The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/13/1991 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. • STUDY SESSION (6:00 P.M.) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 9, 16, and 23, 1991 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Chamber of Commerce Lease and Authorize the Mayor to Sign 3.4 Authorize City Administrator to enter into agreement with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers for water systems study - Resolution No. 91-!D COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 1 i 4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002 (NPO 6) A request by NPO #6 to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by designating new minor collector roadways in the Little Bull Mountain area. SW 109th Avenue would be extended as a minor collector from its current terminus south of Murdock Street; the extension would curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street west of The Fountains condominiums and meeting Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway. In addition, a new minor collector street, labeled "Sattler Extension" is proposed to connect between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north of Hoodview Drive. The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map would also be amended by changing the designation of Naeve Street from minor collector to local street. • Open Public Hearing ' • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report: Community Development Staff • NPO Testimony • Public Testimony: Proponents/Opponents • Recommendation by Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Deliberation by Council: Ordinance No. 91-,L-/ 5. SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0008 FOUR D CONSTRUCTION (NPO 3) City Council review of Hearings Officer decision approving subdivision SUB 91-0008 Four D Construction subject to condition No. 1.a regarding the improvement of SW Walnut Street. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: South side of SW Walnut Street, south and east of SW 116th Avenue. (WCTM 2S1 3AC, tax lots 400, 501, 900, & 1000) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development chapters 18.160, and 18.164. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report: Community Development Staff • NPO Testimony • Public Testimony: Applicant/Proponents/Opponents • Recommendation by Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Deliberation by Council: Resolution No. 91-- 6. DRAFT HEARING STUDY REPORT - INTERSTATE 5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE r City Engineer and Oregon Department of Transportation - Resolution No. COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 2 "i t L X 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PARKING ORDINANCES • Staff Report: City Engineer 7.1 Highland Street - Ordinance No. 91- 7.2 Bonita Road - Ordinance No. 917 7.3 Greenbug Road - Ordinance No. 91-.<'-. 7.4 McDonald Street - Ordinance No. 91- 8. RESIDENTIAL PARKING ZONE • Staff Report: Chief Goodpaster • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 91- Resolution No. 91- 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real properly transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT h:\recorder\cca\coa813.91 F COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 3 f i• I r Council Agenda Item T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 • Meeting was called to order at 6:11 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie Johnson and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Acting Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Loreen Edin, Administrative Services/Risk Manager, Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel (present during Study Session only); and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. STUDY SESSION Councilor Eadon Vacates Council Position Effective 1011/91 xf City Councilor Carolyn Eadon will vacate her position on the Tigard City Council effective October 1, 1991. Councilor Eadon cites changes in her personal situation as the reason for her decision. She states: "I have always held in high regard my association with the City of Tigard. My resignation is not based on any dissatisfaction with any Council actions or policy issues. I believe I have been privileged to serve with one of the finest municipalities in the State of Oregon." In her tenure on the Council, Councilor Eadon served as council liaison to the Library, and Park and Recreation Boards and the Planning Commission. As Council's representative, she was Chair of the city's Historic District Committee. She also served as the city's representative on the Metropolitan Area Cable Commission (MACC) and on the MACC Budget Committee. Councilor Eadon has served on the Tigard City Council since April 1986 after being elected in March 1986 to fill the unexpired term of Ima Scott. She was re-elected twice - in November of 1986 and November 1990. Under city charter provisions, the City Council is required to fill the vacated seat by appointment until an election can be held. The next election available that meets requirements is March of 1992. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 1 The city charter precludes the person appointed to serve until the election from being a candidate for the position. Council discussed process questions with Legal Counsel Tim Ramis and the City Administrator. Mr. Ramis will prepare a report on legal requirements for Council meetings and other process-related issues when choosing a Council appointee. Consensus of the Council was to meet the first week of September to determine how to make this selection. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Council reconvened into the Study Session at 7:10 p.m. Agenda Review Council briefly reviewed agenda items: Item 3.4 - City Administrator noted that the maximum dollar amount for the agreement with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers on the water study was $34,000. • Council made note of the written testimony submitted to them during the Study Session for Agenda Item 4, Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 910002. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:16 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. i Council convened into the Business Meeting at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING • Non-Agenda: Council Vacancy - Mayor Edwards announced that Councilor Carolyn Eadon will be vacating her Council seat as of October 1, 1991, citing personal reasons for this decision. Council will be deliberating on an interim appointment as specified in the City Charter. An election for Council Position 3 will be held in March 1992. Mayor Edwards further advised that the person selected by the Council as interim Councilor would be precluded from running for the vacated seat because of Charter provisions. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 2 G b F' i P• f.. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA James Drake, 10480 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, OR 97224 • requested to testify before Council deliberation of Item 7.1 (Parking Restriction Ordinance - Highland Drive) • Terry Tollen, 245 S.W. 2nd Street, Sherwood, OR requested an out-of-sequence consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for zoning of property he owns in the Tigard Triangle area. Mayor and City Administrator advised this area is currently being reviewed by the City; in fact, Council recently authorized a consultant agreement for development of a Tigard Triangle Master Plan. Mr. Tollen was advised to contact the Community Development Director to talk about rezoning. • Jane Miller, 10920 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, OR 97224, noted cars parked with "For Sale" signs on or near the Town Square property as well as a number of sandwich board signs. She asked whether this was in violation of the sign ordinance. Staff will review and report findings to Council and also contact Ms. Miller. • Morey Williams, 10225 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, OR 97224 requested to testify before Council on deliberation of Item 7.1 (Parking Restriction Ordinance - Highland r Drive) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 9, 16, and 23, 1991 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Chamber of Commerce Lease and Authorize the Mayor to sign 3.4 Authorize City Administrator to enter into agreement with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers for water systems study. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002 (NPO 6) A request by NPO #6 to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by designating new minor collector roadways in the Little Bull Mountain area. SW 109tch Avenue would be extended as a minor collector from its current terminus south of Murdock Street; the extension would curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street west of The Fountains condominiums and meeting Pacific CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 3 i Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway. in addition, a new minor collector street, labeled "Sattler Extension" is proposed to connect between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north of Hoodview Drive. The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map would also be amended by changing the designation of Naeve Street from minor collector to local street. a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. City Engineer summarized the staff report submitted in the Council packet. The Engineer referred to a map of the area, noted traffic figures projected for the area, and gave a brief synopsis of the NPO review process. City Engineer reported that the NPO review included looking at the possibility of extending existing streets; this idea was discarded, however, because of the steep grades. He responded to Mayor Edwards' questions concerning the level of exploration of utilizing other streets (i.e., Kable versus Sattler) in the proposed changes. City Engineer reported on the decision making process and advised impact to existing development and future development was considered. The NPO and Planning commission recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map amendment. d. Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6, reviewed the process which concluded with the recommendation now before Council. She noted the initiation of this proposal was as a result of the Triad development proposal. When Triad's request was turned down, the NPO saw the opportunity to plan for a road system prior to development. This proposed comprehensive plan amendment, Ms. Carver advised, received approval from the Oregon Department of Transportation. She advised that the majority of people in contact with her through the process have advised that the compromise on the traffic pattern in the area was acceptable. Mayor Edwards discussed the process with Ms. Carver. In response to his questioning, Ms. Carver advised that City Staff had been present at every meeting where this issue was discussed over the last seven months. There was discussion on upgrading Kable and Hoodview Streets and whether this was explored fully. The desire of the NPO was to open up as many routes as possible to diffuse the traffic. - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 4 City Engineer noted the upgrade to Kable and Hoodview Streets would be difficult. Kable and Hoodview are developed residential areas. • Howard Graham, 9410 S.W. Lakeside Drive, Tigard, Oregon, testified that he was President of the Summerfield Civic Association Board of Directors. He advised they strongly endorsed the proposal. He commended the NPO and City Staff on their conclusions. • Richard Watson, 10290 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, Oregon, advised he was in support of the proposal. He advised it appeared to be a workable solution noting the need to look to future growth and for reasonable and safe access for this area to Pacific Highway. • Ross Woods, P. O. Box 88070, Seattle, WA 98138, noted his support of the proposal. He advised he would like to see the turmoil over the transportation issues in this area end and noted with development in the area, a great portion of the transportation improvements could be built with developer dollars. He noted that a portion of the improvements would probably be eligible for funding under the Transportation Improvement Fund program through Washington County. • Bev Froude, 12200 S. W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, advised she was the NPO 3 representative; NPO 3 voted unanimously in support of the proposal. The NPO feels it is a good compromise. The NPO advocates a change to the plan: They request that Naeve Road be closed at Highway 99 rather than have a right-hand turn lane. The major concern of NPO 3 is that all of the road should be built if Triad develops their property. ("both the northern part be opened and the new extension to Royalty Parkway be built as a condition of the development...") Ms. Froude noted Sattler Road should not be required to be built as there have been no plans brought forth to develop this property. Councilor Johnson questioned the recommendation of the closure of Naeve Road at Highway 99. Ms. Froude responded it was for safety considerations and cited existing traffic.problems such as accidents and the stop lights which are not synchronized on Highway 99. Jim Hughes, 8485 S.W. Tolman Street, Portland, Oregon, advised he was representing the family which owns approximately five acres at the proposed connection to Pacific Highway. He advised that it was his CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 5 f~ f t r understanding that it was very likely property would be developed up the road much faster than the his client's commercial property would be developed. He said this dovetailed with the previous testimony requesting that the whole road be developed at the same time. He noted City Engineer's comments that there may be ways to fund the road before development. Mr. Hughes advised that his client's property has been for sale for several years for commercial purposes and no imminent prospects have been identified. Increased density up above may increase interest in his client's property. He advised his client would not have the ability to fund improvements to the road without development identified at the same time. Mayor Edwards asked City Engineer to clarify his earlier comments on funding. City Engineer responded that one of the options discussed was the "reimbursement district concept" wherein public funds could be used and development would pay its share later as development occurred. In response to Councilor Schwartz, City Engineer responded that public right-of-way would need to be acquired and if the City was building ahead of development, the City would have to pay for the right-of- way. This may be part of the reimbursable costs. • Dennis Odman, 621 S.W. Morrison, Portland, Oregon, advised he represented Mr. Ferd Wardin who owns the largest section of land that the proposed Sattler Extension would cross. He noted that even though the road was shown in approximate placement this would greatly impact Mr. Wardin's property because of existing housing and development. Mr. Wardin is opposed to the Sattler Extension of the proposal and its status being changed to a minor collector. Mr. Odman referred to his letter of August 9, 1991, outlining his client's concerns with the comprehensive plan amendment. He also advised that his client had not been notified of the NPO meetings. (This letter is on file with the packet meeting material.) There was brief discussion with Councilor Johnson and Mayor Edwards on the impact to Mr. Wardin and future development plans. • John Slaughter, 15055 S.W. 100th Street, Tigard, OR 97224, noted his objections to the proposal. Mr. Slaughter advised he had not been He said Kable and Hoodview were already wide streets and advised that Kable could be extended with less problem than what was being CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 6 f r k proposed. He noted cost of construction for the proposed streets would be tremendous. There was discussion with councilor Johnson concerning the placement of the Sattle3 Street Extension alignment on the map. The road design and placement would be determined at the time a development is proposed. • Jane C. Szalboryt, 15435 S.W. 114th Court, #101, Tigard, Oregon signed in to testify, but declined to make any comments. • Al Erickson, 15200 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon testified in opposition. He said that utilization of Murdock Street would be more logical. He does not want the proposed improvements to go through his property and said he prefers the gravel road on Naeve Street. • Larry and Laura Crotski, 10305 S.W. Hoodview Drive, Tigard, Oregon cited agreement with most of the testimony heard in opposition. While agreeing with long-range planning, there was no clear indication of who would be served by the Sattler extension. • Tom Gillihan, 10275 S.W. Hoodview, Tigard, Oregon, testified against the Sattler extension, noting that he thought this was premature. • Marge Davenport, 15100 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon, advised she was not opposed to long-range planning but this proposal had not been given enough consideration. She said the proposal was not well thought out and there were too many problems; the concerns of the neighbors had not be adequately considered. She said she had contacted the State Highway Department director for this area who indicated they were not aware of discussions for a connection from this area to Beef Bend Road. Ms. Davenport disputed traffic projections given by the City Engineer and advised the figure would be higher. She advised of traffic safety concerns. Ms. Davenport noted concerns with property near Pacific Highway drawing attention to how this property would be affected if divided as shown on the map. Ms. Davenport said that not enough consideration had been given to Kable and Hoodview streets to alleviate traffic in the area. She noted that some of the NPO 6 members lived on these streets. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 7 4 City Engineer, at Councilor Schwartz"s request, responded that he had been in contact with and received the information for his report to Council from Mr. Don Adams of ODOT. Mr. Adams is the Region Engineer for ODOT; to go higher, the director in Salem would have to be contacted. Traffic figures are dependent on the number of apartments built at the Triad site. • Clyde Roarke, 15371 S.W. 114th, #108, advised he lives at the Fountains Condominiums in Summerfield and does not support the proposal. When they bought their property the plan called for the property adjacent to be commercially developed with traffic flowing on Naeve. The road from Royalty Parkway to access Naeve would require a five percent grade. Projections, he said, were for 1,000 cars per day which would pass by their houses. He cited that the major reason for the road to Royalty Parkway is because the State does not want to put a traffic signal at Naeve Road on Highway 99. He suggested the city could use its influence to put in a traffic signal at Naeve Road. He said the facts do not justify the expense for putting a road in and causing the negative impact to the property owners. • Emmy Lou Lawrence, 15085 S.W. 100th, Tigard, Oregon advised her family formerly owned the Wardin property. She noted concerns with notification process. She advised the property now owned by Mr. Wardin should be allowed to be developed in a manner that would be pleasing. Rebuttal - NPO 3 • Sue Carver responded to comments presented during public testimony. With regard to previous testimony, she noted no member of the NPO lived on Kable Street and one member lives on Hoodview. • The following written testimony had been submitted to the council (this material is in addition to the letters attached to the staff report which were submitted with the Council packet): - August 9, 1991 letter from Dennis M. Odman, Attorney from Allen, Fellows, Livingston & Greif - August 8, 1991 letter from Robert and Marta Luton - August 12, 1991 letter from Robert C. Luton City Engineer noted he had spoken with Mr. Luton by telephone on 8/12/91 to answer questions. - August 8, 1991 letter from Lenore A. Schuster CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 8 {f G e. Recommendation by Staff: City Engineer noted the history of discussions concerning traffic in the neighborhood with no obvious or easy solutions. The recommendation before Council tonight may not have been the one selected if there were not already existing development and streets in the neighborhood. i Staff supports the recommendation of the NPO as the best solution with the current situation. There are areas of concern which need further study and detailed engineering at the time of development. Impacts on adjoining properties of how to best fit the roads with proposed development must be addressed. This will be provided for during the hearings process with potential appeals to the City Council. City Engineer advised that the plan proposed by the NPO addresses concerns heard with regard to trying to provide good access to developing properties while still protecting the already developed properties from through traffic. The plan provides good circulation and addresses emergency vehicle access through the neighborhood and protecting Highway 99W from adding more entrances. He advised that the State was recommending that the number of entrances be diminished to protect the safety and capacity of Highway 99W. From staff's review in working with the State, past developers, and with the NPO, staff feels the plan meets necessary criteria as well as any plan submitted and staff recommends approval. In response to a question from Councilor Johnson, City Engineer responded that the Sattler extension would be near the north property line. He noted the substandard jog in the alignment to the south which was necessary because if it were to go farther north, it would impact existing development.. Consideration was given to how the property could be developed, given the zoning designation in the area. f. Public hearing was closed. g. Council comments. Council discussed, at length, the area involved and included in their remarks consideration of impacts to the neighborhood and ascertained the depth of consideration given to additional routes for the transportation system in this area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 9 Councilor Johnson noted NPO 6's effort to be proactive; that is, they attempted to plan long-range for transportation in the area. She cited the need to consider Hoodview and Kable extensions to the west. (It was noted during discussion that local streets are not shown on the Transportation Map.) She advised she was least comfortable with the recommendation on Sattler Street to be designated as a minor collector but, in weighing testimony, it appeared that this was the better alternative when attempting to diffuse traffic impact in the neighborhood. Mayor Edwards advised that, although he commended the NPO for their work on this issue, he could not support the proposal. He said all roads should be opened up in the area for all neighborhoods to share in the transportation needs. He was concerned that the Murdock/Hoodview/Kable Streets could be utilized more fully in the future planning to share in the traffic increases. Councilor. Schwartz advised that he felt the NPO had looked at all alternatives carefully and, given the current development and terrain, the proposal before Council was one which he could support. He noted concerns with the Sattler Street extension and the recommendation that this street be a minor collector. Discussion followed on the Sattler Street extension. Council expressed a desire to amend language on "Note 10" of the proposed map. The purpose of the amendment would be to give the property owner(s) more flexibility in developing the land. Council recessed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to give legal counsel and staff the opportunity to craft language reflecting Council's intent for Note 10. Meeting was reconvened at 10:12 p.m. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to amended Note 10 as follows: "The design of the Sattler Street extension may vary from the adopted City standards for minor collectors." E The motion was approved by a 2-1 vote; Mayor Edwards voted "No." t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 10 i f- I C h. ORDINANCE NO. 91-22 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF NAEVE STREET FROM MINOR COLLECTOR TO LOCAL AND BY ADDING MINOR COLLECTOR CONNECTIONS FROM 109TH AVENUE AT MURDOCK STREET TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY OPPOSITE ROYALTY PARKWAY AND BETWEEN 100TH AND 109TH AVENUES NORTH OF HOODVIEW DRIVE (CPA 91-0002) REQUESTED BY NPO 6) i. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve Ordinance No. 91-22 as amended. Ordinance was approved by a 2-1 vote; Mayor Edwards voted "No." 5. SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0008 FOUR D CONSTRUCTION (NPO 11 City Council review of Hearings officer decision approving subdivision SUB 91-0008 Four D Construction subject to condition No. 1.a regarding the improvement of SW Walnut Street. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: South side of SW Walnut Street, south and east of SW 116th Avenue. (WCTM 2S1 3AC, tax lots 400, 501, 900, & 1000) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development chapters 18.160, and 18.164. a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. City Engineer summarized. Staff recommended that Council amend the Hearings Officer decision on this subdivision to require half street improvements to a portion of Walnut Street. The Hearings Officer decision gives the developer the choice of making street improvements or signing a waiver of remonstrance. This portion of Walnut Street is in the County"s jurisdiction and County and City requirements differ. d. Public Testimony: • Dale Deharpport, 6767 S.W. 158th, Beaverton, Oregon, advised he was the developer on the property. He recounted the history of the differing City and County requirements and the resulting confusion. He advised that to have this 200 feet of right-of-way improved at this time would not serve to benefit the community. He recommended that a non-remonstrance agreement be endorsed by him, as the developer, with the standards of improvements on Walnut Street be done at County requirements. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 11 t r. R i' • Patricia Rudnick., 11320 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, F Oregon, advised she had not been notified of this development in the past. She advised she had concerns with the development on the property. Mayor Edwards advised Ms. Rudnick that testimony at this hearing must be limited to the transportation issues. Ms. Rudnick then advised she supported Mr. Deharpport's testimony. e. City Engineer noted staff's recommendation was to amend the Hearings officer decision. The staff recommendation is outlined in the Council Agenda Item Summary. f. Public hearing was closed. g. Motion by Mayor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to uphold the Hearings officer decision as written because of confusion with City and County standards as outlined during testimony. The motion was approved by a 2-1 vote; Councilor Johnson voted "No" citing problems with non-remonstrance agreements in the past. 6. DRA'F'T HEARING STUDY REPORT - INTERSTATE 5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE a. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) released its Draft Hearing Study Report for the Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange project. The Report contains ODOT's recommendations for the design of the project. ODOT has requested approval of the draft report and the recommended design by the local jurisdictions. After local jurisdiction approvals have been received, the project will proceed to detailed final design. Currently, ODOT expects to begin construction on Phase I of the project in 1993. b. After hearing a presentation from ODOT representatives explaining the design recommendations, Council approved Resolution No. 91-61 endorsing the Draft Hearing Study Report's conclusions and stating specific City concerns to be addressed in the final design. C. RESOLUTION NO. 91-61 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING STUDY REPORT FOR THE I-5 AT 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE PROJECT, WITH CONDITIONS d. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor t Johnson, to approve Resolution No. 91-61. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 12 i t r rt The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PARKING ORDINANCES a. Highland Street - Council consideration on prohibited parking for a portion of Highland Street was tabled to a ' future Council meeting. After hearing testimony from Mr. James Drake who was opposed to the parking restrictions and from Mr. Morey Williams who was in favor of "No Parking," Council requested more staff review. Council specifically requested a Police Department evaluation of the safety issues. b. ORDINANCE NO. 91-23 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130(72) PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW BONITA STREET. Council discussed "No Parking" throughout the City in general. Councilor Schwartz noted his concerns with limiting the ability of residents to have parking available to them near their homes. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz to approve Ordinance No. 91-23. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. C. ORDINANCE NO. 91-24 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130(41) PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF S.W. GREENBURG ROAD. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Mayor Edwards, to approve Ordinance No. 91-24. The motion was approved by a 2-1 vote; Councilor Schwartz voted "No." d. ORDINANCE NO. 91-25 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130 PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW MCDONALD STREET. