonight, and we all have opinions on that. But they are not complete facts--by any stretch --- Howard: But you could ask the Council to finance a major transportation study. It would cost about $27,000 for the downtown care area, to answer some of these issues for you in the future -- I would like to have that as a tool. I don't have it. It's kind of a big box with a lot of stuff going on just to keep closing these things down. I think Council needs to have the answers. And it gets really simple--Mr. Davis would like an answer. But they might have to spend 27 thousand bucks of taxpayers money to get that answer. Speaker: And six months before Mr. Davis gets his answer. Howard: Exactly right. But that's a Council decision. Oas:.s: Call for the question. Tepedino: Call for the question. I will call for the question. All those In favor of the motion made _and seconded for denial, signify by saying aye. Several voices: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed? Chorus: No. Tepedino: The denial fails. Do I hear another motion? Commissioner Owens? Owens: What do you ask me for? Tepedino: Another motion. Owens: I could make a motion to -- I thought that was to deny it. Tepedino: Motion made and seconded for denial, which failed. Owens: Oh, all right; I make a motion that we approve the Comprehensive Plan Revision, City of Tigard, as presented by the City of Tigard. Tepedino: Okay. Based on findings and recommendations of the Staff? Owens: Yee. -38- TRILNSCRIPT OF TIG ARD PLANNING COMMISSION HFAICING CFR - Extension of Ash Avenue, Burnham to Commercial Streets July 7, 1981 Tepedino: Motion made for approval, based on findings and recommendations of the Staff. Do I hear a second? Merron: Second., Tepedino: Moved and seconded. Further discussion? Call for the question: all those in favor of the motion as made and seconded for approval, signify by saying Aye. Chorus: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed? Helmer and Tepedino: No. Tepedino: I think. I hear only two noes. Motion carries. Howard: It will go forward to the City Council with that recommendation. c LIBERTY CABLE TELEVISION 7, 025 S.W.Sherman•P.O.Box 8677•Portland.OR 97201 •503/225-1984 -' July 29, 1981 Hon. Jack Nelson Mayor, City of Beaverton Chairman, Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Members of the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Dear Mayor Nelson and MACC Members: We were astonished at the time line and hearing proced- ures adopted by the Metropolitan Area Communications Com- mission (MACC) on July 22 for determination of the MACC franchisee. To require submission of a rebuttal to the consultant ' s report by 5 :00 p.m. on August 5 is difficult, but a deadline that can be met by Liberty Cable Television. However, to then hold a single public hearing on August 12, at which time the written responses will be discussed and bids re-evaluated, and then to have the competitors present additional information in just 15 minutes, is incongruous at best. This is particularly true if you indeed intend to select a franchisee one week later, on August 19 . This new schedule is contrary to all schedules heretofore discussed and published by the MACC which concluded that at least three regional public hearings should be made to "complete the record" as the minutes of the last MACC meeting stated. The MACC has worked long and hard to get to the franchisee selection stage. To throttle public input and company response at this most important time hardly makes sense. You are choosing a franchisee who will have at least 15 years of involvement in your communities, will spend at least $15 million to initially capitalize the cable communications system and will be the leading edge in the coming cable com- munications revolution. Both the public and the competitors would be short changed by this new selection time table. A DIVISION OF LIBERTY*COMMUNICATIONS. INC. k Hon. Jack Nelson and Members of the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission July 29 , 1981 Page Two Receipt of the consultant 's report is just one, though important, step. It may be argued that now, after the results of the initial report are known, it would be natural for us to complain. But, we have urged all along to MACC, even prior to knowledge of the report results, for greater public and company dialogue with the MACC, and all parties have concurred with our opinion. Our evaluation of the report makes us suggest, even more strongly, additional "roll up the sleeves" work sessions. The consultant was completely erroneous on a number of crit- ical points. Our written evaluation will express these points. Discussion is required to augment our writing and 15 minutes is totally inadequate for this purpose. Other communities, as indicated below, have determined that although Telecommunications Management Corp. (TMC) does a fine job in trying to quantify proposals for comparison purposes and in educating municipal officials, TMC's analysis necessarily makes assumptions which could render the rest of the evaluation completely meaningless. A case in point is the 62. 