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Mayor Edwards, to approve Ordinance No. 91-25. The motion was approved by a 2-0-1 vote; Councilor Schwartz abstained from voting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 13 r k s 8. RESIDENTIAL PARKING ZONE a. Chief Goodpaster summarized this item. Over the past year the Police Department has worked with the school District and the neighborhoods adjacent to the high school to restrict student parking in the residential area. The student parking causes a variety of problems for the neighborhood and other methods including letter writing, directed police patrols, walking a beat by the SRO's and School District newsletters, have not been effective. The proposed program is designed after City of Portland and Salem programs and will eliminate student parking in the residential areas. An informal vote was held of the 243 affected residents and over 50% of the vote was returned and over 60% were in favor of creating this zone. Costs to establish is approximately $8,000. Revenues will be received from fines and permits to help offset the costs. b. Council discussion followed. Mayor Edwards said the School District should fund the cost of implementation; he also noted his discomfort with imposing the parking restrictions on everyone. C. Council consensus was that this issue would be revisited in one year; the first year will be on "trial basis." C. ORDINANCE NO. 91-26 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.28 AND CHAPTER 10.32 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING ZONES Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve Ordinance No. 91-26. The motion was approved by a 2-1 vote; Mayor Edwards voted "No." d. RESOLUTION NO. 91-62 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PARKING ZONE FOR THE CITY STREETS AROUND THE TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL INCLUDING 87TH; 88TH; 92ND; 93RD; MARTHA; MILLEN; STRAFORD LOOP AND COURT; AVON STREET AND COURT; AND JULIA PLACE. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor f Johnson, to approved Resolution No. 91-62. The motion was approved by a 2-1 vote; Mayor Edwards voted "No." t, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 14 4 r f {S Y: t 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:49 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 a.m. t"t f: Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder r, `City of Tigard Date: q/lolgl ccm813.91 C- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 15 4 a TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 0 Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664.0360 NoticeTT 7023 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising The following meeting highlights arepublished for your information. Full agendas may be'obtained from th@.City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall;. City of Tigard is E C E I V E D • ❑ Tearsheet Ni Y Boulevard. Tigard. Oregoii.97223, nr by calling 639-4171 P.O. Box 23397 • Tigard, OR 97223 AU G 28 1991 13 Duplicate Afi C1Tf COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING s " AUGUST13,1991; . • CITY OF TIGARD • TIGARD CITY HAiL:L TOWN HALL 13125 S W`H BOULEVARD, TIGARD,-OREGON P M) , Study Meeting (Town Hall Conference (6 .'00 Business Meeting (Town Hall)~(7-.30 M ) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) Public Hearings COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' . = South Ssde of S W Walnut Streer(4 D Conshl ction) Judith Koehler ' and Native being first duly sworn, depose and say~bat I me the Advertising • Comprehensive la*1 Am i►dmept 44*4 Director, or his principal clerk, of the lgar lines i a newspaper of general cir~~uulatio as defined in ORS 193.010 I 5/l17'Prdject~Pisonta on t~ bZ" and 193.020; Published at 'lYgat in the r of esoid cou ty $nd sate; th ,,It the Parlang,Ordmances for Highland and Bonita ~fotlee of City C;oun .1 Business Meeting Loci Cont ct-Review Board , a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ; s N. r entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and Eze_ cuhve Session } consecutive in the following issues: •L. Th' lgkil City Council willgo mto'Ezecutive Session under th ' pio~iisions of ORS 192660 (1) (d); (e) & (h~ io°fidii;cuss.laboizela August 8, 1991 Pons, real property transachons,'curiymfarid rig littpn~ssues C . ~-,~x„ hsc4,j4x't3' ~'z~L''.t` : ilt n 'G ff4.q yF~ ~~"v? va. Xis` `}•si~li- c"r~caT~.a ~ 3- Subscribe h August 8,1991 ; f ? ' ~.O'Ce ' d and sworn o before me this 8th day of August, 1991 Notary Public for Oregon My Commissio xpires: AFFIDAVIT TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal TT 7021 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 PUBLIC HEARINQ Legal Notice Advertising ; The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on August 13-1991, at 7:30 P.M:,'at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, e City of Tigard . ❑ Taarsheet Notic 13125.S.W: Halt Blvd.., Tigard, Oregon. Further information may be P.O. Box 23397 obtained from 'the 'Comm unity Development Director or City Recorder ai • a Tigard, OR 97223 e ❑ Duplicate Affida' the same location. or by.calling,639=4171. You are invited to submit written aesEimony in advance of the public hearing;,w.ritten and oral e e testimony,will.be,consift''datA ehearing The;publicheanng;wilI,.be conducted in accordance-with th6'ipplicible Chapter 19132; df.thd.Tigkd; Muicippal Code and any rules of procedure adopted bythe"Council and' available; at City; FIa11 OT CE { f'I'O #6j AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION COMPREHEN AN ;4MENDMENI' A01-0002, (N „ STATE OF OREGON, ) i A request by NPO #6 to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportaiion Iv1ap p dg g tf, new;}tnor4l1ec49iri:roadway`s to ttte i ittie:u~l' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss Mou to n~reaSV, 109th AYetiue.wotilc~ be extended as a minor I, Judith Koehler ,.;ccIIec or from its ctuYenrterminus`§outh oflVlurdockaStreet; the~extension being first duly sworn, depose and sa hat I the Advertising would curve across the south slo a of Little Bu11 Mountain, Crossing" Director, or his principal clerk, of the lgarda~imes Naeve Sweet westof the Fountain condommiurns andmeeting Pacific . a newspaper of general circulatiop aas efined in ORS 193.010 :High ay Qppostte`the existtng intersection oftRbyalty Parkway n and 193.020; published at lY a in the addition, a new minor collector street,, abeled Battler Eift aSio~p ,pis is afo[~sajd couruy a ttatat~ that the proposed;to connect between 100th.and 109iti Avenues at a location north 1VOnce oI Pu~tic eariny/CPA 91-0002 of.Hoodview D ;lve TheComprehensiye PlanTransportao~~n Map would a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the also be ambnded by chagging the designation `of Naeveinee't fco°m'minor COllectof tq local s[reeQ' - entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and i s s E s. SUBDIVISION SUB 91=000 FOUR D ONSTI2UCTIChT (NPO #3) consecutive in the following issues: City Council#.view ofiHear)~ngs Office)'detasion approving"subdivision SITB 91 0:008 Foul b Con ifi tion:subjecto e6fidid6ri 116' ][.a regarding August 19 1991 the improvementiof S W Walnut Street.<ZO)!IE K-4 5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). LOCATION South side°apS1W -Walnut'Street, south and df S W '116th Avenue (WCTM^2S 1 r3AC, tax lots 4ik5- 012- 90.0, t 000) 01, APPLICABLE REl7IEW,CRITERIA'igW dfCommumty, l$ylopment~' Chapters 18160, kid;18:164 =1 ~,;.3 '(T7021 Pubhsh August 1,1991 r ry x~, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of August, 1991 Ur~nL~taJ OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public for Oregon _ BEVERLY S. THOMAS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: 1,5; /9 y f h1Y COMM S~ ONIEXP RES JJULY 5? 994 AFFIDAVIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed a v~d q STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oat Ti, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuou places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 1- ;9I-:~°(-a'1S;. 1-l~0 which were adopted at the Council meeting dated . 7113 1q1 copy(s)-of said ordinance(s) being hereto at ached and by reference made a part hereof, on the date of - 1991. 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon . 2. Washington Federal Saving Bank, 12260 SW Main St., Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, + Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this date of 19 QI OFFICIAL SEAL M.JOANNHAYES Notary ublic for regon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON I COMMISSION NO. 006513 My COmm15SlOn Expires: S ~t Q5 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 h:\1ogin\jo\cwpost r 4 P i f tI~' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-ZZL_ C AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF NAEVE STREET FROM MINOR COLLECTOR TO LOCAL AND BY ADDING MINOR COLLECTOR CONNECTIONS FROM 109TH AVENUE AT MURDOCK STREET TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY OPPOSITE ROYALTY PARKWAY AND BETWEEN 100TH AND 109TH AVENUES NORTH OF HOODVIEW DRIVE (CPA 91-0002) REQUESTED BY NPO J/6. WHEREAS, the request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as follows: 1) Change the designation of Naeve Street from minor collector to local. 2) Add an extension of 109th Avenue between Murdock Street and Pacific Highway and designate 109th Avenue between Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway as minor collector. 3) Add a minor collector connection between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north of Hoodview Drive. WHEREAS, on December 17, 1990 the City Council authorized NPO Y16 to initiate consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment focused on transportation issues in the area of 109th Avenue and Naeve Street. WHEREAS, NPO #6 has developed a proposal to address traffic concerns in the Little Bull Mountain area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the CPA 91-0002 proposal at its regular meeting on July 22, 1991 and recommends approval and also recommends deleting the last sentence of note 10. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 12, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, and 8.1.1 and applicable Community Development Code sections related to legislative plan amendments. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has an adopted citizen involvement program which includes review of land use applications by neighborhood planning organizations. In addition, this proposal has been reviewed in public hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council for which the public has been properly notified. i 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant t Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. 3: Goal 12, Transportation, is met because the City has adopted policies related to improving the transportation network and continuing coordination of transportation improvements with other involved agencies. ORDINANCE No. 91- oZ a Page 1 t' I t a The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will not affect compliance of the City's acknowledged Plan with the Statewide Goals. 2. Policy 2,1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization #6 and #3 have'been notified of the hearing and have commented on the proposal and a public notice has been published including the date, time and place of the hearing. i 3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current and future needs. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby amends the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by 1) designating Naeve Street a local street, 2) establishing a new extension for 109th Avenue from its current terminus south of Murdock Street to Pacific Highway; the extension would curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street west of The Fountains condominiums and meeting Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway, 3) designating 109th Avenue as a minor collector between Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway, and 4) establishing a new minor collector street, to connect between 100th and 109th Avenues.at a location north of Hoodview Drive as shown in Exhibit SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By ~ U)i~tti vote of all Council members present after being read by num er and title only, this day of 1991. J v~ L-f^ nCatherine Wheat(~lte/y, City Rec der APPROVED: This ` ✓ r~' day of V 1. Ger Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: Cit Attorney 3 au 6- gr Date JA/CPA91-02.oRD C ORDINANCE No. 91- a~a Page 2 GAA R D E'..~,~.~~ The C i t y o f ST. fJcDONALD ST~ T I G A R D Ordinance No. 91-13 gap adopted 06/11/91 Ex i s t i ng 0 Comprehensive P l a n i e"~ Transportation f G B U L L M O U N T A I N L N. M O P EXHIBIT A Arterial D. Ma or Co~Ieetor Collector BATTLER . F~~`~`~`j AFv£ ST g~ NOTE: Study area LY pp k T mullomap seeoORD. 91-13. 1 Oliflial late 4 mep reprarer- O R Zell an tenpIlid by the Cl ty e l 1 1 6 1 (4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 4 4 . 1 , S U M M I R F I E L D L D ►ile Iale rnallaa Syalem CIS) a4lpertrayed / malice let m4y he iltanded to U aaad •ilk eddilioall N 0 R T H 1e'41ioal aedlar ialarpralatire dale at deterainad ►y the city of 116416 D U R H A M (llplhtl101) +►.~~~~~s}~~~y p ~~i R p , 600 )06116111) ~ r~ r ryes ~,..rsr. sra s s, i i COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES 1 These notes are a part of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map and are intended to provide direction as to the kind and extent of transportation improvements which are to occur within the designated study areas. 1. Scholls Ferry Road iio be realigned to connect with Davies Road. Upon completion of the realignment, the existing roadway east of Davies Road `i shall become a local street with a cul-de-sac terminus at the northwest end. 2. Study area to determine a future connection between the Walnut1132nd intersection and the Gaarde1121st intersection. A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report. An indirect connection of minor collectors has been recommended by NPO #3. 3. Approximate alignments are shown for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south of Benchview Terrace, 135th Avenue south of Walnut Street, and Benchview Terrace west of 132nd Avenue. These streets are to be designed as minor collectors with a design speed of 25 m.p.h.. 4. Study area to determine a connection from southbound Pacific Highway (99W), to Main Street. 5. Study area to determine the alignment of (1) a minor collector street connection between 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek and the Dartmouth Street extension, and (2) a minor collector street connection between 72nd Avenue at Hampton Street and the Dartmouth Street extension, within the westerly portion of the Tigard. Triangle. 6. Study area to determine the alignment of connections between Highway 217, Kruse Way, 1-5 and the Tigard Triangle. 7. Connections between Hunziker Street, Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street f (generally) and Bonita Road.' r 8. Study area to consider extension of Hall Boulevard southward to connect with Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin for either pedestrian or ve access. hicular . . . . ~ ~ ~ . . w ~ . . r _ , . ~ . . . , . ~ , y ~ ~ s . ~ The C i t y Of GAARDE ST. McDONALD ST. T I G A R D See NOTES on Proposed back of page. Revision To c9~%F Comprehensive P I a a RD• tN Transportation t t o u K M a p EXHIBIT B o I 0 D. Arterial Ma] or Collector IER SATTnor Collector NOTE: Study area map only . f or SEE NOTE 10. fu11 map see ORD. 91-13. D olitildl dale ! ma, ra,r+++ I on an f.l,t l.1 17 lb. tll q Q el llgar/ a1111tI+q t+agra- SUMMERF I UD tat.r..tl.+ ~ ClS) ++rl.or.. 111or- moti.a ,.r{ra1+d I+r+ may he i+ laad+d la b. a»1 .ilb alliliaa.l i~ N O R T H l+cbucat a+d/+r ial. r,n t.lirr 6a1. of d.ruel++d b) t tb4 city at tlgord. DURHAM RD o coo (adrtAIII) +err^ a.-~ars~os~o.ror-srs~rr~ ~ ~.,ra.,rzssr-~crr..rr~ ..%yr y~arorar i { f COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES 1. Scholls i=erry Road to be realigned to connect with Davies Road. 2. Study area to determine a future connection between the Walnut/132nd intersection and the Gaarde/121st intersection. A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report. An indirect connection of minor collectors has been recommended by NPO #3. 3. Approximate alignments are shown for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south of Benchview Terrace, 135th Avenue south of Walnut Street, and Benchview Terrace west of 132nd Avenue. These streets are to be designed as minor collectors with a design speed of 25 m.p.h.. 4. Study area to determine the configuration of a new connection between southbound Pacific Highway and Main Street. 5. Study area to determine the alignment of a minor collector street connecting 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension; and with Hampton Street at 72nd Avenue with the Dartmouth Street extension within the westerly portion of the Tigard Triangle. 6. Study area to determine the alignment of connections between Highway 217, Kruse Way, 1-5 and the Tigard Triangle. 7. Connections between Hunziker Street, Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street (generally) and Bonita Road. 8. Study area to consider extension of Hall Boulevard southward to connect with Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin for either pedestrian or vehicular access. 9. (Deleted) 10. An extension of Sattler Street from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue at a point approximately 200 feet north of the existing Sattler Street intersection. An extension and realignment of 109th Avenue south of the Sattler Street extension, to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway. The realigned 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet to 450 feet east of Pacific Highway. (Amendment to Note 10 per Council Action 8/13/91) The design of the Sattler Street Extension may vary from the adopted City standards for minor collectors. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed ql-a3, QI -aA Q I -aS---- ~~d at=aLo STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, (~,PIAVISLL aibAL begin first duly sworn, on oat , depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuou places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 9-QQ . 0111-23 . g1-V44 q-aSn,- 41-wo which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated copy(s)-of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the I'S_ date of 1991. 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Washington Federal Saving Bank, 12260 SW Main St., Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon A~b A 1A Subscribed and sworn to before me this date of , 1911 OFFICIAL SEAL M.JOANNHAYES Notary ublic for regon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.006513 My Commission Expires : 9 45 ! MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 h:\1ogin\7o\cwpost r, i e CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130(72) PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW BONITA ROAD. WHEREAS, TMC 10.28.130(72) prohibits parking at any time on portions of Bonita Road; and WHEREAS, safety improvements are currently being constructed along Bonita Road between 83rd Court and Fanno Creek; and WHEREAS, the design of the improvements does not provide for on-street parking. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: TMC 10.28.130(72),is amended as follows: 0(72) Along both sides of SW Bonita Road between 83rd Court and Fanno Creek." SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council me ers present after being pad by number and title only, this ®.3f day of 1991. Catherine Wheatley, City Reco er APPROVED: This /3 day of 1991. Gera Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: Cit torney 11644 f/ Date dj/H:•\engdoc\council\ss-np-B.xw ORDINANCE No. 91- 23 C Page 1 F CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-24/ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130(41) PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW GREENBURG ROAD. WHEREAS, TMC 10.28.130(41) prohibits parking at any time on portions of Greenburg Road; and WHEREAS, safety improvements are currently being constructed along Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Shady Lane; and WHEREAS, the design of the improvements does not provide for on-street parking. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: TMC 10.28.130(41), is hereby amended as follows: "(41) Along both sides of SW Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Shady Lane." SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by n er and title only, this / day of &1991. Catherine Wheatley, City Reco er APPROVED: This day of 1991. Ge R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City At orney Date dj/H:\engdoc\counci1\ss-np-G.rw ORDINANCE No. 91-CP C Page 1 • J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-_5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130 PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW MCDONALD STREET. WHEREAS, TMC 10.28.130 prohibits parking at any time on portions of certain public streets in Tigard; and WHEREAS, safety improvements are currently being constructed along McDonald Street between Hall Boulevard and 93rd Avenue; and WHEREAS, the design of the improvements does not provide for on-street parking. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: TMC 10.28.130, designating the streets or portions thereof where parking is prohibited at all times, is hereby amended by adding the following: "(76) Along both side of SW McDonald Street between Hall Boulevard and 93rd Avenue." SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By MCUIUTCI vote of all Council 1}►embers present after being read by n Umber and title only, this / day of 1991. Catherine Wheatley, City Rec rder APPROVED: This day of 1991. Gera wards, Mayor Approved as to form: Cit A torney Date dj/N:\engdoc\council\ss-np-mc.rw ORDINANCE No. 91-o?5 Page 1 4 F y C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91--2 & AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.28 AND CHAPTER 10.32 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING ZONES WHEREAS, there exists within certain residential areas of the city, a heavy concentration of vehicles which park all day, or which are driven without a specific destination and congregating, creating a disturbance to the residents of these areas; and WHEREAS, the presence of these vehicles cause vehicular congestion on residential streets, impede the movement of traffic and unduly restrict entry of residents to their homes; and WHEREAS, the establishment of residential parking zones will help preserve the peace and residential character in certain residential areas; now, therefore: THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: - SECTION 1 Chapter 10.28 is hereby amended. by adding Section 10.28.175 to read as follows: 1110.28.175 Residential Parking Zones. (1) The City Council, pursuant to TMC Section 10.32.010 may establish residential parking zones. The purpose of residential parking zones is to prohibit parking by non-residents during specific time periods within specific geographic areas used predominantly for residential purposes. The City Council resolution which establishes the residential parking zone shall clearly define the geographic limits of the area affected by the zone and the hours during which the parking by non-residents will be prohibited. Residents within the parking zones may obtain a permit from the City Administrator pursuant to subsection 2 of this section to allow for the parking of vehicles within the zone during.the restricted hours. (2) The City Administrator shall establish procedures and standards for the issuance of permanent and temporary permits to residents. that will allow the residents and their guests r i r . 1 to park their vehicles within residential parking zones during the restricted hours. At a minimum, the Administrator shall establish rules which establish the criteria for issuance, surrender and revocation of permits, evidence of proof of residence and vehicle ownership, terms of the permit, standards for display of the permit, and allow for the issuance of temporary permits to residents for the parking of non-resident vehicles for temporary periods upon a showing of reasonable need for such permits. (3) The City Administrator shall cause to be installed and maintained, pursuant to TMC 10.32.020, official signs for residential parking zones which clearly identify the parking restrictions for non-residents and the exception to those restrictions for permit holders within the residential parking zones. (4) It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Provide false information in connection with an application for a permanent or temporary permit. b. Fail to surrender a permit, when requested to do so, when the person is no longer entitled to the permit. C. Use a permit when the permit holder is no longer entitled to the permit. d. Use, or allow the use of a permit in conjunction with a vehicle other than the vehicle for which the permit was issued. e. Use, or allow the use of a temporary permit in a manner inconsistent with the terms and limitations of the permit. (5) The City Administrator is authorized to revoke any permit when the permit holder is found to be in violation of the provisions of this section, and, upon written notification thereof, the permit holder shall surrender the permit to the administrator. Failure to do so shall constitute a violation of this section." ? SECTION 2 Section 10.32.010(1) is amended by adding t Subsection (F) to read as follows: "(F) Establishing residential parking zones." ORDINANCE NO. 91- o?(V Page 2 5 SECTION 3 Due to the necessity to preserve the peace in residential neighborhoods and preserve their character, the City Council finds that an emergency exists and therefore, this ordinance shall take effect upon its passage. PASSED: By j1~ai U~ r f vote of all Council members present after 15e-in read by number and title only, this 13 ~h day of 1991. Catherine Wheatley,'City Re rder APPROVED: This day of aulqul~ , 1991. Ger R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: Ci torney Date jmc\-d\dVud\nespa&-4 i i ORDINANCE NO. 91- Q C9 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: 8/13/91 C (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED r\ 4 27 /~otz ~l •l o V-'-K-g~ T6LUW Ltmp p4ski fLho OVT br sue'. < Ye c ~~klf ! i ~ C i t l t C Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: 8/13/91 PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002 (NPO t~) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS , NAME & ADDRESS - 43 Lie (nab lq-ey'y lag r Co 5sv~ d~ vOr. O ~`GCI WN 10?9.5-` cJ ooduiHw j l J` LJ 'u► 9 72`7 u ~ SK, W ",4,4 ZP6",7, ' X1 0 y,r 6 R eft ~ CC ~01' U Act) h+ / N - Pa.Bo ~seU?o 05, o-~ Gam-- G f C Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: 8/13/91 SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0008 FOUR D CONSTRUCTION (NPO 3) PLEASE PRINT /NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS De a J ~s 626-7 ~S, 2) C 1 3t1 t t SW CIF%BGON .n. x toe i~ , 4 ~ P Ai LEE 3n10 ACRES PROFESSION AUCOMMERCIAL ZONED PROPERTY Sov (Tast)-r. M) 'iti..~~. ~rr~.,,~~,~:1~,5"'g ~ a, jt,~. ~'L a . t ~4'-'.~ r~f~ciagP• _ i/~t t x: f. I ~ f. i For Additional Information, Please Call': John Van Zonneveld or Rick Bywater Inc. 1800 S.W. First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 • 227-2500 All of the information contained herein was obtained either from the Owner or otner parties we REALTOR consider reliable and we do not guarantee its accuracy. Therefore, interested parties should check this information carefully. i 1 r ELMHURS'7: s• . ST, ~ o Ease rs~? ~ N i t 7 s0. t..• - - t00 / w •I. $ 400 1 .424C I rs' 601 500 42 At 45 At 0 1 600 94A` 1 1 r, -i 0 ° s ` I ~ r N N h tDD.Tb « SE E MAP 1; • . a00 2S I IAA,~:. 4s N ~ ` 1 4 r• 252.1 1•~.00' 008D 74 9 80 !d r+• 01 X2.0 r + EAPETUAI EASEMENT _ f.s6' R:19oOb / sa6j S 'E 32 tS tS E. CO _ >I GEO Ric _ 3B ' t: r pa4 7 K. 8. Oti E. S. W. 193.6= FRANKLIN '~1 J 3.f4hJ•E. _ ST. ~1 1 1000. o r J r N N I Q2dc } ~N. ~TT.O (4i.1d POINT BEVEL-" K. 18 Obi E w... •i`S• ' INITIAL 12200 Itso• 23hC~ w~' (n 2000 0 n s s. ~n 0 w r_' ~1 i W : i O I C; 2 2 r I L PLOT MAP OPT i F r ( COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3• MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrat DATE: July 29, 1991 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, July - September 191 Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk if generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. August '91 13 Tue Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 27 Tue Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) September 191 2 Mon Labor Day - City Offices Closed 6-8 Fri- Sun Tigard's 30th Birthday Celebration 10 Tue Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 17 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30) 24 Tue Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) October '91 8 Tue Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 15 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30) 22 Tue Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) h:\1ogin\cathy\ccca1 C Council Calendar - Page 1 ~V f p COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.3 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: _August 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: July 26. 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Chamber of PREVIOUS ACTION: 1,4 Commerce Lease PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK/ ---REQUESTED -BY_---Patrick -J. Reilly-- ISSUE 'BiTGZjE THE COUNCIL Proposed renewal of Chamber of Commerce Lease for office space at 12420 S.W. Main Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Renew lease as proposed. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Council, by consensus at their June 18, 1991, meeting authorized the City f Administrator to proceed on the Chamber lease agreement. The recommendation l . was to offer the lease under the existing terms and conditions for the office building on Main Street. Chamber President, Bill Monahan, has signed the proposed lease which runs from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. Also attached is a copy of the sublease between the Chamber and Michael Marr. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Approve the lease and authorize the Mayor to sign. FISCAL NOTES No change from the previous year's agreement: • $4,150 per year to be paid at a rate of $350.00 per month with the Lessee authorized to deduct from one monthly payment the sum of $50 to obtain insurance coverage. • Repairs and Improvements as outlined in Paragraph 5. h:\login\cathy\cclease l r i :Y k COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON s COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Auaust 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: Auauat 1, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Water System S, d PREVIOUS ACTION: Discussion t Contract PREPARED BY: John Acker DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 01S REQUESTED BY: f; -BEFORE THE COUNCIL Entering into a contract with James . Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. to conduct a study of the water system in the Tigard area. a ;Nf STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution that gives authority to the City Administrator to sign a contract with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. to conduct a study of the water system in the Tigard area. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council discussed the matter of what firm to hire to conduct this study on 6/15 and. 7/22 at the conclusion of which it was decided to hire James M. Montgomery. - - - - ° - PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES none FISCAL NOTES The proposed contract will be for an amount not to exceed $34,000 i o >''X y a S CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TITLE: Tigard Water System Study - James M. Montgomery CONTRACT NO: This Contract, made and entered into this day of 1990, by and between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporate of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "City" and James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, ,i Inc., 220 N.W. Second Avenue, Suite 1090, Portland, Oregon 97209, hereinafter called "Contractor", duly authorized to perform such services in Oregon. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the City requires services which Contractor is capable of providing, i under terms and conditions hereinafter described; and ' WHEREAS, Contractor is able and prepared to provide such services as City does hereinafter require, under those terms and conditions set forth; now, therefore, IN CONSIDERATION of those mutual promises and the terms and conditions set forth hereafter, the parties agree as follows: 1. Proiect Description. Contractor's services under this Agreement shall consist of the following: A. Contractor shall perform personal services, as outlined on pages 3-2 through 3-6 of the proposal for Water System Study dated the 28th day of June, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The project for which services are to be provided is known as the Tigard Water System Study. B. The project shall be completed in general conformance with the project schedule in the above referenced attachment. 2. Compensation A. The City agrees to pay Contractor not to exceed $ 34,000 for performance of those services provided herein, which payment shall be based upon the following applicable terms: 1. A schedule of payments, as follows: The contractor shall submit monthly billings for payment which shall include itemized expenses incurred and a listing of the number of hours and rate for each individual who has performed work by task on the contract during the billing period. Hourly rates of individuals shall be as per the attached Exhibit A. 2. City will withhold 5 percent of each monthly payment with the retained amounts to be paid within 30 days of City acceptance of the final report. 3. Payment by the City shall release the City from any further obligation for payment to Contractor for service or services performed or expenses incurred as of the date of the statement of services. Payment shall not be considered acceptance or approval of any work or waiver of any defects therein. l i r 4. City certifies that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this contract. 3. Contractor Identification Contractor shall furnish to the City the Contractor's employer identification number, as designated by the Internal Revenue Service, or Contractor's Social Security number, as City deems applicable. 4. Citv's Representative For purposes hereof, the City's authorized representative will be John Acker, Associate Planner, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223: (503) 639-4171. 5. Contractor's Representative For purposes hereof, the Contractor's authorized representative will be Bob Jossis, James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc., 220 N.W. Second Avenue, Suite 1090, Portland, Oregon 97209: (503) 226-7377. 6. city's obligations. In order to facilitate the work of the Contractor as above outlined, the City shall furnish to the Contractor access to all existing information which is in the City's possession concerning the location of sewer and water lines and other utilities or structures which affect the planning and construction of the proposed improvements. 7. Contractor Is Independent Contractor r A. Contractor's services shall be provided under the general supervision of City's project director or his or her designee, but Contractor shall be an independent contractor for all purposes and shall be entitled to no compensation other than the compensation provided for under paragraph 4 of this Agreement. B. In the event Contractor is to perform the services described in this Agreement without the assistance of others, Contractor hereby agrees to file a joint declaration with City to the effect that Contractor's services are those cif an independent contractor, as provided under Chapter 864 Oregon Laws 1979. C. Contractor acknowledges that for all purposes related to this agreement, Contractor is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of City, shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to which an employee of the City is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all payments and taxes required by law; and furthermore in the event that Contractor is found by a court of law or an administrative agency to be an employee of the City for any ' purpose, City shall be entitled to offset compensation due to demand repayment of any amounts paid to Contractor under the terms of the agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other renumeration contractor receives (from City or third party) as result of said finding and to the full extent of any payments that City is required to make (to Contractor or to a third party) as a result of said finding. t D. The undersigned Contractor hereby represents that no employee of the City of Tigard, or any partnership or corporation in which a City employee has an interest, has or will receive any remuneration of any description from the Contractor, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the letting or performance of this contract, except as specifically declared in writing. 8. Subcontracts - Assignment & Delegation A. Contractor shall submit a list of subcontractors for approval by the City, and Contractor shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and neither the approval by City of any subcontractor nor anything contained herein shall be deemed to create any contractual relation between the subcontractor and City. B. This agreement, and all of the covenants and conditions hereof, shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Contractor respectively and their legal representatives. Contractor shall not assign any rights nor delegate any duties incurred by this contract, or any part hereof without the written consent of City, and any assignment or delegation in violation hereof shall be void. 9. Contractor's Employees Medical Payments The Contractor agrees to pay promptly as due, to any person, copartnership, association or corporation furnishing medical, surgical, and hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to sickness or injury to the Contractor's employees, all sums which the Contractor agreed to pay for such services and all monies and sums which the Contractor collected or deducted from employee wages pursuant to any law, contract or agreement for providing or paying for such service. 10. Early Termination A. This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause prior to the expiration of the agreed upon term upon thirty days written notice to the other party and for the following reasons authorized by ORS 279.326. 1. If work under the Contract is suspended by an order of a public agency for any reason considered to be in the public interest other than by a labor dispute or by reason of any third party judicial proceeding relating to the work other than a suite or action filed in regard to a labor dispute; or 2. If the circumstances or conditions are such that it is impracticable within a reasonable time to proceed with a substantial portion of the Contract. B. Payment of Contractor shall be as provided by ORS 279.330 and shall be prorated to and include the day of termination and shall be in full satisfaction of all claims by contractor against City under this Agreement. C. Termination under any provision of this paragraph shall not affect any right, obligation, or liability of Contractor or City which accrued prior to such termination. i i i 11. Cancellation for Cause Either party may cancel all or any part of this Contract if the other party breaches any of the terms hereof or in the event of any of the following: Insolvency of Contractor; voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy by or against Contractor; appointment of a receiver or trustee for Contractor, or an assignment for benefit of creditors of Contractor. Damages for breach shall be those allowed by Oregon law, reasonable and necessary attorney's fees, and other costs of litigation at trial and upon appeal. 12. Access to Records City shall have access to such books, documents, papers and records of Contractor as are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts and transcripts. 13. Force Maieure Neither city nor Contractor shall be considered in default because of any delays in completion of responsibilities hereunder due to causes beyond the control and without fault or negligence on the part of the party so disenabled, including, but not restricted to, an act of God or of a public enemy, volcano, earthquake, fire, flood, epidemic, quarantine, restriction, area-wide strike, freight embargo, unusually severe weather or delay of subcontractor or suppliers due to such cause; provided that the party so disenabled shall within ten (10) days from the beginning of such delay notify the other party in writing of the causes of delay and its probably extent. Such notification shall not be the basis for a claim for additional compensation. 14. Nonwaiver The failure of the City to insist upon or enforce strict performance by Contractor of any of the terms of this contract or to exercise any rights hereunder shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of its right to assert or rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. 15. Warranties All work shall be guaranteed by the Contractor for a period of one year after the date of final acceptance of the work by the Owner. Contractor warrants that all practices and procedures, workmanship and materials shall be the best available unless otherwise specified in the profession. Neither acceptance of the work nor payment therefor shall relieve Contractor from liability under warranties contained in or implied by this contract. 16. Attorney's Fees In case suit or action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this contract, the parties agree that the losing party shall pay such sum as the Court may adjudge reasonable attorney's fees and court costs including attorney's fees and court costs on appeal to appellate courts. 17. Applicable Law This contract will be governed by the laws of the state of Oregon. K 2 ti 18. Conflict Between Terms It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the proposal of the contractor, this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith. 19. Indemnification Contractor agrees to indemnify and to hold harmless the City, its officers, Employees and Agents against and from any and all loss, claims, actions, suits, including costs and attorney's fees, for or on account of injury, bodily or otherwise, to, or death of persons, damage to or destruction of property belonging to City, Contractor or others, resulting from, arising out of, or in any way connected with Contractor's negligence. 20. Insurance Prior to starting work hereunder, Contractor, at Contractor's cost, shall secure and continue to carry during the term of this Contract, with an insurance company acceptable to City, the following insurance: A. Public Liability and Property Damage insurance with limits of not less than $500,000 for person injury, $500,000 for damage to property, $500,000 for comprehensive automobile liability and $250,000 for broad form property damage coverage. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of Contractor's activities or work hereunder, including the operations of its subcontractors of any tier. Such insurance shall include provisions or endorsements naming City, its officers, Employees and Representatives as additional insureds, provisions that such insurance is primary insurance with respect to the interests of the City and that any other insurance maintained by City is excess and not contributory insurance with the insurance required hereunder; cross-liability or severability of interest clause; and provisions that such policies shall not be canceled or its limits of liability reduce without thirty (30) days prior notice to City. A copy of each insurance policy, certified as a true copy by an authorized representative of the issuing insurance company, or at the discretion of city, in lieu thereof, a certificate in form satisfactory to City certifying to the issuance of such insurance shall be furnished to city. B. Workers' Compensation from the State Accident Insurance Fund or from a responsible private carrier. Private insurance shall provide the schedule of employee benefits required by law. C. Professional Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall have in force a policy of Professional Liability Insurance in an amount of not less than $500,000. The Contractor shall keep such policy im force and current during the term of this contract. r F ! 5 T f l D. Adequacy of Performance. Any insurance bearing on adequacy ( of performance shall be maintained after completion of project. Should such insurance be canceled before the end of the guarantee period and the Contractor fails immediately to procure other insurance as specified, the City reserve the right to procure such insurance and to charge the cost thereof to the Contractor. 21. Complete Agreement This contract and any referenced attachments constitute the complete agreement between he City and Contractor and supersedes all prior written or oral discussions or agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized undersigned officers, acting pursuant to re o4qtion of he City Council, duly passed at the Regular Meeting held on the day of 19~, and the contractor has executed this agreement on the date rein above first written. CITY OF TIGARD BY: Date BY: CONTRACTOR BY: Date ` BY : ke/3694P i h t COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM_ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: AUGUST 13. 1991 _ DATE SUBMITTED: _August 5. 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 91-0002 PREVIOUS ACTION: AUTHORIZATION TO 109th AND NAEVE INITIATE COMP PLAN PROCESS 12/17/90 AA - 1. PREPARED BY: JOHN ACKER DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK- REQUESTED BY: ISSU BEFORE THE COUNCIL A request by NPO #6 to amend the Com rehensive Plan Transportation Map in the vicinity of Little Bull Mountain including 109th Avenue and Naeve Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the proposed amendment, with the suggestion that the last sentence in Note 10 as originally proposed by NPO #6, not be included: [The opening of 109th Avenue at the top should be contingent upon development of the properties to the east of 109th Avenue.]" INFORMATION SUMMARY At the December 17, 1990 meeting, the City Council authorized NPO #6 to explore amendment options for improving the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map in the area of Little Bull Mountain. After many meetings at which numerous citizens and property owners have participated, NPO #6 is proposing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map which would extend 109th Avenue as a minor collector from its current terminus south of Murdock Street to Pacific Highway at the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway. Naeve Street, currently a minor collector would be changed to a local street designation. A new minor collector street, labeled Sattler Extension, would also be added between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north of Hoodview Drive. Also included is a proposed note (Note #10), that describes the proposed amendment as well as establishes approximate locations. As originally proposed, the language of Note #10 included a sentence which spoke to timing of the 109th extension. Staff, NPO #6, and the Planning Commission are all now suggesting that Note #10 be added without this final sentence. Note #10 would therefore read as follows: "10. An extension of Sattler Street from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue at a point approximately 200 feet north of the existing Sattler Street intersection. An extension and realignment of 109th Avenue south of the Sattler Street extension, to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway. The realigned 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet to 450 feet east of Pacific Highway." At its July 22, 1991 meeting, the Tigard Planning Commission recommended that the City council approve the proposed amendment. The proposal is not unanimously supported by the surrounding property owners, however. Please refer to the letters from abutting property owners Lenore Schuster, Robert and Marta Luton and Jane Huffman, included in this report. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES r See staff report and comments by adjoining property owners. FISCAL NOTES See the report for financial considerations. 3a/CPA91.02.sum } STAFF REPORT AUGUST 13, 1991 - 7:30 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0002 REQUEST: An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Naeve Street, currently a minor collector, would be changed to a local street designation. SW 109th Avenue would be extended as a minor collector from its current terminus south of Murdock Street to Pacific Highway; the extension would curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street west of The Fountains condominiums and meeting Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway. Also, a new minor collector street, labeled "Sattler Extension", is proposed to connect between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north of Hoodview Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The area where transportation amendments would occur includes General Commercial and Medium-high, Medium and Low density residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: The area where transportation amendments would occur includes General Commercial and Residential at 25, 12 and 3.5 units per acre. APPLICANT: Neighborhood Planning Organization #6 OWNER: Various Sue Carver, Chair 10155 S.W. Hoodview Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: The area where the transportation amendments would occur is generally bounded by Pacific Highway, Durham Road, 100th ! Avenue and Murdock Street. (WCTM 2S1 10 AC, AD, DA, DB, DC and DD, and WCTM 2S1 11BC and CB) t STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0002 - 109TH AND NAEVE PAGE 1 s. i r 2. Background Information ( On December 17, 1990, the Tigard City Council authorized Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) #6 to initiate consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment focused on transportation issues in the area of SW 109th Avenue and Naeve Street. Subsequently, the Tigard Engineering Department developed several conceptual plans for a street system in the study area. The study area was defined as the area bounded by Pacific Highway on the west, Murdock Street on the north, 100th Avenue on the east and the Summerfield development on the south. NPO #6 discussed the options at their meetings in March, April and May of 1991. Affected property owners were invited to attend and participate in the discussions. Following discussion at the May meeting, the NPO voted to initiate formal consideration of the specific Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map amendment proposed in application CPA 91-0002. The Tigard Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 23, 1991. After hearing testimony, the Planning Commission voted 5 yes to 1 no to recommend to the City Council that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map amendment CPA 91-0002 be approved and that the last sentence of Note 10 be deleted which was proposed to read: "The opening of 109th Avenue at the top should be contingent upon development of the properties to the east of 109th Avenue." 3. Vicinity Information On the existing Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, Naeve Street is designated as a minor collector street between Pacific Highway and 109th Avenue. Sattler Street is designated as a minor collector street east of 100th Avenue. These two minor collector streets, along with Canterbury Lane to the north of the study area and Summerfield Drive to the south, provide primary access routes to this area under the existing plan. In general, the easterly portion of the study area is designated for low density residential development. The westerly portion is designated for multi-family residential development with some commercial zoning along Pacific Highway. A number of large parcels within the study area have potential for redevelopment. 4. Proposal Information The NPO and others have been concerned about potential traffic impacts of future development in the vicinity of Little Bull Mountain. Specifically, ' there is concern that future development will result in unacceptable levels of traffic in the areas of existing residential development. There is also concern about provision of adequate safe access to Pacific Highway. STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0002 - 109TH AND NAEVE PAGE 2 This proposal seeks to address those general concerns by changing the designation of Naeve Street from minor collector to local street and by adding an extension of 109th from Murdock Street to Pacific Highway and a connection between 100th and 109th Avenues north of Hoodview Drive. The new connections would be designated minor collectors on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Attached exhibits A and B show, respectively, the existing Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map and the map as it would appear if this proposal is adopted. 5. Agency and NPO Comments NPO #3 has no objection to the proposal but has the following comment: The extension of 109th from Murdock Street to Pacific Highway should be constructed as a single unit when development occurs. NPO #3 also suggests that Naeve Street be closed at Pacific Highway when 109th extension is constructed. CPO #4 has no objection to the proposal but has the following comment: The extension of 109th from Murdock Street to Pacific Highway should be constructed as a single unit when development occurs. The Sattler Street extension should also be constructed as a single unit when development occurs in that vicinity. Portland General Electric, Northwest Natural Gas and the Tigard School District have reviewed this proposal and has no objections to it. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this proposal and has the following comment: The fire district agrees with the plan amendment. They, however, propose that 109th be left open, (i.e., they apparently would prefer to see 109th connected to the new 109th extension). The Tigard Water District has no objection to the proposal but makes the following comment: The water district has an 8 inch water line running from Pacific Highway to SW 109th on SW Naeve Street. There are three services off that line, one to The Fountains, and one each to houses on the corner of SW Naeve and 109th. 6. Staff Comments The Tigard Police Department has no objections to the proposal but makes the following comment: "Leaving an open intersection at Naeve and 109th is vital for responses in and out of the area." The Engineering Department has the following comments: i "We support the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as proposed by NPO #6. The plan will provide improved traffic circulation in the neighborhood. The plan addresses concerns raised by the NPO and others in conjunction with past development proposals in the area of 109th and Naeve Street. STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0002 - 109TH AND NAEVE PAGE 3 I 4 Proposed Note 10 serves to clarify the routes of the proposed streets and we support this revision too. However, we do not understand the reason for the final sentence in the proposed note; the sentence which requires that a portion of 109th not be opened until properties to the east are developed. We would prefer to see the plan for 109th implemented as early as possible. Completion of the 109th connection is important to implement the goals of (1) balanced traffic circulation for the neighborhood, (2) emergency vehicle access between Little Bull Mountain and Summerfield, and (3) discouraging of through traffic between Naeve Street and Summerfield. The City Engineer recommends adoption of the amendment as proposed by NPO #6 except for the final sentence of proposed Note 10. The final sentence is recommended to be deleted." No other comments had been received at the time this report was written. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 12, and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and applicable Community Development Code sections related to legislative plan amendments. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has an adopted citizen involvement program which includes review of land use applications by neighborhood planning organizations. In addition, this proposal will be reviewed in public hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council for which proper notification is publicized. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. 3. Goal 12, Transportation, is met because the City has adopted policies related to improving the transportation network and continuing coordination of transportation improvements with other involved agencies. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to the P Comprehensive Plan will not affect compliance of the City's acknowledged Plan with the Statewide Goals. 2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization #6 and #3 have been notified of the hearing and have been give the opportunity to comment on the proposal. STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0002 - 109TH AND NAEVE PAGE 4 f J !l f F' 3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current and future needs. D. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings and conclusions stated above, it is recommended that the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 91-0002 to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as shown on the attached Exhibit "B". It is further recommended that, because the safety and efficiency of the transportation system would be better served with early implementation of the 109th Avenue extension portion of this amendment, the final sentence of Note 10 be deleted. g Prep red by John Acker, Associate Planner Dat ,ja/CPA91.02 STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0002 - 109TH AND NAEVE PAGE 5 t NPO #6 APPLICATION Submitted on 6/25/91 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE 109TH/NAEVE AREA Summary E NPO #6 is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map be revised by (1) designating new minor collector roadways in the Little Bull Mountain area as shown on Attachment No. 2 and (2) changing the designation of Naeve Street from minor collector to local street. Background On December 17,1990, the City Council authorized Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) #6 to initiate consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment focused on transportation issues in the area of SW 109th Avenue and Naeve Street. Subsequently, the Engineering Department staff developed several conceptual plans for a street system in the study area. The study area was generally defined as the area bounded by Highway 99W on the west, Murdock Street on the north, 100th Avenue on the east, and the Summerfield development on the south. The NPO discussed the options at their meetings in March, April and May of 1991. Interested property owners were invited to attend and participate in the discussions. Following discussion at the May meeting, the NPO voted to initiate formal consideration of the specific Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map amendment proposed in this application. Existing Plan In the existing Comprehensive Plan, Naeve Street is designated as a minor collector street between Highway 99W and 109th Avenue. Sattler Street is designated as a minor collector street east of 100th Avenue. These two minor collector streets, along with Canterbury Lane to the north of the study area and Summerfield Drive to the south, provide the primary access routes to the study area under the existing plan. See Attachment No. 1. The current street system is shown in more detail in Attachment No. 3. In general, the easterly portion of the study area is designated for low density residential development. The westerly portion is designated for multi-family residential development, with some commercial zoning along Highway 99W. A number of large parcels within the study area have potential for redevelopment. Attachment No. 5 shows the existing zoning. CPA - TRANSPORTATION MAP - APPLICATION - 109TH/NAEVE PAGE 1 Neighborhood Concerns The NPO and others have been concerned about potential traffic impacts of future development. Specifically, there is concern that future development will result in unacceptable levels of traffic in the areas of existing residential development. There is also concern about provision of adequate safe access to Highway 99W. Some of the concerns include: • The alignment of existing Naeve Street and 109th Avenue tends to direct traffic into the Summerfield development. Traffic from future development in the 109th/Naeve area may use local streets in Summerfield to access Durham Road. • Currently, a portion of 109th Avenue is undeveloped. If future development completes the missing section of 109th, then additional traffic may be attracted to 109th Avenue as a through connection between Summerfield and Little Bull Mountain. • A street connection is needed between 109th/Highland and 109th/Canterbury for emergency vehicles, in the opinion of the emergency service providers. • Within the study area, there is currently no connection between 100th and 109th Avenues. If Hoodview and Kable Streets are extended directly to 109th in the future, they will tend to operate as minor collector streets. • The intersection of Naeve and Highway 99W currently has no traffic signal, making it difficult to make left turns at the intersection. There is concern about the safety of this intersection if additional development occurs without signalization of the intersection. • There is concern that there are already too many signals on Highway 99W, hindering the flow of through traffic. A signal at Naeve Street might further impede traffic flow on Highway 99W. The NPO was looking for a plan which would address all of these concerns. ODOT Concerns The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has designated Highway 99W as an Access Oregon Highway (AOH). ODOT is developing regulations to protect the AOH system, including control of access. As a result, ODOT is striving to restrict the number of street and driveway accesses to the highway. When possible, ODOT would like to close existing accesses. CPA - TRANSPORTATION MAP - APPLICATION - 109TH/NAEVE PAGE 2 Previously, consideration was given to construction of a new access from the study area to Highway 99W opposite Beef Bend Road. ODOT has determined that this is not an acceptable proposal, due to the steep grades that would be required on the new street approach. The Proposal Attachment No. 2 shows the amended Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map which the NPO is proposing. Naeve Street, currently a minor collector, would be changed to a local street designation. SW 109th Avenue would be extended as a minor collector from its current terminus south of Murdock Street; the extension would curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street west of The Fountains condominiums and meeting Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway. In addition, a new minor collector street, labeled "Sattler Extension", is proposed to connect between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north of Hoodview Drive. Attachment No. 4 shows the approximate alignment of the new streets. Traffic Impacts The total traffic to and from the study area is not changed by this revision in the Transportation Map, because there is no change in the zoning. However, the routes used to access the study area may change under the proposed revision. Traffic using Summerfield streets to access the area is expected to decrease under the revised plan, as the plan provides only an indirect connection to Summerfield. The proposed Sattler Extension will provide a direct access to the east and is expected to carry approximately 700 vehicles per day when the area is fully developed. This volume is in the low range for minor collector streets and within the range of tolerable volumes for local streets. (The background document for Tigard's Comprehensive Plan suggests a range of 0 -1,500 vehicles per day for local streets and 500 - 3,000 for minor collector streets.) Without the Sattler Extension, some of the traffic would be expected to use Canterbury Lane, Murdock Street, Kable Lane, and Summerfield Drive as a route to the east. Elimination of Naeve Street as a collector street is expected to increase the volume of traffic using SW 109th Avenue to reach Pacific Highway via Canterbury Lane. When the area is fully developed, the daily traffic volume on 109th is expected to be approximately 1,500 - 2,000 vehicles per day near Murdock Street. This volume will be substantially reduced if Naeve Street is maintained as a right-turn-only access to Pacific Highway. The new access to Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway will reduce the projected traffic volume on Naeve Street. The new street is expected to carry approximately 1,000 vehicles per day south of Naeve Street when the study area is fully developed. CPA - TRANSPORTATION MAP - APPLICATION - 109TH/NAEVE PAGE 3 i L A more complete traffic report has been prepared by the firm of Kittleson & Associates, Inc., and is available for inspection at City Hall. Land Use Impacts The proposed connection between 109th Avenue and Royalty Parkway will impact several existing properties. Each of the properties has the potential for substantial redevelopment under existing zoning. The owners of the properties north of Naeve Street have indicated that they have development plans that are compatible with the proposed street alignment. South of Naeve Street, the proposed new road runs through properties that are zoned for commercial development. In some cases, the new road would split existing parcels into two lots. Each of the remaining parcels could be legally developed undercurrent zoning laws; however, more attractive commercial parcels could be created by combining the various parcels on each side of the new road. The new road would give these commercial properties-access to Pacific Highway at a signalized intersection, allowing left turns to and from the Highway. Currently, most of the parcels have right-in/right-out access only at private driveways. The parcels would still have frontage on Pacific Highway for good visibility. Under its Access Oregon Highway plan, the State Highway Division will be severely limiting direct access to the Highway for any new development. The Sattler Extension is expected to have only. limited impact on the adjoining properties. When the properties between 100th and 109th are developed, it will be necessary to construct at new street to serve any new lots. The route of the Sattler Extension appears to be the only available access route to 100th. Hence, it appears that a street on the approximate alignment of Sattler Extension would need to be built with future development, even if not required by the Transportation Map. Timing and Funding During the NPO discussions questions were raised about how the proposed roadways would be funded for construction and when. Who will pay for these new roadways? How will construction of the new roadways be coordinated with development of the various properties? Typically, road improvements are constructed at the time of development and funded by the developers. Each development is required to build its piece of the roadway system. Thus, the timing for completion of the proposed roadway system depends on the timing of development. At the NPO meetings, there was concern that the proposed new roadway connection from Naeve Street to Royalty Parkway may need to be completed prior to redevelopment of CPA - TRANSPORTATION MAP - APPLICATION - 109TH/NAEVE PAGE 4 the adjoining properties. Specifically, it was thought that this roadway connection will be needed at the time that the multi-family. residential property north of Naeve is developed. If the road is to be constructed as one project, it will probably be necessary for the City to purchase the necessary right-of-way and construct the road. Potential funding methods have been identified. Actual funding would probably be by some combination of two or more of the following methods: 1. TIF. Development of the properties north of Naeve will generate substantial revenues from Traffic Impact Fees (TIF). If the new road is identified as a TIF- eligible road, the TIF funds could be applied towards construction of the new road. There is a process available for reviewing the list of TIF-eligible roads and adding new roads to the list as a result of a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Council approval would be required. 2. Reimbursement District. If the road were constructed with Citywide funding, a reimbursement district could be created to recover the portion of the cost which would normally be the responsibility of future development. Each development would then repay its share at the time of development. 3. Citywide Street Funds. The collector street would be eligible for funding from citywide street funds derived from gas tax and other sources. The project would have to compete against other priority projects for the use of any citywide funds. Establishment of Exact Alignments The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map describes street alignments in general terms. Precise roadway alignments are usually determined at the time of actual development. The precise alignment is typically based on more detailed engineering and the needs of the specific developments that are proposed. Therefore, the proposed revision describes only the approximate alignment of the future streets. When specific development proposals are considered, there is additional opportunity for public review and comment on the specific alignments. Naeve Street/Pacific Highway Intersection Under its Access Oregon Highway plan, the State Highway Division is endeavoring to reduce the number of access points and crossings of Pacific Highway. If the Royalty Parkway connection is constructed, it is assumed that the State will require the closing of the median at Naeve Street, preventing left turns to and from Pacific Highway. It is possible that right turn access would still be allowed. CPA - TRANSPORTATION MAP - APPLICATION - 109TH/NAEVE PAGE 5 ( Existing 109th Avenue at Naeve Street Existing 109th Avenue north of Naeve Street is a steep narrow gravel roadway. It is intended that this gravel roadway would remain as a local access from Naeve Street to the adjoining properties. It is intended that the gravel roadway would not connect to the minor collector portion of 109th. In the future, when the properties east of 109th are redeveloped, it is intended that the gravel portion of 109th would be eliminated. Conclusions The proposed revision to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map appears to satisfy Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1 by providing a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. In addition, the proposed revision addresses neighborhood concerns as follows: • It reduces the potential for through traffic in Summefeld by eliminating the direct connection to 109th and Naeve. • It provides for emergency vehicle access between Summerfield and Little Bull Mountain by a series of indirect connections. • It eliminates the safety concerns of existing Naeve/Pacific Highway intersection by providing an altemative access at Royalty Parkway. • It provides a new access without requiring any new traffic signals on Pacific Highway. • It is consistent with the Access Oregon Highway standards. -/cpa-*p CPA - TRANSPORTATION MAP - APPLICATION - 109TH/NAEVE PAGE 6 r J"" , y o f GAARDE Sr "McDONALD ST The C i t . T I G A R D Ordinance No. 91-13 Map adopted 06/11 f 91 EX 1St 1 Ilg Comprehensive L9yJF P 1 an Transportation ~ M a p Attachment No. 1 Arterial D. Ma or Collector Minor Collector SATTLER C V~ ST . _ g~ NOTE: Study area j~j`~ ploy ST map only . f or full map see ORD. 91-13. Digital Alto it map repreeee- V IAtien eempiled by the City Q o f I I I a r d 1111 )rill C e e g r a - f6rolial SU M M E R E I E L D elIto Sj n lsoftware. a Syatem C ielor- mat19a portrayal tors may be ietaaded to to aldilioael need Witt. K 0 T $ Iectaicel oad(or inlerpreteliee date oa determinN ►y b 18e Cl ly of iigerd. D R 11 A tb/) RD t08 jY (a 0 bsl (i m l ~s~rs~ a►sy,i~~yorys :..rrr~arrs ~.a~.saosa► p 8 J 1 t) J - GAARQE ST• McDaNALD ST The C it y o f . TIGARD See NOTES on back of page. Proposed c Revision To 9y~~ Comprehensive P 1 a n LN Transportation B U L L X14 U R T A I N Map Attachment No. 2 a a D Arterial Ya or Co lector BATTLER M i n o r Collector Ede` ST. NOTE : Study area pmap only. for SEE NOTE 10. 9 - map see ORD. 13 Digital data it map roprooan- V O R I flan tenPf lod ly tAo Clly ~ el Tlgall aillltiaq Caegra- S U lhta E R F I E L Q ogre Information Syatom CIS) lefioara. lalsr- motion portrayal Info b y~ may he fntaeded la Ae need eilh addilioaU ~O N o S r $ loclnical asd/ar iatupntalin dell as delaroinad by the City of Tigard r►.. DURHAM ~r.~.~..3. RD . D too ZI110P6IO1glaal:g} T} 00 ~ t (STAFF NOTE = Note #10 has not been adopted by the Council - This is language suggested by NPO #6 as part of the original application.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES 1. Scholls Ferry Road to be realigned to connect with Davies Road. 2. Study area to determine a future connection between the Walnut/132nd intersection and the Gaarde/121st intersection. A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report. An indirect connection of minor collectors has been recommended by NPO #3. 3. Approximate alignments are shown for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south of Benchview Terrace, 135th Avenue south of Walnut Street, and Benchview Terrace west of 132nd Avenue. These streets are to be designed as -minor collectors with a design speed of 25 m.p.h.. 4. Study area to determine the configuration of a new connection between southbound Pacific Highway and Main Street. j 5. Study area to determine the alignment of a minor collector street connecting 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension; and with Hampton Street at 72nd Avenue with the Dartmouth Street extension within the westerly portion of the Tigard Triangle. 6. Study area to determine the alignment of connections between Highway 217, Kruse Way, 1-5 and the Tigard Triangle. 7. Connections between Hunziker Street, Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street (generally) and Bonita Road. 8. Study area to consider extension of Hall Boulevard southward to connect with Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin for either pedestrian or vehicular access. 9. (Deleted) 10. An extension of Sattler Street from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue at a point approximately 200 feet north of the existing Sattler _ Street intersection. An extension and realignment of 109th Avenue south of the Sattler Street extension, to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway. The realigned 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet to 450 feet east of Pacific Highway. The opening of 109th Avenue at the top should be contingent upon development of the properties to the east of 109th Avenue. I PAGE 9 1 r e LLLL The City of TIGARD 0 Fr- y Existing cr Street Q System Attachment No. 3 rte' MLFQOCK Arterial Ma or Collector - Minor Collector ~ I WFTT7 010tal data t map npretn- Ielien tenplled by 10 Clly h .p el llgsrl ntili:feq {tegra- -d plit Ifernatlee Syelen ® CIS) software. Isfar- nation portrayed ht,0 nay be ietended to be w aeeJ •ilA e4JitiwatI Ietlsiaal ae filer ~0 \ 0 N O R T H ;nteryret.ti,. Ja,. d(igarl {ityof ® 0 at AMe l [rJ (YP50187) 6B WO p IOD )061ill11) I--~ } } }~.T?~.}fir}}7t.3~3 -e- ?.?"i?3 O The City of TIGARD 0 Y Street System c wi th Proposed Q Revisions TT F-i~ Httachment No, 4 Arterial r~ra-1-~ h18~ o r Collector Minor Collector APPRO T. ATTIER E A L I T N M E T NOTE: Location ;4-_ STREET of nee streets CL0S1)RE is approximate. 0 pre CISe location sr to be determined at the time of ~~pQ detailed design. Mm DR 0{gltal late t m+p r+pr+r+r- 9 IILi.n ennpil+l hT the CIIT of ll0+rd utilitl.0 Clnw.•- -ry-I pllu Inlarn+tlo. STtt/m ~ CIS) prtt' ti mnaT~he ill++d+d tarh+ Y used with +ddilio++l Q o ® g N 0 R T B t+inchlic+l o.d/sr ~ ® lorpn t+lin d+l+ ~j ~ 4 ~ n1h.+CISTialdti0+r1. 614 r 'C 0 JYP100 1~ ~~~~yY -i- ~.y"~?}»>-~7~~•~7} 3 y II00 01106141) The C i ter o f T I G A R D a `L Existing R /2 Zoning COY) Attachment No. 5 T- 4ZL m wA".C H T lp~fl R-/2 R'4. f, L PD (D~ ( N,qF KING -g;; E CITY g3 S ffi~ 1 (P0) Oftlh C Bete d n.p rep re ren l a lien I e hY the Cif} 1a i14 ard eliI itiCg Ca 04rapliC i In tormotian S}e ten (CIS) Cotlrl re. Irfornat roe ? portreyea ler. may a. inlen4rd to He u0ed oilh a ~y o N 4 R T R adailienol technical ~~~CCC aedlor int.rprelali•e .B 0 /'S, oats or Crtermleel ey ~ ~ 'FC C~iV(,(y? tle Liiy of ?igard. VVF ® W fB® D (YPfOHTH) I H00 )06119/11) 14962 SW 109th Ave. Tigard, Oregon, 97224 July 22, 1991 l Planning Dept. _ RECEIVED PLANNING Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 JUL 2 2 1991 Attention: Mr. Jerry Offer Re: NPO #6 Suggested revision of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map of the City of Tigard Dear Members of Planning Commission: I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map of Tigard to be presented for approval at your meeting on July 22, 1991. I would also like this letter to be reviewed by the commission and written into' the record. I am a resident of the 76-unit Canterbury Woods Condominium complex on the east side of 109th where it currently dead ends on the north side of "Little Bull Mountain". I am not writing this letter in an official capacity. However, I have been a board member of our association for the past year and I believe I represent the viewpoint of many of our residents. The proposed opening of 109th at the north end will very definitely impact our quality of life and the development of the Sattler extension as a collector street as suggested would surround us with dense traffic so that we are suddenly transformed from a tranquil treed setting to a busy intersection. I have followed the history of the Triad development application of last year, attended several meetings and watched others on community-access television and I believe that these changes suggested now are directly associated with that development, at the same time appeasing the objections of Sommerfield residents (who do have legitimate concerns). Last year I wrote letters to both the Planning Commission and the City Council detailing my objections to the opening of 109th on the north end, particularly my concern regarding the unsafe aspects of adding more traffic and likely faster speeds on the rather hazardous steep and curving 109th where it approaches Canterbury Lane. Our areas on the north side of this dead- end are now adequately served--to open 109th would serve no useful purpose for this area. When the Triad project was turned down by the Tigard City / Council 11/26/90, Page 11 of their Notice of Final Order, c j 9 Item c., read:--"The applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to prove that it is not possible to establish a direct access for the project onto SW Pacific Highway. The information in the record indicates that such-an entrance to the development would alleviate much of the concern over traffic volumes on SW 109th Ave. A State Highway Division representative indicated that the Division did not favor this proposal, but the record does not confirm that such an access would not be able to gain State Highway Division approval." During one of the hearings regarding this proposal I recall that the owner of church,property bordering th-e proposed development offered to try to share with Triad a process of attempting to work out direct access to 99W. It would still seem that if at all possible Beef Bend Road would be the best solution because it is already set up for traffic lights and also offers an exit to the west as well as north and south. Insofar as an eastward access from the southern slope of the 109th hill it would seem more feasible as well as physically an easier process to open up Naeve to the east at the foot of the hill when/if those properties develop. I believe they are currently zoned for single family residencies and hopefully will stay that way. The proposed Sattler extension would cut through wooded areas, it is not now a dedicated street and I believe should not become one. Thank you for giving consideration to these thoughts. Very truly yours, i Lenore A. Schuster i - t i f - i RECEIVED PLANNING JUL 0 9 1991 ROBERT AND MARTA LUTON P.O. BOX 8041 BLACK BUTTE RANCH, ORE. 97759 JULY 8,1991 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION C/O MR. RANDY WOOLEY TIGARD, OREGON DEAR SIR: I RECENTLY RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION INDICATING A ROAD REALIGNMENT THRU THE PROPERTY I OWN ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND NAEVE ROAD. THE PROPERTY ABOVE HAS BEEN MADE SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR FROM PREVIOUS ROAD DEDICATIONS TO IMPROVE NAEVE ROAD AND THE PROPOSED ROAD ALIGNMENT WOULD PROBABLY RENDER MY ENTIRE PROPERTY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE ANGLES. I WOULD WANT TO OPPOSE ANY ROAD REALIGNMENT THRU MY PROPERTY AS IT HAS BEEN MY INTENT TO EITHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY COMMERCIALLY OR SELL IT TO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AND THIS ALIGNMENT WOULD LIMIT ANY EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. SINCE I LIVE IN CENTRAL OREGON IT 15 NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET WITH THE NPO ON THIS MATTER BUT WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE CITY KEEP ME INFORMED OF THE DISCUSSION OR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED PLEASE CONSIDER THIS LETTER MY OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETNG AND HAVE THE RECORD INDICATE THIS OPPOSITION. 3 1 NCERI~[Y, jlll~ _ ~ ~ ~9..G'~ Gt:.: - `C.1t•.r ~!`'Z"~G c~f~ / .Y~r'L ~C~ .ti L/,G L ~~C.j1 ~ ~ L.. L~ ~''s~Ci. ~ C. Q _ •f ~.~:Q-'~G~~ •L~•GC=LG'..G~-~~ % mac.' ' r Ct~...<_~ ~'-G•f.-(~. `L2-~:/~ `~~--lc.~ G?G~~./_~~. .._~-G-G'. •4 /c..~.~= G~S G~~ /_'-`mac/~~ L ~~_J~'~~z ~r.'i -~-~'-~ic L.~~~/c:~~ ~ :z. - i~ L,~; Ct y,L- G-'~ L% f~G-sz~ _c' e c.~ ij`7.7? C• _ to ..o - ~ 3 c - ? L CSC, < ✓ ~L~/'~ 1-` ~ ~~CG2g7t" 4 [;/•r„c... '=G~~.,~Gi ~ :%2~C.- ._~''lC. •/.f:_. JUL 17 1991 ) UU Li q` SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANIES • LAKE OSWEGO - OpEGON s ' r. ALLEN, FELLOWS, LIVINGSTON & GREIF ATTORNEYS AT LAW RUSSELL M. ALLEN 800 American Bank Building EAST COUNTY: DOUGLAS M. FELLOWS 621 SW Monson 38872 PROCTOR BLVD. J. MILFORD FORD PORTLAND, OREGON 97205-3811 P.O. BOX 1525 THOMAS J. GREIF, P.C. TELEPHONE (503) 2244840 SANDY, OREGON 97055 WILLIAM P. HORTON FACSIMILE NO. (503) 299.6663 TELEPHONE (503) 668-8888 FARRAND M. LIVINGSTON, P.C. FACSIMILE (503) 668-3102 DENNIS M. ODMAN MICHAEL P. RYAN "MEMBERS OREGON & WASHINGTON BARS 1. GRANT MOODY TODD W. WETSEL' GAIL P. VORE August 9, 1991 fC d HAND DELIVERED c Tigard City Council ~cvv~ City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Tigard, Oregon RE: CPA 91-02 Transportation Map Amendment for the 109thfNaeve Area Dear Members of the City Council: ti As part of its application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) No. 6 has proposed a new minor collector street, labeled "Sattle Extension" to connect 100th and 109th Avenues. We represent Mr. Ferd Wardin who owns the largest parcel of undeveloped property that the proposed "Sattler Extension" would cross if the proposal is accepted. Mr. Wardin did not receive notice of the NPO meetings where the long range planning of the street system in this area was discussed. Although a notice was sent to an old business address, that location had been destroyed by fire several years earlier and was not received by Mr. Wardin. No-one from the city or from the NPO ever contacted Mr. Wardin to advise him of the alternatives being considered or of the impact the selected alternative would have to his property. Mr. Wardin did receive a notice of the hearing held before the planning commission on July 22, 1991. He attended that meeting and voiced his opposition to the proposal. He has asked that we call to your attention his concerns, and in particular the effect of adopting the proposed Sattler Extension. Mr. Wardin owns the parcel of property that lies west of 100th Avenue, and across which the Sattler Extension would run. 163 feet of the property fronts on 100th Avenue, but 540 feet to the west it widens to 328 feet. The property is 1300 feet deep. Two homes are on the property. Tigard City Council RE: CPA 91-02 August 9, 1991 Page Two Mr. Wardin objects to that portion of the proposed amendment which would require that Sattler Street be extended to the west across his property and that it be classified as a "minor collector". The basis of his objections are as follows: REDUCTION IN DENSITY Mr. Wardin's property is zoned R 3.5. Harris-McMonagle Associates, Inc., a local engineering firm, projects that the property could be developed into 24 home sites if the current local access road requirement is maintained. Such a requirement would provide that a road through the property would be 50 feet wide with a 34 foot wide improvement (asphalt). If it is mandated that a road across the property be a minor collector, it must then be 60 feet wide with a 40 foot wide improvement. Such an modification would reduce the available building sites on the property to 22. Mr. Wardin projects the actual loss to the owner/ developer that would result from the proposed reclassification to be $120,000. And that does not include the additional cost that would be incurred by the developer to meet minor collector road specifications. This proposed classification will cost Ferd Wardin at least $120,000 at today's values. 3 PROTECTED VEMCLE USE The NPO application projects that only 700 vehicles per day will use the Sattler Extension, even when the area is fully developed. The application admits that "This volume is in the low range for minor collector streets and within the range of tolerable volumes for local streets." A range of 0 - 1500 vehicles per day is suggested for local streets. Minor collectors should have 500 - 3000 vehicles per day using the street. With the low number of projected daily vehicle uses, a minor collector is not a warranted classification for the Sattler Extension. Any road that may ultimately be built upon Mr. Wardin's property should be classified as a local street. There will simply not be enough traffic to justify a minor collector. STREET ALIGNAGWT The proposed location of the Sattler Extension results in a situation where the extension will not be in alignment with Sattler Street as it is now positioned east of 100th Avenue. Vehicles traveling east on the Sattler Extension will have to make a right turn when it intersects with 100th Avenue, travel south on 100th less than 200 feet, and then make a left turn onto Sattler Street in order to travel on this proposed minor collector. If the Sattler Extension is ultimately placed further south on Mr. Wardin's property, then the distance before turning left on to Sattler Street will be even less. The City Community Development Code relating to street alignment provides as follows: Tigard City Council RE: CPA 91-02 August 9, 1991 Page Three G. Street Alignment 1. As far as practical, streets shall be dedicated and constructed in alignment with existing streets by continuing the centerlines thereof. In no case shall the staggering of streets making "T" intersections at collectors and arterials be designed such that jogs of less than 300 feet on such streets are created, as measured from the center line of such street. (Emphasis added) Title 18.164.030G The proposed revision relating to the Sattler Extension violates the city's code relating to street alignment. There would be a "jog" in the minor collector of far less than the minimum required 300 feet. MURDOCK STREET ALTERNATIVE Murdock Street, a short distance to the north of the proposed Sattler Extension, would be a more appropriate minor collector if one is needed in this area. Murdock Street has already been dedicated and is substantially in place. It connects with 98th Avenue and with 109th Avenue. Traffic could be routed east on Murdock to 98th, then south on 98th to Sattler Street where it could continue south to Durham Avenue or east to Hall Blvd. on a street already designated as a minor collector. (This would require that the portion of 98th Avenue between Sattler Street and Murdock be designated as a minor collector.) If Murdock Avenue were designated as the minor collector, it would provide a more naturally located collector for the high density housing through which it runs. ADJACENT DRIVEWAY A driveway approximately 300 feet long runs parallel to the north side of Mr. Wardin's property where it fronts on 100th Avenue. That driveway provides access to two homes on the adjacent property. If the proposed Sattler Extension is adopted, an unacceptable situation will result wherein a 25 foot wide driveway will access onto 100th Avenue directly adjacent to a 60 foot wide minor collector. REMOVAL OF EXISTING HOME If the proposed Sattler Extension is approved and the street is aligned on that portion of Mr. Wardin's property suggested as "approximate" on attachment number 4 of the application, one of the homes presently located on the property would have to be removed. Eventual development may require that the house be removed anyway, but it may be possible for the home and the heritage it represents to remain. The developer should have the option of making that decision. To require that a minor collector nun through the property would mandate the removal of the house. Tigard City Council RE: CPA 91-02 August 9, 1991 Page Four RECOMMENDA'T'IONS (Alternatives) On behalf of Mr. Wardin we respectfully request that the council consider the following alternate modifications to the NPO No. 6 application: 1. Because of the projected low vehicle use (700 vehicles per day) of the proposed Sattler Extension, any road eventually built upon the property should be designated as a local street and not a minor collector. 2. Murdock Street and that portion of 100th Avenue between Murdock and Sattler should be designated as a minor collector. Any road built across the property owned by Mr. Wardin should be designated as a local street. 3. If the proposed Sattler Extension is adopted as a minor collector, then, because of the decreased value resulting from the loss of density, the city of Tigard should share in the developer's cost of building the minor collector. Respectfully Submitted, ALLEN, FELLOWS, LIVINGSTON & GREIF l~exnis Odman DMO:tl cc: Ferd Wardin C OBERT AND MARTA LUTON ?I -t- L ,Fd P.O. BOX 8041 BLACK BUTTE RANCH, ORE. 97759 -D u-n J G,~19g1 FZQ ~~n~: a~ ~~GP T, -yr~ AUGUST 8,1991 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION C/0 MR. RANDY WOOLEY TIGARD, OREGON GUe re6 el /ve</ le Ile vlw~i 64 rPtl DEAR SIR: I RECENTLY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AND NOTICED THAT A COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY YOU WAS NOT NOTED AS PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION. IN A LETTER FROM JOHN ACKER IT STATED THAT MY LETTER WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION AND IT SEEMS THAT BOTH THE ADJOINING LANDOWNERS AND THE COMMISSION WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH THE ECONOMIC IMPACT TO EACH PROPERTY r OWNER IF THIS PLAN IS ADOPTED. AS YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT MATERIALLY AFFECTS THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY ON WHICH I HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING SELLING OR DEVELOPING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE NEW ROAD ALIGNMENT WERE TO ADVERSLY AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUE THAT THE OWNERS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THIS LOSS. ARE THEY? HOW WOULD THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BE TREATED IF THE ROAD ALIGNMENT IS APPROVED AND WHAT IS THE COST TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS? HAS THE CITY COMPUTED THE COST AND METHODS OF FUNDING FOR THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS? HOW WOULD I BE COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF USE OF MY PROPERTY? WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND PRIOR TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AND PRESENT THIS LETTER TO THEM AS MY OPPOSITION TO THE ROAD ALIGNMENT UNTIL THESE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED TO MY SATISFACTION. SINCER Y, I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f r CITY OF TIG ® :F July 10, 1991 OREGON I Robert and Marta Luton P.Q. Box 8041 Black Butte Ranch, OR 97759 Mr. and Ms. Luton: The City of Tigard has received your letter, dated July 8, 1991, concerning proposed Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map amendment in the Little Bull Mountain area (City file number CPA 91-0002). Your letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and become part of the record for the Planning Commission hearing. Hearings for this proposal are scheduled for July 22, 1991 before the Planning Commission and August 13 before the City Council. Both hearings will be at Tigard Town Hall located at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard in Tigard. If we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to write or call. Sincerely Jo Acker ciate Planner i. a ~P .1 L QOLk rl U L August 12,1991 ~CL City Council City of Tigard City Council Members, I am the owner of approximately 22 acres situated at the intersection ,j of Pacific Highway and Naeve Road. I am unable to attend this evenings Council meeting as I will be out of town. I have had my property listed for sale for the past year and half. The property is zoned General Commercial. The sales representative is Robert A. Bailey a Broker with Bailey Real Estate. Mr. Bailey has indicated that we have had many interested parties for purchasing the property for development but since the NPO. the Tigard Planning Commission, and now the City Council have recommended that this property be utilized for a road network to facilitate development of other areas of the city, those interested parties have lost interest in negotiating for the purchase of this site. Under the proposed road improvements on my property I have been told by reliable sources that the property will become virtually undevelopable and therefore its value will greatly diminish. In my discussions with the City representatives they have stated that the City would purchase the property at its fair value when this road is constructed. Unfortunately, if the City plan is approved my cost of holding the property as well as maintaining the property (in conformance with City standards) continues to increase. Unless the City agrees to purchase my property shortly after the approval of the transportation plan then I must oppose its adoption, as I will be provided no opportunity to market the property but my costs will continue. Should the Council approve the road transportation plan then I would request that the Council instruct the City representatives to provide economic information that would provide adequate funding for road improvements in an expediant manner so as not to create economic hardship on any property owner such as I. I would request that the City have adequate funding to acquire all properties that would be adversely impacted by adoption of this plan. Also, it seems that prior to adoption to this plan that the cost to the City, developers, and adjoining land owners should be considered to determine if the plan can ever be implemented in a feasible economic manner which will cause the actual improvements to ultimately be constructed. Sin a ely, R ert C. uton A% j cc: Randy, City Engineer .t f L, p - !