4% penetration of homes passed from year one given by Storer. Although the consultant' s report rated Liberty higher for our more realistic penetration figures, we obtained only a one point advantage through this quantitative evaluation. This one element alone, although only a one point advantage for Liberty, is the keystone of Storer ' s proposal. If, as we firmly believe, Storer fails to achieve such an overly optimistic penetration, their entire bid falls apart and they must either 1) not build what they said they would build, 2) cut back on services 3) increase rates dramatically or 4) negotiate their way out of the promises made in the pro- posal. We saw a glimpse of this fourth point on July 22 regarding Sherwood, a community that should take only a week or two to build at Storer 's proposed construction rate. Storer suggested that construction would take up to six months mcre. It may seem particularly ironic that in Storer 's proposals for both the East Portland and the Vancouver franchises less than a year ago, their penetration figures were from less than 40% in year two to a maximum of about 54% in year ten. They staunchly defended this "realistic" position in their rebuttal of the proposal evaluations, and in fact stated penetration figures are "perhaps the single most critical item. . . " . Storer strongly refuted claims of the applicants who submitted higher penetration figures. It is even more of a fallacy to think that Washington County, with its clear off-air reception and difficult cable demographics, would obtain a better penetration Hon. Jack Nelson and Members of the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission July 29 , 1981 Page Three than East Portland with its reception problems in shadow areas and good cable demographics. But perhaps Storer learned how to write a better proposal to meet the TMC evaluation criteria and win a franchise instead of stead- fastly supporting a realistic position. Throughout the MACC process we also have been assured that the TMC evaluation would be the start of an open, candid public selection process and not the conclusion. Recent occurrences in other parts of the nation buttress our contention that the TMC evaluation process is only a first step in the selection of a franchisee. In the "seven cities" competition in Southern Cali- fornia, a situation not unlike your own, TMC 's conclus- ions were reviewed and a company not placing first in the quantitative analysis was selected. (See attached. ) An unrealistically high penetration of 60% was a major factor for not selecting TMC 's top ranked company. The officials there were more concerned with the qualitative aspects of the companies than with TMC's quantitative evaluation of a written document. A similar result was reached in Miami, where the fifth of five competitors following the point analysis by TMC was selected. The point is simply this. The consultant's report, when it is accurate, is a judgment of bid quantity. The bid evaulation used, by design, cannot address bid quality nor the ability of the company to fulfill the promises made on paper. All you have so far received, from both the consultant and your members, is a judgment that reviews the mass of the bid. The quality of the bids -- company commitment and track record -- has yet to be researched, analyzed and discussed. Mayor Campbell recognized this in his JL _y 21 memorandum distributed to the MACC members on July 22. In his words: "Lake Oswego strongly suggests that prior to the final evaluation of the RFP 's that MACC make direct inquiry to a number of the jurisdictions presently being served by both applicants in order to receive information on the a li- cant's performance. Of particular interest should be the applicant' s record of adherence to construction schedules, method of dealing with complaints and rate history" (our emphasis) . In addition, Washington County Commissioner Hon. Jack Nelson and Members of the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission July 29, 1981 Page Four Gardn - 's letter indicates: " . . . both proposals are excel- lent" (his emphasis) and that the bid evaluation, is onl"Y z fist step. . . " (his emphasis) in the selection process. Do not let this first step be the last step. The most critical steps as pointed out by Mayor Camp- bell need to be taken. And we had thought they would be taken. During your June 15 MACC meeting, and as reported in the minutes of the meeting, the consultant observed that there should be more than one public hearing. And, at that time, Mayor Nelson suggested that possibly three hearings should be held at different locations throughout the MACC area. His suggestion made great sense to us for two reasons. First of all, it appears to us that the citizen input to the kUI-CC process has been minimal . The members have worked hard, but their efforts have -- by and large -- been beyond the public 's reach. A good example is their own bid evalu- ation process which, by MACC rule, was to be done without outside contact, even with other MACC members from the other jurisdictions. Only the consultant could interface with the members and he did so by setting up his same quantitative procedures which were followed by all. No citizens ' advisory committee has been established, as was done in Portland. And, with only one public hearing scheduled -- for company response and MACC member questioning .itsic Open citizen discussion can be expected. This troubled us because the magnitude of the decision should not be restricted to so short an effort_ Our second reason for believing that more time should be spent is a practical consideration. We request that additional meetings be established to achieve the following objectives: 1 . A first meeting to evaluate company responses and re-rate, quantitatively, the bids; 2. A second meeting for company presentations, with two hours provided for each company; !