--tap 14962 SW 109th Ave. Tigard, Oregon, 97224 August 8, 1991 Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 RE: NPO #6 Suggest Revision of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map of the City of Tigard Dear Members of Tigard City Council: I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map of Tigard to be presented for approval at your meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 13. I would like this letter to be reviewed by the council and written into the record. I am an owner and resident of the 76-unit Canterbury Woods Condominium complex on the east side of 109th where it currently dead ends on the north side of "Little Bull Mountain". I am not writing this letter in an official capacity. However, I have been a board member of our association for the past year and I believe I represent the viewpoint of many of our + residents. I have previously written to you in regard to the proposal of Triad Development Co. stating my opinion that 109th is a dangerous street to be used as a collector or through-street. The proposed opening of 109th at the north end will very definitely impact our area in a negative way, and the development of the Settler extension as a collector street as suggested would compound the detrimental effect It almost seems as though we were deliberately "targeted" as the suggested Settler extension takes a dip northward to go right up to our property line. Since this is a "general plan" with suggested routes, depending on future development, it would have made more sense to show it as a straight line extended from the present Settler. If future development requires modification it could be renegotiated at that time. As of now our complex ALREADY EXISTS--and 76 households are directly affected. Future developments could consider the plans for an east-west route when they make their plans-- before building. ~V y truly our Lenore A. Schuster AUG 12 1991 ; { S CITY OF TIGARD COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: August 2. 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Amend OTHER ACTION: None condition of approval 1.a.(1) of Final Order STIB 91-0008 DEPT HEAD OR PREPARED BY: Planning Staff CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: City Council ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend condition of approval 1.a.(1) of Final Order SUB 91-0008 Four D Construction? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the requested amendment by adopting the attached resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY A public hearing was held by the Hearings Officer on June 24, 1991 regarding the Four D Construction application referred to as Subdivision SUB 91-0008. The City Council has called up this item to consider a change to the Final Order, Condition 1.a, of SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) as approved by the Hearings Officer. See attached memo from Randy Wooley. It is recommended that Section 1.a of the Hearing Officer's decision (on page 11 of the Final Order) be amended to add a paragraph (3) as shown on the attached resolution to require street improvement on SW Walnut Street: (3) The option in paragraph (2) above shall be accepted only if the applicant can show, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the improvements described in paragraph (1) are not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards. Attachments include: 1) Memorandum from Randy Wooley, City Engineer and, 2) Relevant portions of the Hearings Officer's Final Order, Pages 8-12. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the attached resolution amending the Final order. 2. Deny the attached resolution. FISCAL NOTES None C rp/Sub91-08.sum i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 91-_&J_ IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (SUB 91-0008) PROPOSED BY FOUR D CONSTRUCTION. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Land Use Hearings officer reviewed the case at a public hearing on June 24, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Hearings officer approved the application subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of August 13, 1991 upon the request of the City of Tigard Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the appeal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that the requested appeal is APPROVED and the Hearings officer's decision is amended based upon the facts, findings, conclusions, and conditions of approval noted in Exhibit "A" (Memorandum from the City Engineer), and Exhibit "B" (Relevant portions of the Hearings officer's final order, Pages 8-12) as follows (amendment underlined): (1) Improve SW Walnut Street adjoining the site, including sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities. Improvements shall be designed and built to major collector street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. If the Engineering Department determines that a new vertical alignment is required, the applicant shall provide half-street improvements including interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the westbound lane. The profile of SW Walnut Street shall extend 300 feet on either side of the subject site showing existing grade and proposed future grade. The applicant shall provide to the City Engineering Department a copy of a facility permit from the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation before Beginning Work on the SW Walnut Street right-of-way. (2) Execute an agreement that will run with the land and will bind future purchasers agreeing not to remonstrate against formation of a local improvement district to improve Walnut Street in the future, and improve the drainage ditch along the south side of Walnut Street to accommodate planned storm water discharge. An executed copy of the agreement not to remonstrate shall be provided to the Traffic Engineering Department. (3) The option in paragraph (2) above shall be accepted only if the applicant can show, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the improvements described in paragraph (1) are not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter. PASSED: This day of , 1991. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard C rp/sub91-08.res RESOLUTION NO. 90- Page 1 k t E MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Ron Pomeroy, Assistant Planner July 31, 1991 FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer SUBJECT: SUB 91-0008, Four D Construction BACKGROUND: The proposed subdivision was approved by the Hearings Officer on July 11, 1991. However, during the appeal period, the decision was called up by the City Council for review. The Council indicated that their review would be limited to consideration of the requirements for improvements to Walnut Street along the subdivision frontage. FINDINGS: The proposed subdivision has approximately 220 feet of frontage on SW Walnut Street. The portion of Walnut Street abutting the subdivision is within the City; most of the remainder of Walnut Street in this area is outside of the Citv. All of Walnut Street in the area, including the portion within the City, remains a Countv road under County jurisdiction. 4 In the past, the County has indicated that the City may require improvements to a County road as a condition of development, as long as the required improvement conforms to adopted County road standards. However, the County cannot require such improvements. Typically, the City requires that developers improve the streets abutting the development, unless such improvements are not practical. Typically, the County does not require street improvements. The County typically requires only sidewalk improvements and accepts a waiver of remonstrance for a future LID to improve abutting streets. This difference in standards continues to cause confusion when a County street adjoins a development that is within the Citv. Initially, a City staff member informed the developer that improvements to Walnut would need to be in conformance with County requirements. Washington County recommended only a sidewalk and a waiver of remonstrance, in accordance with County policy. The developer assumed that the County recommendation is all that would be required. However, in the report from City staff, it was recommended that improvements be required on Walnut Street, in accordance with City policy; the improvements would need to be to County road standards. 4 During the hearing, these mixed recommendations became further confused by discussion of improvements elsewhere on Walnut Street. ~t~i Al 1 n a The Hearings Officer concluded that staff were amending their recommendation. However, that was not the staff's intention. Based on the misunderstanding, the Hearing officer's decision gives the developer the choice of making street improvements or signing a waiver of remonstrance. Although the misunderstanding is now recognized by staff and Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer cannot now amend the decision. The Council, however, could amend the decision. A review of the site reveals no reasons why the street improvements could not be completed at this time in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. We recommend that the Hearings Officer's decision be amended to require improvements to Walnut Street, unless the applicant can show that such improvements are not practical. RECOMMENDATIONS: In Section 1.a of the Hearings Officer's decision (on page 11 of the Final Order) add a paragraph (3) as follows: (3) The option in paragraph (2) above shall be accepted only if the applicant can show, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the improvements described in paragraph (1) are not feasible due the inability to achieve proper design standards. rw/sub91-08 i f OXxNarT -6 V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Compliance with Community Development Co&. 1. The proposed lots comply with the use standards of the R-4.5 zone, because they will be used for single family detached dwelling units. The lots comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4.5 zone, because they each contain at least 7500 square feet and a minimum average lot width of 50 feet. Therefore, the subdivision complies with Chapter 18.50. 2. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 18.88 because: a. Lots 8 through 13 meet the basic design standard of a 90-foot north-south lot dimension and front lot line oriented within 30' of a true east-west line. b. None of the other lots meet the basic design standard. However, an adjustment is warranted pursuant to Section 18.88.440(E), because the proposed internal road must be continued north-south through the site. Compliance with the basic design standard would conflict with the planned street pattern, reduce the permitted number of lots, and substantially increase per unit costs of development. 3. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92, because the net developable area of the site divided by 4.5 units per acre equals 20.8 lots and only 19 lots are proposed. 4. 4. The proposed subdivision can comply with Chapter 18.102, because there are no natural sight distance constraints at road intersections, and the Hearings Officer assumes frontage lot setback requirements will be adhered to. A sign at the entry to the subdivision could obstruct visibility. However, such a sign requires a permit from the City, and the Hearings Officer assumes the City will not issue such a permit will if it violates sight distance regulations. 5. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.108, because all lots have at least 30 feet of frontage on a public street and adequate width drives can be built in each frontage. 6. Chapter 18.114 establishes standards for sizes and locations of signs. Such sign(s) require a permit from the City, and cannot exceed 32 square feet per side. The Hearings Officer assumes the City will require compliance with this Chapter before issuing a permit for a sign. 7. The applicant will remove a small number of trees to provide for public rights of way and utilities and building sites. Chapter 18.150 defines the criteria for tree removal. Therefore, a tree survey and careful site planning is warranted to assure preservation of a maximum number of trees and to facilitate City enforcement of Chapter 18.150. 8. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.160, because: a. It complies with the Comprehensive plan map designation of the site, the applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R-4.5 zone, and other applicable ( regulations. Page 8 - Hearings Offuer decision - SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) b. The proposed name of the subdivision is not duplicative. c. The roads in and adjoining the site conform to the road pattern in the area and provide for needed east-west cross-circulation. 9. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.164, because: a. The applicant will dedicate roads adjoining and within the site to City standards, and will improve SW Walnut Street with a minimum 22 foot half-width paved section with curb, gutter and sidewalk or will execute an agreement not to remonstrate against future improvement by the County. b. Proposed streets will have a grade of 12%n or less. c. Lots are not more than 2-1/2 deeper than the lot width and have at least 25 feet of frontage on a street d. All streets on the site will be improved with sidewalks. e. All lots will be served by public water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems. Conditions are warranted requiring granting of easements for the storm sewer system and other utilities where they cross private property, and requiring the applicant to submit a plan showing the location of existing utilities that will be retained. Conditions are also warranted requiring the applicant to show that the downstream surface water system can accommodate peak storm runoff from the r without exceeding the capacity of the system or causing water to overflow onto adjoining private property. B. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies. 1. The subdivision complies with Policy 2.1.1, because notice of the application or hearing was provided to the neighborhood planning organization in the area and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. The concerns raised by the witnesses appearing at the June 24 hearing have been considered in reaching this decision. 2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to require the prospective developer to prepare an erosion plan insuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River Basin as part of the grading permit application. 3. The subdivision complies with Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4, because the applicant will extend public sewer and water system to the site. In addition, the applicant will contribute funds in lieu of providing an on site storm water quality treatment facility and will show that existing drainage ways are adequate to accommodate storm water from the site and that storm water will not adversely affect downstream properties. The applicant will also provide underground utilities. Detailed public facility improvement plans need to be prepared and approved. 4. The subdivision complies with Policy 8. 1.1 and 8.1.3, because the street system on and adjoining the site will be unproved to City standards or frontage improvements will be deferred subject to an agreement not to remonstrate against future improvements. Page 9 - Hearings Ogicer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) C. Other To comply with the Uniform Building Code, a condition is warranted requiring the applicant to obtain a demolition permit before structures are removed form the site. VI. SITE VISIT BY EXAMINER The Hearings Officer visited the site of the proposed subdivision. VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed subdivision will promote the general welfare of the City, and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding land uses, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal law. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the Hearings Officer hereby approves SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove), subject to the following conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND COMPLETION OF PUBLIC R"ROVEMENTS FINANCIALLY SECURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEER CHRIS DAVIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 1. The applicant shall submit two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings to the Engineering Department for preliminary review and approval. The applicant shall submit seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate. The plans and estimate shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in Oregon. These plans are in addition to plans required by the Building Division and should include only those sheets relating to public improvements. The plans shall include at least the following: a. The applicant will dedicate right of way for Walnut Street adjoining the site as needed for a 33-foot half-width.. The description of the dedication shall be tied to the existing right of way centerline. The dedication shall be on City forms. Contact the Engineering Department for instructions. The applicant also will either. (1) Improve SW Walnut Street adjoining the site, including sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities. Improvements shall be designed and built to major collector street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. If the Engineering Department determines that a new vertical alignment is required, the applicant shall be provide half-street improvements including interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the westbound lane. The profile of SW Walnut Street shall extend 300 feet on either side of the subject site showing existing grade and proposed future grade. The applicant shall provide to the City Engineering Department a copy of a facility permit from the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation before beginning work on the SW Walnut Street right-of-way; or _ Page 10 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Wa1nw Grove) (2) Execute an agreement that will run with the land and will bind future purchasers agreeing not to remonstrate against formation of a local improvement district to improve Walnut Street in the future, and improve the drainage ditch` - along the south side of Walnut Street to accommodate planned storm water discharge. An executed copy of the agreement not to remonstrate shall be provided to the Traffic Engineering Department. b. The applicant will dedicate to the City a minimum 50-foot right of way for the north-south street on the site and grant to the City a 1-foot reserve strip at the terminus of the local internal street. c. The applicant will make full-width street improvements for the internal street, - including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities. Improvements shall be designed and built to local street standards. d. The applicant shall locate driveway cuts at least 30 feet from intersection right of way lines and at least 5 feet from property lines. e. The applicant shall submit storm drainage details, including calculations for and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, propgsed, and future lines shall be noted. The applicant shall show that storm water runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageway without significantly impacting properties downstream. f. The applicant shall submit a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of the curb elevations as shown on the public improvement plans. g. The applicant shall submit a proposal that shows a logical westward extension of the proposed internal street. h. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of an erosion controi plan. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook," November, 1989. 2. The applicant shall pay a fee in-lieu of building on-site water quality facilities. 3. The applicant shall execute and record a maintenance and access easement for all storm drain outfalls on private property, using forms provided by the City. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department before it is recorded. 4. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: a. Centerline monumentation shall comply with ORS 92.060(2) before the City accepts a street improvement. ( b. The following centerline monuments shall be set: Page 11 - Hearings Offuer decision SUB 91-0008 (WaInx Grove) (1) All centerline-centerline intersection points; (2) All cul de sac center points; and (3) Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). c. Monument boxes conforming to City standards are required around all centerline intersection points and cul de sac center points. The tops of all monuments boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 5. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the plans but prior to starting any work on the site. The applicant, applicant's engineer, and contractor shall attend this meeting before receiving approved plans/permits- 6. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or a construction compliance agreement has been executed The applicant shall provide a 100% performance assurance or letter of commitment and a developer-engineer agreement, and shall pay a permit fee and a sign installation/street light fee. 7. The applicant shall submit evidence that the right-of-way on the west boundary of the property has been vacated or the City Council has approved the vacation before any trees are removed, construction drawings approved or public improvements begun; provided, the City Engineer may authorize removal of trees and construction of public improvements if the applicant complies with other requirements of this decision and the City Engineer concludes use of the right of way for a street will not be adversely by such development. 8. The applicant shall grant to the City a minimum 15-foot public drainage easement between lots 8 and 9, and shall modify the face of the plat to show the easement. 9. The applicant shall grant to the City a minimum 15-foot wide sanitary seever easement for the sanitary sewer line contained within the property. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department before recording, shall be executed on City forms, and shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. 10. The applicant shall grant easements to the City as necessary to provide adequate access by the (Sty's maintenance personnel and equipment to manholes on private property, subject to approval of the City's Operations Department. 11. The applicant shall provide evidence to the County that sight distance at the proposed access is adequate. 12. The applicant shall adequately illuminate access to SW Walnut Street. 13. Unless that applicant can show that lots can be served by a public drain, private storm drains shall be provided as specified on the file copy of the preliminary plan, except as otherwise approved by the Engineering Department. Easements shall be provided where private storm lines cross other lots. A joint access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded with each lot accessing a private storm drain. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 1 s Page 12 - !Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) `f i?. 14. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit before removing existing buildings on the site. The septic tank shall be completely pumped out, the tank removed, the site inspected after tank removal and a receipt or copy from the pumping company provided. 15. All lots shall be graded to a maximum slope of 2:1 or a report shall be submitted by an engineer justifying a steeper slope, including foundation excavation and fill slope. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 16. The applicant shall submit soil compaction reports to the City Building Division for all fills before building permit issuance. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171). 17. The applicant shall obtain a permit before connecting any existing home to the public sewer system. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 18. Minimum building setbacks on all parcels are as follows: Front yard 20 feet Comer yard 15 feet Garage 20 feet Side yard 5 feet Rear yard ...............15 feet Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 19. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit before erecting any sign. The sign shall comply with the Community Development Code with regard to size and location, including vision clearance at road intersections. Contact Victor Adonri, Planning Division (639-4171). 20. Removal of trees or grading must be approved by the Planning Division pursuant to a tree removal permit Trees larger than 6 inches diameter measured 4 feet above grade shall be removed only where necessary to construct streets, utilities, and residences. A copy of the tree removal permit shall be available on-site during all tree removal and grading activities. Contact Victor Adonri, Planning Division (639-4171). 21. Fire hydrant locations shall be coordinated with and approved by the Tigard Water District Contact Gene Birchill, Fire District #1(526-2501). SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS RECORDED WITHIN 18 MONTH OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. DATED s ay of '1991. Larry Epstein cer Page 13 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) t r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: I-5 at Highway PREVIOUS ACTION: 217 Kruse Way ODOT recommendatiorP PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK7ZZ CITY ADMIN OK i REQUESTED BY: - ISSUE BEFOR THE COUNCIL Shall the Council endorse the recommendations of the Draft Hearing Study Report for the I-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange Project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution endorsing the Report's conclusions and stating specific City concerns to be addressed in the final design. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has released its Draft Hearing Study Report for the Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange project. The Report contains ODOT's recommendations for the design of the project. ODOT has requested approval of the draft report and the recommended design by the local jurisdictions. After local jurisdiction approvals have been received, the project will proceed to detailed final design. Currently, ODOT expects to begin construction on Phase I of the project in 1993. At the August 13th Council meeting, ODOT representatives will be present to explain the design recommendation and to answer questions. Staff analysis and recommendations are attached. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the draft report and design recommendations. 2. Approve the report and recommendations with additional comments or reservations. 3. Request revisions to the report or recommendations. FISCAL NOTES All proposed funding for the project is from State and Federal sources. rw/cc-I-5 w MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator August 1, 1991 FROM: Randy Wooley, City Enginee SUBJECT: I-5 @ Highway 217/Kruse Way Draft Hearing Study Report Last November, ODOT held a public hearing to consider options for reconstruction of the I-5/217 Interchange. The project also involves reconstruction of the 217/72nd Avenue Interchange. At the hearing, a majority of those testifying supported Alternative A. This is the alternative that would re-route Highway 217 on an alignment north of Farmers Insurance, using tunnels under I-5 for the connections between 217 and I-5. This alternative was reviewed last fall in the joint meeting between the Tigard and Lake Oswego councils. Advantages to Alternative A include minimum impacts on developed properties, less disruption to Highway 217 during construction, some potential cost savings, and improved aesthetics. Under Alternative A, the new ramps will be mostly at grades lower than the surrounding properties, minimizing visual impacts. Subsequent to the hearing, ODOT discovered some problems with the Alternative A design for the 217/72nd Avenue interchange. As proposed, there was insufficient distance between the 72nd interchange ramps and the Highway 99W interchange ramps. Also, the design did not lend itself as well to phased construction. ODOT is now proposing an alternative called Alternative A Modified. It is the same as the original Alternative A, except for the 72nd Avenue interchange configuration. The proposal is shown on pages 25 and 26 of the Hearing Study Report. The modified design fully meets ODOT standards for ramp spacing and allows better coordination with the proposed construction phasing. For more discussion, see page 23 of the Report. I recommend that the City approve the proposed Alternative A Modified. It appears to meet the project goals. It can be phased with less disruption to existing traffic than other alternatives. It provides improved access to the Tigard Triangle. In approving the proposal, I recommend that ODOT be asked to consider the following items during the final design: 1. Southbound 217 ramps at 72nd Avenue. As I understand ODOT's intention, the existing ramps between southbound 217 and 72nd Avenue would remain in place and open to traffic until new i a ramps are constructed in Phase II. However, this intention is not clear in the Study Report. I recommend that it be stated in the City's approval. 