• 3. A work session third meeting for MACC member questioning of both companies; Hon. Jack Nelson and Members of the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission July 29, 1981 Page Five 4. Two public hearings, one east and one west, for open citizen input; and 5. A final, wrap-up, bid selection meeting. While we realize that this procedure will lengthen the process some, we truly believe that being given fifteen minutes to discuss a $15 million bid for a franchise you must live with for 15 years, is much less than adequate. We are sure you will want to completely evaluate the qual- itative issues for your constituents who will be receiving service, or non-service as the case may be, from a company for at least 15 years. Additional time now to make the correct decision is definitely in the best long term interest of the residents in the MACC jurisdiction. We hope you will take our suggestions seriously. They are offered to provide certainty in your procoss. We believe much yet needs to be done and, as I mentioned earlier, we believe this first step -- the consultant 's report -- is only a beginning. I respectfully ask that the MACC commission officially respond to our request by August 5 to permit adequate prep- aration time for the hearing process. Sincerely, LIBERTY CABLE TELEVISION •Robert C. Corrao Vice President and General Manager RCC/tas Enclosures cc: All City Councilpersons All Washington County Commissioners All involved City and County Staff MR AM EL A Fairchild Business Publication ELM hTM 14e., ws 221981 The Newspaper for the New Electronic Media = Vol.Q No.ss-�une . said his committee was concern- fbf SjV ed with what.he described as nies made an oral presentation. `1 did think it was odd that I = - qualitative aspects as well. For Mr. Wagner said the committee our committee picked California wasn't concerned about the Cablesystems and our paid con- oftVk rouw instance, Mr. Hardemann said numbers and the extra channel sultans picked Teleprompter," that he was impressed by Cali- . .. _ forma Cablesystem's proposal giveaways Teleprompter was Mr.Mackaig added. Y P P 1 dont have an fee that Din jf ���BW% � to rebuild its system after 10 Proposing. What concerned the Y Ron Ilk I iM years,compared to Teleprompt- I corrin"ttee, however, was Tele- they're making the wrong deci- > prompter's market penetration i sion, said Mr. Pilnick, adding er s proposal to replace equip- I i there are cities that do not select 8y�O®Boyle j ment on an as-needed basis. ; of 60 percent,which was consid- the consultant's choice and"this West Coast Bureau Chief- eyed unrealistic, Mr. Wagner I far from a rare event." How- ever, - After: a public hearing � ; said. iis DOWNEY,CA—Six out of sev- Downey, Mr. Hardemann.said ever, from Pilnickrare said that this en cities involved in a franchise that several council and commit- Mr. Wagner also said Tele- consortium here havevoted towas unusual because six out of tee members were ]eft with the prompters construction esti-. the seven cities have unanimous- ignore the recommendation bf impression that Norval Reece, mates for a dual-channel system theirconsultant,who rated Tele- vice president/government rela- at$15,800 per mile were unreal- I ly agreed to vote and remain to- prompter Corp.'s bid the best, tions of Teleprompter, had not istic. "I'm no expert, butte wi "Lead > on the concern that Tele- t Cifio open negotiations i done his homework. "They felt another company had proposed prompter's construction propos- they were being joggled," said $14,800 for a single-channel al was unrealistic, Mr. Pilnick Together,the seven-city consor- Mr. Hardemann, who said Mr. system, and according to our said, "I thought their estimate t ium contains 92,000 homes.- . Reece gave inadequate answers consultants estimation, a dual- was on the low side."Mr.Pilnick At a June 8 cit)-co--ancil meet- to questions involving Tele- channel system costs 60 percent ung here, Downey became the prompters litigation history and more than a single-channel sys- said that Teleprompters high „ - penetration rates also concerned sixth city.ty,vote for the Cana- record on various criminal pro- tem,"said Mr. Wagner. a number of city officials who diad.