2. Detours on Citv streets. During certain portions of the construction, it is likely that some freeway ramp traffic will need to be detoured onto City streets. For example, during ramp construction at 72nd Avenue, it may be necessary to use 68th Avenue and Hampton Street for access between 217 and 72nd Avenue. If so, traffic volumes and heavy truck loadings will be increased on the local streets. I feel that ODOT should provide any additional pavement thickness, traffic lanes, traffic signals, and other traffic controls needed to accommodate detoured traffic. Details should be worked out during the final design process. rw/sr-I5 r DRAFT HEARING STUDY REPORT INTERSTATE 5 AT HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE r. I t r i f _ v y Via. ~Q:!,..., y .-r ••1,.;,~:. 1 INTERSTATE 5 @ HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE Pacific Highway Washington County J HEARING STUDY REPORT ! 1 1 Approved Approved (Date) (Date) Abstract: i 1 l i OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY DIVISION s:. ;x 3i i i HEARING STUDY REPORT i i INTERSTATE 5 @ HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE PACIFIC HIGHWAY WASHINGTON AND CLACKAMAS COUNTIES JULY 1991 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT UNIT l 3 HEARING STUDY REPORT { 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way f TABLE OF CONTENTS \ i RECOMMENDATION .........................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................1 History and Existing Facilities .......................................................................1 Purpose of Project ......................................................................................1 Project Development 2 Project Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................2 i PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................5 ; Alternatives ..............................................................................................5 No Build Alternative 5 ; Alternative A ............................................•........................................5 r, Alternative B 6 Project Cost and Funding 9 Project Impacts 10 PUBLIC HEARING ...........................................................................................13 Hearing Testimony 13 Summary of Concerns and Sensitive Issues 14 State-Agency Comments 14 Comments and Responses 15 Oral Testimony at the November 29, 1990 Public Hearing 15 Card Comments Received at the November 29, 1990 Public Hearing 18 Written Transmittals 18 Written State Agency Comments 20 i PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................23 Description of Alternative A Modified 23 Phased Construction of Alternative A Modified 24 Estimated Costs of Alternative A Modified 27 Issues and Facts Leading to Recommendation 27 Project Schedule 28 j Design Considerations 28 I, Final Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities 29 APPENDIX A - HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY A-1 1 i wrriWUW 1:prejla14419Veporra%hearardy.doe Draft - J%hy 24, 1991 i. t r ti f HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way , LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Estimated Project Costs 9 Table 2 - Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative 11, 14 Table 3 -Summary of Hearing Testimony Table 4 - Estimated Costs - Modified Alternative A 27 Table 5 - General Project Schedule 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2 - Alternative A Hearing Study Map 7 Figure 3 - Alternative B Hearing Study Map 8 Figure 4 - Alternative A Modified Hearing Study Map 25 Figure 5 - Alternative A Modified Construction Phasing w&Mw%Lwr 1:protb144181npCrt*VWW*tdy.dcc Drnh - JWY 24. 1881 1 Fr C f t l HEARING STUDY REPORT r 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way i RECOMMENDATION j The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) recommends that the interchange improvement concept of Alternative A Modified be advanced to construction. This alternative will improve the safety and operation of the Interstate 5 at Highway 217 interchange by providing direct freeway connections between Interstate 5 and Highway 217. The alternative will improve traffic flow on Interstate 5, Highway 217, and local streets by improving freeway capacity and separating freeway traffic from local traffic. The alternative will also improve access to the surrounding area. The improvements will be implemented in two phases. At completion of both phases, the improved interchange will have the capacity to accommodate projected Year 2015 traffic volumes at a level of service commensurate with urban conditions. The Alternative A Modified concept was developed from Alternative A in response to testimony received and to scheduling revisions and re-prioritization of highway improvement projects in the general area. The modifications are described and illustrated in this study report. I I ' l 1 i l I. . t wsrriw%uar 1:projV 144184sportsrhssrstdy.don Draft • July 24, 1991 r 111 t i HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 1 ( INTRODUCTION The Hearing Study Report summarizes events leading up to and through the public hearing held on the proposed design for this project. The report summarizes the public involvement in the development of the alternative designs, describes the alternatives, discusses major issues involved in the project, discusses the facts that led ODOT to recommend that the project be advanced to engineering and construction, and responds to hearing testimony, questions, and comments. The project area extends along Interstate 5 from Carman Drive on the south to Haines Road on the north, and along Highway 217 from S.W. 72nd Avenue on the west to the Kruse Oaks ! vicinity on the east. The project area is shown in Figure 1. History and Existing Facilities Interstate 5, Highway 217, S.W. 72nd Avenue, and Kruse Way are the major roads in the project area. Interstate 5 is the primary north-south route through the Portland area. This freeway carries large volumes of local and commuter traffic, as well as long-distance recreational and commercial traffic. Highway 217 is a major freeway connecting Interstate 5 with the Sunset Highway, the Beaverton area, and destinations further west and north. The existing interchange between 1-5 and Highway 217 provides connections for all directions of traffic. The interchange is primarily controlled by traffic signals; only one traffic movement, from southbound Highway 217 to southbound Interstate 5, does not pass through a traffic signal. Kruse Way is a major arterial connecting Interstate 5 with the area to the east. This four-lane arterial serves the commercial properties on the east side of the freeway, and is a major route between Interstate 5 and take Oswego. At present, Kruse Way connects directly to Highway 217 at the Interstate 5 interchange. East of the interchange, Kruse Way is constructed to boulevard standards, with two through lanes in each direction, a landscaped median, turning lanes at intersections, and access control. A separate bikeway has been constructed along portions of Kruse Way. Southwest 72nd Avenue is a primary north-south street in the City of Tigard. The S.W. 72nd Avenue bridge across Highway 217 provides the only access from the portion of Tigard south of Highway 217 to the "Tigard Triangle" area between Interstate 5 and Highway 99W. At the present time, S.W. 72nd Avenue has been improved to three-lane collector street standards from Upper Boones Ferry Road north to Hampton Street. The remainder of the street, north of Hampton Street in the Tigard Triangle, is currently constructed to local access street standards. i Purpose of Project 1 The interchange at Interstate 5 and Highway 217 was built approximately 20 years ago. Until recently, the interchange has been adequate for the traffic demands it served. However, with increases in traffic volumes resulting from continued development of Lake Oswego, Tigard, and areas further to the west and north, traffic delays and congestion now occur regularly during peak periods. Most of the traffic at the interchange travels between Highway 217 and Interstate 5 south of Highway 217. Delays and congestion occur most frequently at the northbound exit from Interstate 5 to Highway 217, on the Highway 217/Kruse Way bridge wwiw%w 1:proj4144184epw1s%hswstdy.doe Draft . J W y 24. 1991 i i I HEARING STUDY REPORT 2 1-5 at Highway 2171Kruse Way ? crossing Interstate 5, and on the approach to the ramp connecting southbound Highway 217 to l southbound Interstate 5. Delays, congestion, and the accompanying safety problems will worsen as traffic volumes continue to grow. Designs for improvements to the interchange need to consider not only the existing traffic volumes, but also future demands. The intent of this project is to determine the best alternatives for alleviating traffic problems, not just in the near term but also well into the I fixture. Future needs are based upon year 2015 traffic demand forecasts prepared by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Highway Division Region 1 Transportation Analysis t Unit. The effectiveness of possible alternatives is measured by the ability to serve the design l year traffic volumes. 1 Project Development The basic purpose of the location, design, and development of alternatives phase of the project has been to develop and evaluate feasible alternatives for improving traffic flow and capacity at the interchange of Interstate 5 with Highway 217. ODOT contracted with an interdisciplinary team led by Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff (HNTB), a consulting engineering firm, to develop design alternatives for improvements to the Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way interchange. The development of alternative designs began in the fall of 1987. At that time, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to assist in the development of alternative designs. The TAC included representatives of the Federal Highway Administration, ODOT, Tri-Met, the Metropolitan Service District (Metro), Clackamas County, Washington County, the City of Lake Oswego, and the City of Tigard. The TAC met a total of seven times during the planning process. To provide a location where property owners and interested individuals could informally express their opinions and obtain pertinent information, a field office was established within the project area. The project office was open between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. two afternoons per week for a seven-month duration beginning in December, 1988. Two public information meetings were held during the alternatives development process, in February of 1988 and June of 1989. A third public information meeting was held prior to the public hearing, in November of 1990. i i Project Goals and Objectives i Input from the TAC was used to develop a set of goals and objectives for the project. The project goal is to develop alternatives which will improve the safety and operation of the interchange. Within this goal are multiple objectives addressing the operation of the freeways and local streets, as well as impacts on adjacent private property. The intent of the objectives can be abbreviated to the following: to improve the operation of Interstate 5 through the project area where feasible, minimizing adverse impacts; to be compatible with city and county transportation and land use plans; and to construct the improvements in logical, long-term increments with minimal impacts on existing traffic operations. Stated more fully, the individual objectives are: 1. To ensure that the interchange improvements also improve the safety and operation of Interstate 5 where feasible, and that adverse impacts on Interstate 5 are minimal or nonexistent; wrrforUm 1: W qle 144191repo ns%heanwy.a« I Draft - J W y 24. 1991 i HEARING STUDY REPORT r 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 3 r f 0 1~ 1~~ ®M 1 TKiARD s 1 J.W. T2NO AVE. 1 1,y 5 WASHINGTON Co.__ 17- I 9~ F ~ t m PROJECT AREA w \ cc x LAKE OSWEGO r FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP 1 wrriorlwl:proj1m 14418\t&pon*\h** mdY•doc Drat . AAy 44, 1991 s i~ G } i t HEARING STUDY REPORT 4 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 2. To provide an interchange configuration that promotes traffic flow patterns compatible with city and county land use and transportation plans; 3. To avoid improvements to the freeway which directly or indirectly encourage freeway traffic to use surface streets; 4. To design the freeways, ramp terminals, and surface streets, using desirable design standards, to operate at level of service "C" through the 2015 design year; but also to } ensure that individual sections of freeway are not improved to such extents that the , improved sections have much greater capacity than adjacent, unimproved sections; 5. To minimize impacts of the improvements on adjacent private property; 6. To maintain adequate access to the west Lake Oswego area from the f Interstate 5/Highway 217 interchange; 7. To maintain adequate access to the City of Tigard from Interstate 5 and Highway 217; 8. To construct the'improvements while traffic operations are maintained; 9. To maintain pedestrian and bicycle traffic on all designated pedestrian and bicycle routes; 10. To implement improvements in phases, that spread costs over many years. The project objectives were used to evaluate the large number of alternatives considered during the project development process. The alternatives advanced in the Environmental Assessment ; best meet these criteria. I I i 1 4 ~ } wwriwWwri wools 144194ap*rUVavsldy.det Drstt. Ady 24. 1991 f { t i f HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 5 i PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed improvements to the Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way interchange would address existing and anticipated future problems in the project area with four primary elements, listed below. ■ Direct freeway-to-freeway connections would be provided between Interstate 5 and Highway 217 for the heaviest traffic demands. ■ Collector-distributor roadways would reduce the total volume of traffic on Interstate 5 between Carman Drive and Haines Road. The collector-distributor roadways are needed to improve weaving and merging problems that exist between the Highway 217/Kruse Way and Carman DrivefUpper Boones Ferry Road interchanges. I ■ Kruse Way would be extended west, from Interstate 5 to S.W. 72nd Avenue, within the existing Highway 217 corridor. Separation of freeway traffic from local traffic between S.W. 72nd Avenue and Interstate 5 would eliminate weaves on Highway 217 between these points. ■ Specific ramp and intersection elements on S.W. 72nd Avenue and Kruse Way would be rebuilt to provide needed capacity for future traffic growth. Alternatives Two interchange concepts, "Alternative A" and "Alternative B," providing the four primary elements described above, were advanced to the hearing study phase of the project. The two alternatives were developed to an equivalent level of detail, sufficient to determine environmental impacts, evaluate operational characteristics, and prepare preliminary construction cost estimates. In addition to these two concepts, a "do-nothing", or No Build, alternative has been evaluated. No Build Alternative f Under the No Build Alternative, the existing freeway configuration in the project area would be unchanged. The only significant capacity improvements that would be built in the area would be those related to the future widening of Highway 217 to six lanes between S.W. 72nd Avenue and Sunset Highway. South of the project area, auxiliary lanes are currently under construction on Interstate 5 between the Carman Drive and I-205 interchanges. Projected growth in traffic volumes would result in capacity deficiencies throughout the project area. Alternative A Alternative A (Figure 2) would provide separate corridors for Highway 217 and Kruse Way between Interstate 5 and S.W. 72nd Avenue. Direct freeway connections between Highway 217 and Interstate 5 south of Kruse Way would be depressed below existing ground level. Collector-distributor roads would be used in the Interstate 5 corridor to separate freeway r through traffic and freeway-to-freeway traffic from local traffic. Kruse Way would be extended l west to S.W. 72nd Avenue, where it would connect directly to Hunziker Street, forming a new surface street route between Lake Oswego and downtown Tigard. The number of intersections on S.W. 72nd Avenue at the Highway 217 interchange would be reduced from four to two i while providing for all traffic movements currently served by this interchange. Sixty-eighth w arrierWar1:projb144181reportaUxaratdy.doo Draft - July 24. 1991 i 1 HEARING STUDY REPORT 6 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Parkway would be extended south to Kruse Way, providing an additional access point to the Tigard Triangle from the regional arterial system. Alternative B Alternative B (Figure 3) would utilize the existing Highway 217 corridor between Interstate 5 r and Highway 217 for all traffic movements between these points. The direct freeway connections would be provided via elevated "flyover" ramps. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B would reduce conflicts between freeway through traffic and local ramp traffic by incorporating collector-distributor roadways. Ramps would be provided from Kruse Way to J S.W. 72nd Avenue and Highway 217; a direct connection to Hunziker,Street from S.W. 72nd Avenue would be eliminated. Hunziker Street would be connected to Hampton Street by a bridge over Highway 217. The S.W. 72nd Avenue interchange with Highway 217 would be modified to a simple diamond configuration, reducing the number of signalized intersections from the existing four to three. No additional access would be provided to the Tigard Triangle under Alternative B. I E I i r i waniwknr1:proj1a144194epons4xustdy.doe Draft - JWy 24. 1991 f F k::- ALTERNATE "A" F ~ ~ ~ cn S 1/1M M /fir 1 I 3 M i r~1r ~stwet~ j ®lOC1~ X010 OREGON DEPARTI~NT OF TRANSPORTATION . w.: wo n~a~r"ac ~o"os DESIGN HEARING lNAP -5 I H Y 17 / KR AY ~ SE T H 2 I C G U ®s,~,~ ~~~"Y PACIFIC HIGHWAY HIGHWAY °gSTMO"0AD11Ar'~'D1'"~ CLACKAMAS /WASHINGTON COUNTIES m ~ ~ ~ 1990 I FIGURE 2 B-13-91 AGENDA #6 .x. ~ l 1 OF 3 . _ t ~ ~ .j~ ~ ~ MDiE:,'aF,'1b1611ff~OF s `t,. ' F z , , r . ~ IEtOR161pA1. ` ~~rn . r,~ _ ~ { b y 'in.'~•' sl. gyp.: nc u ,^`2 - ~ . _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f sa . i . " N ~ _ - _ . , „ s 1, n,. e . _ r - - t . , , ~ , ~ ~ - ~ a . - ~ py° . ~ , , a gg~ F.' r r ~ J ~ ~ ii. a(.~ ~ 1 . ~ ~ d? N r:~ . ~ A~TEaTE . ~ ~ I I M It M L~ ~ I I ~j M 1 LEGEND ® n~o[ur oaicnwerbN OREGON OEPARTA~NT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ ~ DESIGN HEARING MAP ~ ®~~o~~~ I- 5 H Y 7 C~ 1 / ® 2 K Y RS A E T .U I H CG PACIFIC HIGHWAY HIGHWAY °`~'"6""Q"D~"Y "g101AL CLACKAMAS / WASHINGTON COUNTIES m ° t~ 1990 S muss s~ - 1 0 .FIGURE 3 8-13-91 AGENDA #6 xa+9 , ~ 2 OF 3 , ~ , . a - j i a • ~ - , I _ _ U~. . . ~ ~ 1 I' : CA~IIW. t ~ ~ . ~ { , , 9a. ~r r ; ~ ~ ^t; k rv, - 7 s':. . ~ ~ 4. _ , i , f . ~ r - .._,_>_,_~w r I ' : ~ , _ - ~ ~ , ! ' r , , ~ , ~-~,~?c , r..: ~'r. per` G x I i - ~ ~ n ~ „ i . ALTERNATE `A` 4 ~t ~'rr~+* 1 a s~, rno swot 3~ N 7j y - ~Q~ • ~ PHASE I DEP~~T OF 7pp,NSPOR7AT10N v DESIGN HEARING MAP PHASE a !-5 HWY 217 / KRUSE WAY INTCHGE PACIFIC HIGHWAY CLACKANIAS /WASHINGTON COUNTIES ~s~ A 8-13-91 AGENDA #6 FIGURE 5 u y 3 OF 3 ~ . t F r.,. - ~ ~ ~ . i. ~ ~ . - d'; R . .a . ~ 1tliE. ff''iNyfB~•~t3gpF e y - ~ ~ - ~ _ , _~ntv ~ . ' f Y „ f. ~ . , . , , ~ _ ~ ti 7` ti-- b _ ~ _ ~ ~wr~ ~ F" s i. x- ~ ~ , a _ _ , . ~ , ~s c;~,,::.~. ~ C ~ . _ _ _ - ~ _ +r ,.fit ' I rir { ~ ~ .~'uU ~ , .;,a . , ~ . E ~ ~ ~ t~a. „ ~ x~~. i I HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 9 f Project Cost and Funding l The build alternatives would have similar construction costs. However, differences in the amount and type of right-of-way required would result in higher costs for right-of-way acquisition for Alternative B. Either alternative would cost approximately $70 million in 1991 dollars. Because estimated construction costs exceed the funding available for a single project, phased construction will be necessary. Preliminary analysis indicates that two phases would be feasible, with the first phase providing the freeway-to-freeway connections and a limited number of other improvements. The second phase would build the collector-distributor roadways and complete modifications to local-access ramps and surface streets in the project area. Table 1 summarizes preliminary estimates of construction and right-of-way costs for each alternative. TABLE 1° ESTIMATED` PRQJECT;`CO'STS I-5 A,T'.HIGHW 4Y..217/KRUSE':V AY INTERCHANGE Cost ltetii Alternative A Alternative B' Phase 1` Co, nstruction S31: 7`. 537 i Phase 2 "Construction '26 9 Subtotal, CoYistrtiction 6517 64 0 Rlgt t`& ,Way 4 0' Total Estimated Cost $69.7 $71.1 Note: All costs are in millions of 1991 dollars. Source:.. HNTS 1489; 1990, & 1991. Construction cost estimates have been adjusted upward from earlier estimates to account for ( general inflation, and also to account for "worst-case" conditions requiring complex and time- intensive construction methodologies. The worst-case conditions have been assumed primarily because of the current lack of knowledge regarding soil/subsurface conditions in the project area. The worst-case assumptions include: ■ Construction of the Highway 217 tunnels using a drilled shaft/precast girder structural scheme, with the construction being largely in rock; I ■ Soil conditions behind the abutments of the existing Kruse Way bridge over I-5 being such that a tunneling scheme for the northbound and southbound C-D roads under Kruse Way is not feasible; undercrossings of Kruse Way would be made by lengthening j the existing Kruse Way bridge; ■ Soil conditions in the project area generally being such that shoring will be required for all significant cuts; and I 1 The estimates of probable construction cost contained in Table 1 represent a location study level of accuracy. Because the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or construction bidding methods, there is no warranty that final project costs will not vary from these estimates. f wrriorWirt:proib144/BVepwt~V+eustdy.doe Draft - July 24. 1991 k J HEARING STUDY REPORT 10 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way ■ Multi-stage construction required, with resulting costs of traffic detours and general traffic control through the project area. The project will be funded through the Interstate freeway program. The federal share of the ! project will be approximately 92 percent, with the remaining eight percent from state funding sources. The current project schedule calls for a revised environmental assessment to be published in the fall of 1991. With approval of the project by the Federal Highway Administration, final design and acquisition of right-of-way will begin by the fall of 1991. Construction of the first phase of interchange improvements is targeted to begin in 1993. Project Impacts t Either build alternative would result in impacts to the natural and man-made environment. Table 2 summarizes the traffic, social and economic, and environmental impacts of the No Build Alternative, Alternative A, and Alternative B. A detailed discussion of these impacts can be found in the Environmental Assessment for the project? In general, both build alternatives would provide similar traffic operations on the freeways. Some differences would exist on surface streets in the project area, primarily in regard to the amount and type of access provided to S.W. 72nd Avenue and the Tigard Triangle, where Alternative A would provide more capacity than Alternative B. Alternative A would affect a greater amount of undeveloped land, mostly in the Tigard Triangle, while Alternative B would have greater impacts on existing businesses, mostly along Bangy Road. Alternative A would affect more wetlands area and disrupt more wildlife habitat than Alternative B. I t i i i f 2 Orcfon De artrnent of Transportation, Interstate S at Highway 217IKntse way Interchange - EnvironmentalAssessment, October 1990. I l wamor4srl:prg1t144184e0ortalhawstdy.doe Draft. JWY 24. 1991 i f Oil! HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 11 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS'. BY At_TERNATIVE ' i-5 AT HIGHWAY '217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE Impact' No Buildl Aliernative A Alternative B: r Accommodates Year 2015 Traffic. Demands No : Yes: Yes Capacity Balanced' With Adjacent: Sections No Yes Yes Number of Traffic Signals (Kruse Way)' 2. 3 2 Number of Traffid Signals (S.W. 72nd:'Avej 4 2 3; Number of Rarnp TVleters P 0 4 4 Affected Propernit (acres) None 14.4 11:5 Eiesitlences`Displaced None.:' Nane; None ; 5 r=iastrng Businesses Displaced None one ! Aesthetlc.4mpacts No -Change Lesser" Greater CulturaF Resource `Impacts None None None . 1'otat Noise Impacts with- Mitigation2 53 35: .34 AlrQuality:Impacts None None None utility Impacts (estimated cost to ODOT) None. $84,000% $231000: - Excavation tcutiic: yards)' None . 435;000.. 1001, Fill (cubic yards) None- 345;000 285;000` Wildlife Habitat Disruption None One Area,; None Affected Wetlands acres) None 10° 0:8` Notes 1. ' Includes right-of=way' acquisition, slope easements; and uneconomic remainders: 2. Includes residences: businesses, schools, and churches with proposed noise walls for build'alternatives: Source: /1rtsrstate.,5 ar Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange - Environmente/Assessment;.000T, 1990. t ~I t wrriorWrl:proN144181nportsUrustdydoc gran. J%AV 24. 1981 r 1 t i HEARING STUDY REPORT { 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 13 PUBLIC HEARING On November 29, 1990, a public hearing was held at the Tigard Water District, 8777 S.W. r Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon. The formal presentation and testimony were preceded by an open house which started at 6:00 p.m., during which time ODOT and HNTB representatives were on hand to answer questions. The following materials were on display and/or available to the public prior to and during the hearing: ■ Models of the build alternatives. o Large-scale, colored hearing maps of the build alternatives. ' a One-inch to 200-foot scale, colored plans depicting proposed phasing for the build alternatives. ■ Aerial photograph of the existing Interstate 5 and Highway 217/Kruse Way interchange area. ■ Engineering drawings including plans and profiles. ■ Copies of the Environmental Assessment. ■ Displays showing target schedule and project cost. ■ Two right-of-way pamphlets; Moving Because of the Highway or Public Projects? t, and Acquiring Land for Highways and Public Projects2. i The formal presentation consisted of an introduction, a description of the build alternatives and key design criteria, an overview of the Environmental Assessment, and a review of right-of- way acquisition requirements and procedures. Following the formal presentation, testimony was received from the public. A transcript of the formal presentation and public testimony is 1 contained in Appendix A. The hearing lasted from 7:30 p.m. until approximately 9:30 p.m. Approximately 50 people i attended the hearing with 37 names registered on hearing attendance cards. Hearing Testimony Eleven people gave oral testimony at the hearing, two hearing attendance cards had written comments, and 18 letters of written testimony were received at the hearing and in the open } testimony period following the hearing. Hearing testimony regarding the choice of alternatives is summarized in Table 3. In general, most of the oral or written testimony which stated a preference favored r Alternative A. The predominate reasons given were based on fewer impacts to businesses on Bangy Road and a lower estimated project cost. Alternative B was strongly favored by Farmers l Insurance. One written comment objected to both build alternatives. Nearly one-third of the f statements did not strongly favor one alternative over the other. 1 Oregon Department of Transportation, Moving Because of the Highway or Public Projects?, December 1989. 2 Oregon Department of Transportation, Acquiring Land for Highways and Public Projects, September 1989. I t warrior% xl:Droib144184ePortsVxarstdy.doe Draft • JWy 24, 1881 i l1 f BEARING STUDY REPORT 14 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way TABLE. 3 . SUMMARY OF HEARING:TESTIMON`P I-5 AT` HIGHWAY X217/KRUSE WAY' INTERCHANGE:'... item' NO:'BuM, Alt 'A Alt. B Other' :Total Oral Testimony 0 7 2: " 2 11 Card Comments' 0 0 0; 2 2 i Letters2 0 11 1 6 18, Totals2 0 15': 3 10 28 ::Note s: I.. Most "expressed'no "preference for either altemative 2:. Includes letters whiA''duphdate oral testimony.: i I Summary of Concerns and Sensitive Issues ` The comments received during the public hearing process can be summarized into a relatively small number of concerns. These concerns are: ■ Alternative B would result in the displacement of five existing businesses along Bangy Road. ■ Phase I of the project should maintain direct access to Highway 217 and Kruse Way from S.W. 72nd Avenue. ■ Access for all traffic movements should be maintained and disruption to existing travel patterns should be minimized during construction. ■ The collector-distributor roadways are perceived by the general public as confusing and detrimental to local access from the freeways. ■ The project would not provide free-flow connections between Highway 217 and Interstate 5 north. ■ The proposed traffic signal at S.W. 68th Parkway and extended Kruse Way (Alternative A) is perceived as causing unneeded delay to traffic traveling between Kruse Way or Interstate 5 north and Highway 217. ■ Alternative A would result in access, parking, property division, and aesthetic impacts to property owned by Farmers Insurance. ■ Access from S.W. 72nd Avenue to portions of Hunziker Street would be eliminated by a cul-de-sac under Alternative B. State-Agency Comments Following the State of Oregon Intergovernmental Project Review process, four state agencies reviewed project materials and returned comments on the project. The four agencies included wwriorkv l:proi%a 14419baportfUw&ntdy.doc Drsh - Jdy 24. 