-company-and also-the ceedings. Mr. Hardemann said According.to Teleprompter sixth consortium member to that Mr. Reece's evaluation of officials, who would have been were afraid that if the high per- overridec o'Asultant Carl Pilnick Teleprompter's system in Sierra happy to settle for Downey's p ntage was not met theang might increase its rates of Telecommunications Man- Mad —which had beeninvoly- 33,000 households alone, the por or agement Madre—which Corp.'s recommenda- ed in revocation procedures— consortium's franchise is almost cut back on its services. ❑ tion.The seventh city in the con- was also inadequate. "Mr. out of reach.Mr. Reece said he sortium, Commerce, slated a Reed said there was no problem finds it hard to believe his com- -vote on the franchise for June 13.. in Sierra Madre," said.Mr, pany ended up the underdog. Mr. Pilnick's original rank- Hardemann. ;r,. •Reece said he was also ings put Teleprompter on top, According to Don Wagner, a diyed that Teleprompter followed by Cablesystems. in a t, of tt:e w:*^-Ie– Ad-eiaff.Tier..h—v _y-not.-;.�v,gne.;t n� t}lat revised ranking, based on the visory committee and Downey instead he was losing because of applicants'responses to the first assistant city manager, Mr. Pil- accusation and "smear tactics" evaluation,-Teleprompter was nick's evaluation was based on a used throughout the long again first, followed by Buena quantitative analysis and "he months of public hearings and Vista Colony,which bid only for turned everything he could into negotiations.Mr. Reese was re- Pico Rivera; Buena Vista, dollars." Mr. Wagner said that ' ferring to a three-page letter, which bid only for Commerce although Teleprompter was pro- sent to a number of city council and Santa Fe Springs;and Cali- posing 107 channels-rcompared men in the consortium and list- fornia Cablesystems. Both Ca- to Cablesystem's 89—and ing a summary of Teleprompt- blesystems and. Teleprompter charging$6.95 for basic cable— er's litigations during the past 10 bid for all seven. cities Bell compared to Cablesystem's years (see Multichannel News, Gardens, Commerce, Downey, $9.50—he said he believed that June 1, 1981, P.22). I.yawood,. Paramount,:-Pico Cablesystem's proposal was "1 don't think it had any ef- P' -wand Santa Fe Springs:_.: more realistic than Teleprompt- fect;I never saw the letter,"said e Hardemann,.chairman er s. Downey mayor Milton Mac- of'Downeys citizen's advisory Mr.. Wagner said he felt that kaig. He said at least three of =;� said Mr" Pilnick's Teleprompter]oat its credibility Downey's five councilmen had ation was "purely ty not seen the letter."It had no ef- during an Apr. 30 public hear- quantitative." Mr. Hardemann i Wig, where each of the comps- feet on my decision,"Mr. Mac- - kaig said."I went with my com- mittee's recommendation. I r e, ARD 7 f A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER Volume III Issue 17 August 6, 1981 STAFF ATTENDS TRAINING SE14INARS Brad Roast, Building Inspector, will be attending a seminar on the Design of Wood Beams at Portland Community College August 10. Mary Strickland, Senior Accountant, and Doris Hartig, Finance Director/City Recorder, attended a conference on Computers July 28. The workshop, sponsored by Dunn and Bradstreet, addressed computer language, system vulnerability and fraud, and disc vs. tape systems. Liz: Newton, Assistant Planner, will be atteding a Regional Energy Forum at METRO August 10. Liz will also be attending a workshop sponsored by Clackamas County on the new Land Use Legislation August 11 . FISCAL AUDIT BEGINS Auditors from Coopers and Lybrand will begin the fiscal audit August 10. The auditors will be going over financial statements and records at City Hall for approximately two wccks. HAMID RECOVERS FROM ACCIDENT Hamid Pishraie, Planning Intern, was involved in a traffic collision last- week but has returned to work in the Planning Department_-stitches intact. CITY ADMINISTRATOR SELECTION Nine candidates will participate in the Assessment Center testing process on August 8. The finalists will then be interviewed by Council members August 10. PLANNING CONSULTANT CONSIDERED The Council and the Downtown Committee will meet August 11 to select the consultpnt for the Downtown Revitalization Plan. MEETING ANNEXATION' 1-'Ii:i:.iiNv SCHEDULED A meeting of the Council, NPO X64, and interested citizens is scheduled August 20 at 7:30 PM in Fowler Junior High to discuss the annexation of the Tigard Triangle area. ENG TECH II'S INTERVIEWED Interviews have been scheduled August 6,7, and 10 for Engineering Technician II- Surveying candidates. Approximately 50 applications were received; 19 candidates are scheduled to be interviewed by John Hagman, Superintendent of the Engineering Division. LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM ENDS John Henschell, Library Assistant for the Children's Program, has planned a ' party for all the summex reading program participates August 14. PUBLIC WORKS CREW RESURFACES STREETS The curbed areas of Commercial Street are being resurfaced this week by the street crew. r - L e~ 4 1 co U r'V •y . 1� r-4 N b 'O M 1 t� S+ MO 1 n S. W I 4.J44 W O W O 1 U N O 11 •O O 1�"' O C) H 0 I pq w M El H c, H c� i •� g E+ rn 1X •rt r--cn 1 a . M j •11 W 1 G 4J U o I tr a) N 1 I ea a 4j �. v Q)) =l ^i off v ti aii Z E ZZ V) 01 .$4 of H A —4 N y v 1 O I '!a a) 1 o c� r� ro 0 ' I U ^ U r W O t ! U W I G W O r 4 C r=, Oco w CD W O a/ C c) a ❑ ami C c�i o ami dCD F rn , o cn i oo•r+ j rpt p j o 3 0 H G1 to p -W N1,4 Ln W P4 Co a �c+ O b A ••' M O 1 M M U i) C/)U co cb rz j� 1 A •ra v 1 74 $rn 4 I 1 r+ O Com"' O 1 $4 U �"�... rq to •rI }+ :3 3 1 0 0 o � E 4 0 o o m Mu w O '3 U U rs4 0 r--� C N � M v , • _ 'b U o y, to i r J 6 w vs d co C U to co co cn r i N O