1991 r l 1 i HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 15 the Division of State Lands, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Environmental Quality. The comments addressed water quality aspects of the project, and noted additional analysis and/or documentation regarding water quality and energy consumption that would be appropriate to include in the Environmental Assessment. Comments and Responses Comments received during the hearing process are summarized below. The numbers shown refer to the oral or written comments contained in Appendix A. A single response has been made to similar comments. Oral Testimony at the November 29, 1990 Public Hearing 1. Comment: (Compiled from several comments.) Alternative B will displace five businesses along the east side of I-5 between Bangy Road and Kruse Way. Included among these businesses are two service stations, a restaurant, a furniture store, and the Columbia River Girl Scouts Council building. The displacement of these businesses would result in hardship or inconvenience for many employees and customers. Alternative A is preferred by the businesses that would be displaced. Response. A condition of Alternative B is that the existing businesses would be displaced. Alternative A, because of a narrower overall roadway section width, will not displace any of these businesses, although some additional right-of-way will be needed through this area. 2. Cornment: The Columbia River Girl Scouts building which would be removed as a part of Alternative B is actually one building, not two as stated in the project documentation. Response: The project documentation will be changed to reflect that one building is on the site, not two. 3. Comment: Alternative A would restrict access to and parking on the Farmers Insurance Property. The project plans do not show how new access would be provided. Response: If Alternative A is selected for construction, ODOT and its consultant will work with Farmers to develop an access and parking plan for the site. Alternative A would provide Farmers with the opportunity to develop direct access off of Kruse Way via the proposed 68th Parkway extension. This would provide an alternative access point and would maintain the existing access, which is via Hampton Street/S.W. 72nd Avenue or the S.W. 68th Parkway/Haines Road Interchange. } 4. Comment: Alternative A would preclude an expansion of Farmers Insurance facilities 1 onto the northern part of their property. ' Response: The parcel(s) in question will be purchased at fair market value in accordance with right-of-way acquisition procedures. 1 5. Comment: Light rail transit should be considered in the final design of the alternative selected for construction. wvria4wrt:prtg1a 144191nDauVrMntdY•dx Draft. Jo1Y 24, 1991 i t HEARING STUDY REPORT 16 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Response: Current short- and long-range planning efforts for light rail transit in the Portland metropolitan area do not foresee light rail in the Interstate 5 or Highway 217 corridors within the project area. f 6. Comment: Neither build alternative addresses traffic movements to and from the north on Interstate 5; the existing traffic signals would remain at the Interstate 5 } l ramp intersections with Kruse Way, and Alternative A would add an additional traffic signal on Kruse Way. Response: Alternatives which provided free-flow ramps to and from the north on ` Interstate 5 were investigated and dropped by the TAC. Construction and right-of-way costs would be excessive in proportion to the amount of traffic which would be served by these ramps. The majority of traffic from Interstate 5 north accessing Highway 217 is destined for S.W. 72nd Avenue, and would therefore exit the freeway in this vicinity. Improved signal coordination on Kruse Way would be implemented as a part of either build alternative, reducing delays to traffic destined to or from the north on Interstate 5. With Alternative A, traffic destined to or from Highway 217 from Kruse Way would have to pass through an additional traffic signal at I S.W. 68th Parkway. With interconnected signals, delays to this traffic movement would be minimal. 7. Comment: Alternative B would remove parking and driveway access for the property on the northeast corner of S.W. 72nd Avenue and Hampton Street. Response: Preliminary investigation indicates that the lane configuration shown in the f preliminary plans could be modified to reduce impacts to this property3. The modifications would relocate a 30:1 lane taper for northbound traffic on S.W. 72nd Avenue further to the south. 8. Comment: The traffic projections used to develop the proposed build alternatives assume the proposed Western Bypass would be built. The Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way project should be delayed until the nature and t status of the Western Bypass project is resolved, since the solution for the Kruse Way project is likely to be substantially different than either Alternative A or Alternative B. Response: The project TAC discussed this issue and determined that either of the build alternatives would be suitable regardless of the final nature of the proposed Western Bypass project. The proposed build alternatives would provide balanced capacity with adjacent sections of Interstate 5 and Highway 217. 9. Comment: The proposed collector-distributor (C-D) roadways will reduce access to businesses along Interstate 5 between Kruse Way and Carman Drive. Businesses which rely on visibility to passing motorists will lose customers because motorists will not be able to exit to the C-D roadways after passing the northbound C-D exit near Carman Drive or the southbound C-D exit near Haines Road. Response: The proposed collector-distributor roadways will require advance signing to i reduce impacts on adjacent freeway-service businesses. Impacts to other j businesses serving local customers would be temporary, decreasing as 3 HNTB, Memorandum to Tom Schwab from Bill James, dated November 9, 1990. i f wertialuerl:pojb144181reDwteV+earstdy.e Draft - JWY 24. 1881 1 {t i 1 HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 17 f customers became familiar with the route configuration after the project is ( completed. ODOT will work with local businesses to ensure that impacts are minimized. Traffic projections indicate that severe congestion would occur without the proposed-collector distributor roadways, or if additional, intermediate access points were provided between the Interstate 5 mainline and the C-D roadways. This congestion would also impact access to adjacent businesses. 10. Comment: An additional interchange at Bonita Road, as described in the Transportation, Traffic, and Safety ReporO, should be investigated as a means of relieving access impacts which would occur with the collector- distributor roadways (see comment 8). Response: Access to an additional interchange at Bonita Road could only be provided to and from the collector-distributor roadways. Its main purpose would be to divert traffic from the Kruse Way and Carman Drive interchanges, not to provide direct access to the Interstate 5 mainline. 11. Comment: A left-side merge for the southbound Highway 217 to southbound Interstate 5 ramp should be considered, in order to reduce the need for the southbound collector-distributor roadway. Response: Left-side entrance and exit ramps would create weaving problems which would substantially reduce the capacity of mainline lanes on the freeway. The cost of providing such a connection would be higher than the currently- proposed alternatives, due to a need to relocate the Interstate 5 mainline to accommodate the left-side ramp. A left-side freeway entrance ramp is no _ longer considered to be an acceptable engineering design practice and will not be considered by ODOT. 12. Comment: Disruption of traffic during the construction of the project, particularly on and off of Highway 217, could result in impacts to local businesses. Response: ODOT will work with local businesses to minimize disruptions during the construction period. Development of construction staging plans and a public information program to minimize disruptions will be one of the more important elements of the final design of the project. 13. Comment: The C-D configuration will be confusing to drivers and could lead to safety problems. Response: C-D roadways are in limited use in the Portland area. In other parts of the country, more extensive networks of C-D roadways have been successfully used in similar situations, without resulting in motorist confusion or safety i problems. The C-D roadways are expected to result in a reduction in accident rates in the project area. Regardless of which alternative is selected for construction, a period of motorist education will be required to familiarize drivers with the new interchange configuration. 14. Comment: The public should continue to be involved in the development of the project. \ 4 HNTB,1--S ar Highway 217/Knee Way, Washington and Clackamas Counties, Location Design and Development of Akernadvea, Transportation, Traffic. and Safety Report, September 1989, page 81. warriorlur1:p0jV144181rapornlhaarstdy.doe Draft - JWy 24, 1881 i 1 s HEARING STUDY REPORT is 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way , Response: Additional public information meetings could be scheduled periodically throughout the project development process. I 15. Comment: Alternative A, with the subsurface structures, can be made earthquake resistant more readily than could alternative B with its high bridges crossing I-5. i Response: Underground structures are generally more resistant to earthquake damage than above-ground structures if soil conditions around the structure are relatively uniform. However, the structures in either alternative can be designed to meet current earthquake safety standards. Card Comments Received at the November 29, 1990 Public Hearing ; 16. Comment: How would Hunziker Street be impacted with Alternative B? Response: Access from the Tigard Triangle to Hunziker Street west of S.W. 76th Avenue would be more direct than the existing configuration. Access to Hunziker Street between S.W. 76th Avenue and S.W. 72nd Avenue (the portion which would be rebuilt with a cul-de-sac at S.W. 72nd Avenue) from points east of S.W. 72nd Avenue (e.g. Kruse Way) would be less direct. Written Transmittals 17. Comment: Ordinances of the City of Tigard prohibit all construction activity between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, and 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sunday. Under special conditions, the City may grant a permit modifying the hours when work is permitted. i Response: These City restrictions will be added to the discussion in the Environmental Assessment. Because it is likely that construction would be required during the periods restricted by the City, ODOT will likely apply for a permit from the City. 18. Comment: The Environmental Assessment states "the runoff from the existing highway enters the Fanno Creek system approximately five miles above its junction with the Tualatin River The actual distance is closer to two miles. Response: The Environmental Assessment will be corrected. 19. Comment: Access to Interstate 5 north (downtown Portland) and Highway 217 from the S.W. 72nd Avenue area should not be changed by requiring these trips to use the collector-distributor roadways. Response: Travel patterns for trips between the S.W. 72nd Avenue area and Interstate 5 north or Highway 217 would not be substantially changed by either alternative. The collector-distributor roadways would not represent a significant change for trips destined to or from Interstate 5 north. The northbound entrance ramp would enter the Interstate 5 mainline at approximately the same location as the existing entrance ramp. The southbound exit ramp would diverge from Interstate 5 mainline approximately one-half of a mile north of the existing ramp, entering the wwrimhor1:projV 14418baportsVwwstdY.do¢ Ordt . J-Ay 24. 1991 Y r HEARING STUDY REPORT ( 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 19 Y collector-distributor roadway. The exit from the southbound collector- distributor roadway would be approximately 600 feet north of the existing exit. The collector-distributor roadways would be designed to operate at speeds of 45-50 miles per hour, without traffic signals or other disruptions to traffic flow, so trips which would require use of the collector-distributor roadways would not incur any significant increases in travel time. Direct access to Highway 217 from S.W. 72nd Avenue would be provided by either alternative. 20. Comment: The older residence/business structure shown on Plan Sheet 5 of either alternative at the northeast corner of S.W. 72nd Avenue and Gonzanga Street (Tax Lot 700, Map IAC) has been torn down and replaced with a two-story office building. This property would be impacted by Alternative B. Response: The estimates of impacts and right-of-way acquisition costs will be revised during further development of the project. It appears that right-of-way acquisition impacts to this property could be minimized by revising the proposed northbound lane taper on S.W. 72nd Avenue (also see comment 6). 21. Comment: Proposed noise walls S in the area between Shakespeare Street and Carman Drive on the east side of Interstate 5 should be built before other construction activities begin on the freeway. This construction should also be coordinated with property owners so that existing fences can remain in place until completion of construction of the proposed noise walls. Response: ODOT will coordinate construction activities with adjacent land owners. Construction of recommended noise walls will occur early in Phase 1. 22. Comment: Ramps to and from S.W. 72nd Avenue should be included in Phase 1 construction of interchange improvements. Truck traffic detoured onto S.W. 68th Parkway and Hampton Street (Alternative A) or onto Bonita Road and S.W. Boones Ferry Road (Alternative B) would result in inappropriate traffic on the former and exacerbate existing capacity problems on the latter. Response: The hybrid alternative will provide ramps to and from S.W. 72nd Avenue at the end of Phase I of the project. Full ramp access between Highway 217/Kruse Way and S.W. 72nd Avenue will be provided at the completion of the Phase 1 construction. During construction of individual project elements, some ramp closures may be required. Construction staging, to be developed during subsequent project design activities, will attempt to minimize the duration of any ramp closures. Preliminary analysis of construction staging possibilities indicates that temporary use of the extended 68th Parkway and Hampton Street for access to S.W. 72nd Avenue from northbound Highway 217/westbound Kruse Way will be necessary while new ramps are under construction. The length of time this route will r be in use has yet to be determined. However, the final construction staging plan will minimize the duration. S Oregon Department of Transportation, Interstate Sat Highway 217IKncre way Interchange - Environmental Assessment, October 1990, page 38 and Figure 19C. New noise walls are proposed at two locations, both on the east side of Interstate S. wwrior%uw 1:progL 14418Veportslheoatdy,doe Drift -July 24, 1991 i 1 i HEARING STUDY REPORT 20 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 23. Comment: Alternative A would severely change the quality of life environment now enjoyed by Farmers, its employees and by its neighbors due to the openness of the site. The facility will now be surrounded on all sides by freeways, thus increasing the noise and air pollution at this location. A loss of the I wetlands area to both highway construction and the conversion of a large portion of its total length to a culvert would be devastating from an i environmental and aesthetic point of view. Response: Changes would occur to the Farmers Insurance site, however, Alternative A has been designed to minimize adverse impacts to the site. Freeways will not surround the facility on all sides; the existing Highway 217 roadway would be rebuilt to boulevard standards and would be similar to Kruse Way on the east side of Interstate 5. The depressed profile of the Alternative A ? Highway 217 freeway connections would result in a facility which would be less obtrusive to adjacent landowners than the existing facility. If Alternative A is selected for construction, ODOT will work with Farmers to minimize impacts to their site, including landscaping treatments for the proposed Kruse Way extension and Highway 217 freeway connections. Written State Agency Comments } 24. Comment: Alternative B is recommended as the preferred option since Alternative B would not adversely impact a significant wetland/stream corridor on upper Ball Creek. 1 Response: Alternative A would affect approximately 400 feet of Ball Creek north of Kruse Way which would not be affected by Alternative B. Both alternatives would affect some existing wetland area south of Kruse Way, and Alternative A would also affect additional wetland areas north of Kruse Way and north of the Farmers Insurance Building. The affected portions of Ball Creek will be re-routed past the northbound collector-distributor road as required. The wetlands impacts of either alternative will be mitigated at the Scholl's Road mitigation site. 25. Comment: The proposed mitigation site is not on highway property. A permanent ` construction easement or deed restriction should be incorporated to protect this area from future development pressures. + Response: Following completion and adoption of environmental documents, ODOT will proceed with efforts to obtain ownership of the site. i 26. Comment: The Department of Fish and Wildlife will be an active participant in the Removal/Fill permit review process. The Department recommends inclusion of its Columbia Region (staff) in the evaluation of wetlands impacts and the development of mitigation plans. i Response: It will be in the best interest of the project in terms of both expedience and comprehensiveness - to have all agencies with review and permitting approval authority participate in the development of the project design and permit applications. The participation of these agencies will be sought. 27. Comment: Environmental assessments should include short- and long-range energy consumption impacts. This could be easily added to air quality impacts, t wwior% a1:protb 144181rVP0rt*V*w1tdy.dac Oraft • JWy 24. 1991 1 HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 21 since the relationship is linear. However, the fact that better traffic patterns result in higher demand for automobile travel should not be neglected. Response: The Environmental Assessment will be expanded to include analysis of fuel consumption impacts. 28. Comment: Direct reference to special rules regarding the Tualatin River drainage area should be included in the Environmental Assessment. A copy of the rules should be attached to the Environmental Assessment for reference during implementation of the project. Response: Reference to the special rules regarding quality of storm water runoff in the i Tualatin River drainage will be included in the environmental document, and k a copy of the rules will be included as an appendix. f f i i I r r wrrWuer1:progb1441 BVeya %hewtdy,doe Draft • July 24, 1991 I HEARING STUDY REPORT ` 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 23 t PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Consideration of hearing testimony and further investigation of project phasing and construction staging issues resulted in development of a "hybrid" alternative, Alternative A Modified, combining elements of both Alternative A and Alternative B. The modified alternative would address several public and agency concerns with the two initial build alternatives. Description of Alternative A Modified Alternative A Modified would provide the tunneled, direct freeway connections between Highway 217 and Interstate 5 which were proposed as a part of Alternative A. However, along with the Alternative A freeway connections, the modified alternative would also incorporate the y simple diamond interchange configuration at S.W. 72nd Avenue that was proposed as a part of Alternative B. The configuration of Alternative A Modified in the vicinity of S.W. 72nd Avenue is illustrated in Figure 4. The majority of public comments on the two, initially-proposed alternatives during the public hearing process were in favor of Alternative A. The primary reason for the preference of Alternative A is that the alternative would not displace existing businesses; Alternative B would t displace five existing businesses along the east side of Interstate 5. Other reasons for preference of Alternative A included the lower right-of-way costs of that alternative in comparison to right-of-way costs for Alternative B, and the reduced visual impact of the tunnels under I-5 in comparison to the "flyover" bridges in Alternative B. Alternative A Modified would maintain these characteristics of Alternative A, but would have significant advantages over Alternative A. The two most significant of these advantages would be: ■ Direct access from S.W. 72nd Avenue to Highway 217 and Kruse Way could be provided at the end of the Phase I construction, and ■ Weaving distances between the S.W. 72nd Avenue and Highway 99W interchanges would be maximized, allowing the best possible traffic operations on Highway 217. Local traffic circulation patterns would be somewhat different in Alternative A Modified from the patterns that would result from either Alternative A or Alternative B. The local traffic concept for Alternative A was to extend Kruse Way to S.W. 72nd Avenue and connect directly to Hunziker Street. The result of this would have been a direct connection between Lake. Oswego and central Tigard. Alternative A also extended 68th Parkway to Kruse Way to provide better access to the Farmer's Insurance property as well as to the greater Tigard 'T'riangle area. The local traffic concept for Alternative B was to realign Hunziker Street across Highway 217 to connect with Hampton Street at S.W. 72nd Avenue. This was necessary to accommodate the ramp terminals of the simple diamond interchange configuration that was a part of Alternative B. The connection of Hunziker Street to Hampton Street would provide direct access between central Tigard and the Tigard Triangle. In Alternative B, 68th Parkway would not have been extended to Kruse Way. Alternative A Modified would incorporate both the connection of Hunziker Street to Hampton Street, from Alternative B, and the extension of 68th Parkway to Kruse Way, from Alternative A. The results of this would be two major routes of access to the Tigard Triangle from central Tigard and Kruse Way/Lake Oswego. r warrwVw 1:proj1s14418VaPOr1aV*antdy.doe Draft •hW 24, 1$81 3 e I t HEARING STUDY REPORT 24 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Phased Construction of Alternative A Modified Alternative A Modified could be constructed in two phases, similar to Alternative A and } Alternative B. The basic phasing concept would be as previously established, with the first phase primarily constructing the freeway-to-freeway connections, and the second phase building the collector-distributor roads along I-5 and completing local ramps and other surface street ) improvements. The preliminary concept for Phase I and Phase H construction of Alternative A Modified is illustrated on Figure 5. The primary elements of each phase are listed below. Phase I elements would include: ■ northbound Interstate 5 to northbound Highway 217 freeway connection, ■ southbound Highway 217 to southbound Interstate 5 freeway connection, j ■ southbound Highway 217 to eastbound Kruse Way ramp connection, ■ Kruse Way to Interstate 5 interchange ramp modifications, ■ westbound Kruse Way to northbound Highway 217 ramp, ■ westbound Kruse Way to S.W. 72nd Avenue ramp, ■ S.W. 72nd Avenue to northbound Highway 217 ramp, and ■ S.W. 68th Parkway extension to Kruse Way. Phase II elements would include: ■ northbound Interstate 5 collector-distributor roadway, ■ southbound Interstate 5 collector-distributor roadway, c Haines Road interchange modifications, ■ Carman Drive interchange modifications, ■ Kruse Way widening at Interstate 5, ■ S.W. 72nd Avenue widening at Highway 217/Kruse Way, ■ southbound Highway 217 to S.W. 72nd Avenue ramp, ■ S.W. 72nd Avenue to eastbound Kruse Way ramp, and ■ relocation of S.W: Hunziker Street over Highway 217. I r r t I w"or4srt:proj%A 144191reoergVr"tdy.dx Draft . JJy 24. 1991 i i x } F} t 68TH PARKWAY w Z O f r Q ti~ :i l ~ i t t t t t W N AVENUE s s t ~I c~ w ALTERNATE F z „A„ ~aa+F~Eo FtCaUFIE 4 F i , 8~3 Q~ b p9erda OR SEE 351 ~IL~ HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 27 Estimated Costs of Alternative A Modified ( The preliminary estimate of construction costs for Alternative A Modified is approximately $64 million, with an additional $4 million required for acquisition of right of way. The total project cost will be in the range of $68 million, in 1991 dollars. A general breakdown of costs by phases for Alternative A Modified is shown below in Table 4. TABLE;q ''ESTIMATED COSTS- . MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE A 1-5 AT HIGHWAY 21'!/KRUSE:WAY'INTERCHANGE Cost Item Cost (millions) Phase 1 Construction :$34' Phase :2 CoristrucUOn 29 4.' Subtotal, Construction 64 3 Rlght-of WaY 4`0, Total: Estimated Cost $68.3 Note., All costs are in 1991 dollars. Source::: NNT131 1991. ; I; The estimated construction cost of Alternative A Modified is similar to the construction costs estimated for Alternative A and Alternative B, discussed earlier in this report. Because of lower right-of-way costs, the overall cost of Alternative A Modified should be approximately $3 million less than the cost of Alternative B, based on preliminary estimates. The costs of Alternative A Modified also appear to be on the order of $1 million less than the costs of Alternative A. Issues and Facts Leading to Recommendation i The recommendation that the Alternative A Modified design be advanced to construction is supported by the following issues and facts: ■ The project would improve the safety and operation of Interstate 5, and provide balanced capacity with adjacent freeway sections. ■ The project would promote traffic flow patterns consistent with regional and local transportation plans and would be compatible with local land use plans. ■ Tra;°fic congestion in the project area has become more severe during the development of the project. As a result, public support for the project is high. ■ The project would maintain or improve existing local access to the west Lake Oswego and City of Tigard areas. ■ The project can be implemented in phases which will spread the cost over many years. wrnorkrrl :projb 1441848prbUuratdy.d0e Draft - July 24. 1991 i HEARING STUDY REPORT 28 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Project Schedule The project schedule has been advanced from earlier projections. The proposed general schedule is shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 GENERAL PROJECT SCHEDULE 1-a AT'HIGHWAY:?.17/KRUSE_ WAY.217/l(RUSEMAY INTERCHANGE Date , Events October 1990 Environmental Assessment Available November: 1.990 Public Hearing:: . Spring 1991;:. Hearing Study Report I Design Modifications Fall 1991• FONSI Available I Preliminary Engineering in Field Begin Preliminary Plans Spring 1992: Right-of-Way Acquisition Begins Spring 1993 Final Plans Complete Right-of-Way Acquisition Complete Summer 1993 Phase 1 Construction Begins 1995 Estimated Phase I Completion Source. ODOT. 1991. Design Considerations In the preliminary design of Alternative A Modified, consideration will be given to a number of concerns which have been expressed during the hearing process and subsequent reviews of the proposed design. These design-related concerns are listed below. ■ Access to Farmer's Insurance and concerns with the environment which would result with implementation of Alternative A. ■ Visibility to businesses along Interstate 5. ■ Signing for the collector-distributor roadways to reduce driver confusion. • Signal timing and coordination to minimize delays to traffic on Kruse Way between Bangy Road and S.W. 72nd Avenue, particularly with an additional traffic signal at S.W. 68th Avenue. w4rriorlw1:pr011e 1441 e4eDortslheerstdy.d0e Draft - July 24. 1991 I S t HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way 29 ■ Maintaining access to S.W. 72nd Avenue during construction and between Phase I and { Phase H of construction. ■ Weaving concerns on southbound Highway 217 between Highway 99 and S.W. 72nd Avenue, especially if Phase II improvements were to precede widening of Highway 217 from four lanes to six lanes north of S.W. 72nd Avenue. Final Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities When the project is completed, final operation and maintenance responsibilities for roadways, structures and traffic signals will be as follows: State: The State shall operate and maintain the freeway system for both I-5 and Highway 217. This shall include the C-D roads, ramps entering and exiting the freeways, traffic signals at ramp terminals, and ramps connecting Kruse Way Extension with 72nd Avenue from 68th Parkway to 72nd Avenue. The State shall maintain all structures crossing the freeways, except for roadway surface maintenance on Hunziker Street, 72nd Avenue, 68th Parkway, and Bonita Road. The State shall maintain the roadway surface on the Kruse Way and Carmen Drive overcrossings. City of Tigard: The City of Tigard shall operate and maintain the local street system within their city limits. This shall include Hunziker Street, 72nd Avenue, 68th Parkway, and Kruse Way Extension from 68th Parkway to the west end of the Kruse Way overcrossing. Traffic signals at the intersections of Hunziker Street and 72nd Avenue, and Kruse Way and 68th Parkway shall also be operated and maintained by the City of Tigard. The State shall maintain the structures for freeway overcrossings, while the city will perform surface maintenance on the freeway overcrossings on Hunziker Street, 72nd Avenue and 68th Parkway. City of Lake Oswego: The City of Lake Oswego shall operate the local street system within their city limits. This shall include Bangy Road and Kruse Way to the east end of the Kruse Way overcrossing. Traffic signals on Bangy Road, except at the intersection of Kruse Way, will also be operated and maintained by the City of Lake Oswego. The State will draw up inter-agency agreements for these final maintenance and operation responsibilities. In some cases, such as for traffic signals and illumination, there may be some shared costs; this is consistent with current agreements. a I wwriw%url:pejW 44184eporulMentdy.doc Draft • JWy 24, 1991 1' 111 r t F 1 HEARING STUDY REPORT 1-5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way A-1 ? APPENDIX A - HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY f 1 wmrierW V l :projW l4418%reporttVwarstdy.doe Draft - July 24. 1991 F ) %1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY DIVISION i I-5 @ HWY 217/KRUSE WAY INTERCHANGE PACIFIC HIGHWAY (I-5) CLACKAMAS/WASHINGTON COUNTIES Public Hearing 7:30 p.m. November 29, 1990 E Tigard Water District 1 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon JIM MCCLURE: We'll get started in a few minutes. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. This is a formal hearing put on by the Oregon Department of Transportation, in conformance with the Federal statutes, regulations, and the Oregon Action Plan, to consider our Department's proposed design alternatives for improving the I-5 at 217 Interchange. I am Jim McClure. I ant the Region Project Development Engineer for the Oregon Departi,Ient of Transportation. My office is in the Milwaukie area of rortland, and our region covers the three county metropolitan area, and also includes Hood River and Columbia County. So we serve the metropolitan area in terms of highway improvement projects. I will chair the hearing tonight. Assisting me will be Hans Conradt, from our consultant firm, Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff, commonly known as HNTB. Their office is in the Bellevue area of Seattle. They've handled the original public involvement program and the original preliminary engineering designs for the projects. 1 i 1 f f t i~ 1 I will also have Jeanette Kloos, on my right, of our Region Environmental staff give a presentation; and Jeanne Gibson from our 1 Right-of-Way staff on my left.who will make a presentation in terms f of the right-of-way acquisition process. Several other members of our staff are here tonight to assist in helping you, and respond to any questions you might have. They will either be at the model, or at the drawings in the back to answer any one-on-one type questions j you might have concerning the design; Ted Keasey in the back in: the blue jacket; Tom Schwab, another blue jacket, and Scott j Failmezger, over by the hand-out table. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive your testimony on the proposed design alternatives and the environmental document. I want to emphasize that this is your meeting. We are here to hear l your concerns and your testimony concerning the project. We will I provide you with a brief description of the project, an environmental overview and the right-of-way acquisition procedure that our Department follows in acquiring properties for highway improvement projects. After our presentations, we will then ask for your comments in the form of testimony. All testimony received tonight either written, oral, or on the back of the hearing cards, will all receive the same weight. Our next step will then be to prepare a hearing study report that will document the information that we received through the hearing and our Department will then use this information to formulate our 2 I 3 i recommendation on an alternative design - either alternative A, B 1 or the "no build". No commitment or decisions have been made by the Oregon Department of Transportation on the proposed designs being presented here tonight. As we prepare the Hearing Study Report, that document then will be forwarded to the respective City Councils of Tigard and Lake Oswego, with our recommendation for a City Council resolution on a. preferred alternative, or modifications as the City may elect to incorporate into the design as well. Again, if you have any questions concerning the project, we have maps on the back wall, the model out in the lobby and staff available to answer your questions. I would prefer not to answer questions during the formal hearing portion, unless I can help clarify your testimony so the rest of the audience can understand your concerns, or to provide information to clarify. Again, we are here to hear your comments concerning the project. The hearing procedures - as you entered tonight, you received a copy of our display map, a public informational packet, an informational flyer and the hearing attendance card. These are the little 3 x 5 cards that were handed out and, on those, it indicates whether you would like to present testimony tonight or you can also use them, as I said, to write testimony on the back and then hand them in to our attendants. I will use these cards as a source of 3 i i i f information for calling you forward to testify on the project itself . I'd like to give a brief summary of the purpose of the project, then I will have Hans Conradt go through a little more detailed f presentation on the design. The purpose of the project is to improve the overall safety and traffic flow for the interchange. E~ The "build" alternatives were developed with several basic. objectives by working with the Citizens and Technical Advisory Committee on the project. These objectives were to minimize property impacts; stay consistent with local land use and transportation plans; separate freeway traffic from local traffic to provide a service level for the design through year 2015 (So we are looking at a 20-year planning horizon for the project.); maintain access to private properties and adjacent cities on both sides of I-5; and maintain traffic flow and support traffic services to businesses during construction. ! The project will be funded through the Interstate freeway program. The estimated cost for the total project is in the neighborhood of $50 million. The federal share of the project will be ! approximately 92% and 8% state. In terms of schedule, if a "build" alternative is selected, a final environmental document will be prepared and published next summer, 4 I 4 Ell i I addressing the selected alternative. We anticipate, if again we select the "build" alternative, that we would begin our right-of- way acquisition =process about the fall of 1991. Construction would he split Into two phases. Phase 1, estimated around $28 million, would build the directional freeway ramps'to and from I-5 and 217. And a future phase would build the collector-distributor or J frontage roads that are parallel to the freeway on both sides. We + don't have a time frame for when they would be built at this time, but I anticipate probably around the year 2000 before the CD lanes would actually be necessary to handle the projected traffic. Phase 1 - we are targeting construction in 1993. And I would feel that it would probably take three summer construction seasons for the project to be built. That would mean that, if we started in the summer of 1993, we should be completed by fall of 1995, giving us three full summers for construction. At this time I'd like to move into a little bit more formal presentation by Hans to give you a brief description on the design alternatives. Hans. HANS CONRADT: Thank you, Jim. I'll give a description of the I alternative briefly, but I'd like to also give a little bit of background on how the alternatives were developed. I think it may I be useful in understanding some of the specific elements of it. f Most of you are probably aware the project area is the I-5/Hwy 217 5 7 Interchange, that's the center of it. Along Interstate-5 the project area extends from Carmen Road up to Haines. Road, along Hwy 217, Kruse Way, from the Kruse/Oak area westward or northward to the area of 72nd Avenue. As you are* probably aware, Interstate-5 is a major north/south route through, not only the Portland area, but along the West Coast and Hwy 217, connects Interstate 5 to Beaverton and areas further west and to the north. The interchange was built more than 20 years ago in the mid 1960's and, until. fairly recently, was able to accommodate the traffic volume and demands that were placed on it. But with continued development in i the area, as well as increasing traffic on the primary north/south route, many problems have developed. The purpose of this project really is to solve those problems, both the safety and capacity problems that occur. I There were several steps involved in the process of developing the alternatives. One of the first things that we needed to do was to i look at the traffic volume and try to identify what the heaviest demands were and see within the constraints of the built-up area, existing property usage and the roads that are there, what the major demands were, and how we might accommodate them with any improvements. This is just a representation of existing traffic volume based in 1987. It has grown considerably since then. But it shows that the major demand of the interchange, as far as making a connection, is from Interstate-5 to Hwy 217. This is just a ' graphic representation. Right now most of traffic circles around 6 i ~ 1 { i I here but, to show the direction that it moves, this is the major i demand. To look at the design year, which is 2015, in traffic projections for the year 2015 you will see that this will remain the dominant movement in the area. Other activities through the area will grow as well. comparing existing to the projected future, there will be an increase in volume ranging from maybe 1.3 times to well over 6 times, but still this movement will remain the dominant movement in the area. ` The problems at the interchange, as most of you I'm sure are aware, begin with the limited capacity of its loop ramps to the northbound I-5/Hwy 217 connection, and the limited capacity of the single lane exit from southbound Hwy 217 to southbound I-5. Sight distance and weaving problems in this area, and then weaving and turbulence up in this area, north of 72nd Avenue. Under existing traffic volumes, these are the areas where we have the major problems. Applying the year 2015 projected volume, basically would be a "no build" condition. This is a graphic representation of how the problems might be spread over the entire interchange:, Still of course, we have this problem for the northbound I-5 to Hwy 217 connection, but in addition to what we see now there will be increased weave problems on Interstate-5 and on Hwy 217, as well as increased capacity problems on some of the entrances and exits on Interstate-5. The major problem areas can be summarized with these points. First 7 I the capacity of that loop ramp, from northbound I-5 to Hwy 217; the number of lanes on Hwy 217 between Kruse Way and 72nd Avenue; the capacity of the ramp between Hwy 217 and I-5; weaving conflicts on 217; the number of lanes on I-5 between Carmen Drive and Haines Road do not have enough capacity for the volume that uses those lanes, especially when we consider the weaving activity; the weaving conflicts on I-5; and inadequate capacity of some of the ramp freeway terminals. 1 The solution element is what we needed to look at for each of the alternatives. What we were trying to focus on to solve the primary problems in the area, were first to provide direct connection between I-5 and Hwy 217 for the heaviest demands, that would be the demand primarily from I-5 south of Hwy 217 to Hwy 217; reducing the total volume of traffic on I-5 between Carmen Drive and Haines Road so that we reduce the weaving conflicts, collector-distributor roads were the primary solution to that; eliminating the weaves on Hwy 217; reconfiguring specific ramps to improve capacity; and then to separate the freeway traffic from the local traffic on Hwy 217. A lot of the safety problems that we have there, right now, are because there is a combination of freeway traffic and local traffic. The sight distance, especially from southbound Hwy 217 coming under 72nd Avenue down to the interchange area, causes some real safety problems. Once we had the solution elements identified and knew what we were 8 t ' f looking for, we began to develop alternatives and went through some 20 to 30 different alternatives, reviewing them with the Technical Advisory Committee which consisted of members of the local community and cities and counties as well as Metro and ODOT. Through the process of reviewing them, we came up with two alternatives, which you've seen the models of and the graphics on the wall. The first one is Alternative A. In Alternative A, the f primary aspect is the direct connection between I-5 and Hwy 217• that passes under Interstate-5 north of the existing Kruse Way/Hwy 217 corridor and then connects again with Hwy 217 at 72nd Avenue. In this alternative, the 68th Parkway would be extended across to the existing Hwy 217 roadway. Kruse Way would be extended to 72nd Avenue, providing, basically, a local street boulevard that would provide local access; thereby separating the local traffic from the freeway traffic. Ultimately, collector-distributor roads would be provided northbound and southbound; meaning that the majority of the weaving traffic or actually all of the weaving traffic, from the exit to Haines Road or to Kruse Way and the entrance from Carmen Drive to northbound I-5, would be taken past the heaviest movement from northbound 1-5 to Hwy 217. But to make this movement to northbound Hwy 217 traffic would travel northbound and go underneath Interstate-5 and up to 72nd Avenue. Traffic entering the freeway would actually be able to by-pass that weaving action r or that exiting action and go in the freeway north of that, cutting down a lot on the problems that are in the area. 9 I t' f. s 1 1 Other improvements in Alternative A - ramps to northbound Hwy 217 from 72nd Avenue and from southbound Hwy 217 to 72nd Avenue would J be connected to Hampton Street at 72nd Avenue and then the Kruse Way connection would be carried on to Hunziker Street, which would' provide a connection from Lake Oswego to Tigard. Alternative B provides the same basic purpose of separating freeway traffic from local traffic and providing direct connections for the heaviest freeway demands. But rather than an underpass on Interstate-5, it stays within the existing Hwy 217/Kruse Way corridor. And, as you've seen on the models, there are high { bridges actually a three-level bridge, that would cross over the Kruse Way connection and go down into the existing corridor. There would be another bridge that would carry southbound Hwy 217 to southbound I-5. Under this alternative, collector distributor roads would be constructed, both northbound and southbound; ultimately, a diamond ramp would be configured at 72nd Avenue; and Hunziker Street would be realigned to cross Hwy 217 and connect into Hansen Street. The reason for that is to reduce the number of intersections that there are at 72nd Avenue. Currently there are three. What we want to do is improve the operation there and increase the safety of the intersection. There is an evaluation of each of the alternatives by the goals and objectives in the hand-out. I won't go through each of these but, just to call your attention to it, the information packet has, at this table, an evaluation in there. 10 i Cost, as Jim mentioned, around $50 million; and also, as he mentioned, it won't be possible to fund construction of the higher alternative, either alternative, whichever is selected, if a "build" alternative is selected, within one construction project for one period. So, two phases are proposed. There are better exhibits of this on the wall which, hopefully, you've had a chance to see. But just to run through it: In phase one in alternative A, what would be constructed is as shown in green, the direct. connection from Interstate-5 to Hwy 217 would be constructed; a ' section of 68th Parkway across to the trunk Hwy 217 to Kruse Way would be constructed; portions of the realigned Kruse Way would be constructed; and there would be some reconfiguration of the loop ramp to make room for the Hwy 217.connection. (Inaudible) in the NE quadrant of the interchange. The red would be phase two and would involve constructing collector-distributor roads, constructing the ultimate ramp from Hwy 217 to Kruse Way and also the ramp from 72nd Avenue to Hwy 217. Alternative B phase 1 would also make a direct connection from I-5 to Hwy 217, and would construct some of the diamond ramps, including the two diamond ramps, for Hwy 217 to 72nd Avenue, to maintain access to that interchange. Phase 2 would construct the collector distributor roads; realign Hunziker Street; construct ultimate ramps for westbound Kruse Way to 72nd Avenue; and then make other ramp and capacity improvements over in this area of Kruse Way. 11 a 1 The schedule: just to give you a little more detail in the process of this project We began looking at the problems looking at traffic and developing alternatives back in late 1987. So the project has been going on for some three years. Right now we are here at the stage of selecting an alternative which is the purpose of this hearing - to gain input on that. A hearing study report will be prepared, given this information and what comes out at this hearing. Selecting an alternative is expected to be early in 1991.. Once the alternative is selected, a preliminary design will begin to finalize what the right-of-way impacts will be and to establish an overall preliminary design for the selected alternative, again assuming that a "build" alternative is selected. + Acquisition of right-of-way essentially would begin in late 1991 and final design would be coincident with acquisition of right-of- way and essentially construction would begin in late 1993. Jim. JIM MCCLURE: Thank you, Hans. I just noticed after you made your presentation we have a lapel mike here with us. HANS CONRADT: (inaudible). JIM MCCLURE: I hope so. Next, I will have Jeanette Kloos make a presentation on the Environmental document. Jeanette prepared the document, so she is more than qualified to make comments on it. Jeanette. { 12 i i JEANETTE KLOOS: Thank you, Jim. The Environmental Assessment is available in the back of the room: It describes' the existing setting and the expected future situation for the "no build" alternative, Alternative A and Alternative B. The subjects covered include the transportation impacts, land use, population and housing, economics, community facilities, neighborhood quality, right-of-way impacts, aesthetics, culture resources, noise, air quality, geology, biology, wetlands, water quality, and hazardous materials. Of these topics, the ones with the most impacts are noise, wetlands, water quality and right-of-way impacts. Much of the property immediately adjacent to the highways is now impacted by noise. This will continue in the future with or without construction of the project. Noise walls are proposed to reduce the noise impacts for the residential neighborhoods. There is already a concrete noise wall protecting the neighborhood north of Southwood Drive. This wall would be maintained during construction. A wooden noise wall protects the neighborhood south of Southwood Drive. We propose to replace this with a concrete noise wall that would be higher and more effective than the existing wooden wall. Another concrete wall is proposed to lessen the noise impact for the neighborhood on the east side of I-5 north l of Carmen Drive. The residents immediately adjacent to the I proposed walls will be contacted if. a "build" alternative is 1 13 1 selected. The views of the affected neighborhoods will be considered in the final decision of whether or not to build the 1 noise the walls. The other noise impacted areas are zoned I commercial or industrial. Noise barriers typically are not proposed for these areas because businesses rely on visual exposure to the roadway for attracting customers. To go on to the wetland impacts, there are three tributaries of. Fanno creek in the project area. Both of the build alternatives would affect wetlands associated with these creeks. Alternative A would affect about one acre of wetlands. Alternative B would affect about six tenths of an acre of wetlands. Alternative A impacts more wetlands because it crosses the area north of Farmers Insurance where one tributary is located. Mitigation for the wetlands impacts is proposed to be off-site restoration of a de-graded wetland near Scholls Ferry Road and 125th Avenue, and it is shown in the Environmental Document and in the chart over to my left. Because the area of --the project is highly developed, a location immediately adjacent to the project was not found for mitigation. The Scholls Ferry sight is still within the Fanno Creek drainage basin and the wetland serves the same functions as the wetlands impacted by the project. ' Fanno Creek is a tributary of the Tualatin River. The Tualatin River is a water quality-limited stream. Special features would be 14 4 I 6 r incorporated into the project to limit the impact on water quality. C These would include a combination of grass-lined ditches and wet detention basins. Both of these methods have been shown to be effective at removing large percentages of run-off pollutants. The last topic is the right-of-way impacts and Jeanne Gibson will be describing both the impacts and the relocation procedures. JIM MCCLURE: Thank you, Jeanette. Jeanne. JEANNE GIBSON: Thank you. The hearing being held this evening is to afford interested people the opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed improvements to the Pacific Highway at the Hwy 217/Kruse Way interchange. The right-of-way needed for the construction of this project will require the acquisition of up to 8 1/2 acres of land from 32 parcels, plus necessary easements. It is expected that as many as five businesses will be required to relocate as a result of project construction. I Alternative A will impact 32 parcels under 22 different ownerships. Approximately 8.1 acres of land will need to be acquired from property owners. In addition, easements may also be required. No business or residence will displaced. Areas totalling 1.4 acres E may be considered uneconomic to the owners. In such instances a i proposal may be presented to the owner of the property for the purchase of the entire parcel. ` 15 i Alternative B will impact 31 parcels under 27 different ownerships. Approximately 8.4 acres of land would be acquired from property owners. In addition, easements may also be acquired. Five businesses will be displaced. A service station, a combined service station and convenience store, a restaurant, an office building, and a furniture store. Areas totalling 1.4 acres may be considered uneconomical to the owners under Alternative B as well. Both alternatives will require the acquisition of a substantial portion of the Phil Lewis Elementary School property. This property is currently zoned for general commercial development and discussions with the school district indicate that the use of the property may change to another use in the near future. Two leaflets," Acquiring Land for Highways" and "Moving Because of the Highway" are available on the back table this evening. The first explains how the State obtains lands for public projects. The second leaflet explains the relocation benefits provided for occupants of residences or businesses who must move. If a portion of your property may be required for this project or if you may have to relocate because of it, please take a copy of the leaflets and read them carefully. Please note that those who move from the affected properties before an offer to purchase is made are not eligible for relocation benefits. Adequate time will be allowed for displaced persons to relocate .r i 16 i 1 I i from their homes or business. Residents will not be required to move until comparable replacement housing has been made available to them and owner-occupants will not be required to move until they have been paid for their property. The State is required to and will comply with all State and Federal laws in dealing with owners and occupants of property needed for public purposes. If you have any questions about the Right-of-Way.* Program, please feel free to see me at the close of the hearing or to contact me at the Region office. our office is located in Tigard. My name is Jeanne Gibson, as indicated in the leaflet on the back; my office is located at 7165 SW Fir Loop in Tigard, and the telephone number is 639-7311. There is also another Right-of- Way agent in the back of the room that I'm sure would be more than willing to answer any questions. Thank you. JIM MCCLURE: Thank you, Jeanne. We are now ready to go ahead and start the public comment period of our public hearing. We will accept testimony in one of three ways. You may come forward and give your oral testimony at the microphone. You may turn in written testimony this evening or mail it within 15 days following the hearing at the address posted. Send to Don Adams, our Region I Engineer. You can also write your comments on the back of the card that you received as you came in tonight. Make sure you get your cards, whether you would like to present testimony tonight or i not, to our attendants. Also on the card is a place to check 17 I i } f r whether you would like to receive a copy of the hearing transcript tonight. If you would, please check that and we will mail those to ;I you. If you wish to make a statement and did not get a card as you entered the meeting tonight, the cards are the little 3x5, please raise your hand and we will make sure that someone gets a card to you. Is there anybody that did not get a card? If you decide to testify later on, let one of our staff know and we : will provide you with a card. When I have finished with the cards, I will give everybody the opportunity to speak if they would like to provide testimony tonight. I will go ahead and start. First person I'd like to present tonight will be Jim Simmons. l JIM SIMMONS: Mr. McClure and members of the hearing panel. I represent the Columbia River Council of the Girl Scouts, who in 1987 purchased the building on SW Bangy Road in Lake Oswego because of its proximity to the I-5 Interchange with State 217, which provided a convenient access for our 25 employees and for the hundreds of volunteers who need to visit our headquarters during each month. The building was extensively remodeled to suit our purposes. We now learn that one of the proposals, Alternative B for rebuilding the interchange, will take a part of our building, either forcing us to move or to substantially remodel our facilities. And, incidentally, all of your literature says that we have two buildings and you are only going to take one of them, but n you propose to take one, but, in actuality, there is a single 18 f l t building. Our investigation and reports in the press so far, indicates that Alternative B would cost 7.7% or $3.8 million more than Alternative A. $3:1 million of additional cost would be used to acquire additional. property, primarily the four business establishments and our building on Bangy Road. Land in that area is scarce and very, very expensive at this busy interchange. No other nearby space exists for necessary service industries, such as the Texaco Station and La Casa Real. We understand that the; engineering staffs of both Tigard and Lake Oswego, the two cities most directly affected, both believe that Alternative A would provide a more effective solution to the traffic problems that presently do exist at the interchange. If a better solution can be had at a cost saving of $3.8 million and without removing $3.1 million from the rolls of the local taxing districts, it would certainly appear to be the wise course to pursue. We sincerely ~ urge you to adopt Alternative A for this proposal. Thank you. JIM MCCLURE: Thank you, Jim. I appreciate your comment on the one building. I've heard both before, didn't know if it was one or two. Lawrence Gilmour. LAWRENCE GILMOUR: Good evening. Thank you for having this hearing and giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of Farmers Insurance. I am from Los Angeles so I understand you have traffic problems but if you want to see some good ones, come down to L.A. I Farmers has been in the Tigard area for 20 years now. Our facility 19 s is pretty much of a landmark in the area. We have 325 employees in that building that have to get in and get out of the prcperty and that is one of our main concerns and why we oppose Alternativa A. We feel that rather than improve the access in the triangle area, Alternative A will restrict the access and in fact, well you can't really see our buildings on the photographs too well, it's makes i our building an island in between the freeways. The Environmental.- Report, on page 34, talks about the access to us from 68th Parkway and we talked to some of you people before the meeting about that O a little bit. We feel there are real problems there because of the Swale, the wetlands area in between where the freeway would be and i 217 and of course, being with an insurance company, we are real concerned about access and having to slow down to make turns, and this, that and the other type of thing. We feel that would be a real detriment and a real problem for our people to come in out of the building. So that's one of our main problems. Secondly, what Alternative A does is basically cut our property into four pieces. It will effect the utility of the rest of our property. The way you have the ramps, they are the new loops, they come around to the north of the swale and cut right through some of the best property in there and go right out towards- 217 to some other flat property that's on 217, which we had an appraisal done on that a year or so ago, and that was the most valuable piece. The freeway comes right through there. One of the problems we have 20 1 s R with this is that our building is now getting pretty full. We remodeled it several years ago at quite a cost. Seven or eight years ago, we split that office and moved some of our people into Vancouver. We held a facility for them there, hoping that this one would last us quite a while and now it is getting full again so we have real problems with our space. We were thinking of GD alternatives; moving some of our claim staff out into the northern part of the property and construct a facility for them there and ! this would preclude that. Those are our main concerns on the property as far as the growth is concerned. The on and off ramps would, wherever they would come in to access our property, and they are not on any of the maps, so we really haven't seen anything as far as how we are going to get in and out of our property. If you put a road in off 68th Parkway or O off the roadway between I-5 and 217, that will take more of our parking and already just with the parkway that we've got to design, that's going to take probably 50 of our parking spaces. We have a few extras right now but they are going fast because we keep staffing up. Our business is pretty good and we need all the parking we can get. We are very heavy on parking. So we have a lot of concerns in the area and we have no problems with Alternative B, but we have a lot of problems with Alternative A. I want to thank you for the hearing tonight and for the j opportunity to voice our concerns. 21 t Y f JIM MCCLURE: We appreciate you coming up. We certainly want to work with your corporation if we did select Alternative A. We realize the impacts associated with that. One question, we have, I think, heard earlier from your company about the concerns of the f visual effects of the large overhead structure that would be in the front of your building. So I'm feeling that from Alternative B would be...... LAWRENCE GILMOUR: (Cannot hear him from the back of the room, f making his response.) JIM MC CLURE: So you have weighed the.... f t LAWRENCE GILMOUR: Alternative A really poses (inaudible). 325 1 people, plus we have (inaudible)..... JIM MCCLURE: Thank you, Larry. Robert Smith from Texaco. ROBERT SMITH: Mr. Mc Clure and members of the panel, I am here basically this evening, because I am representing Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. to voice our opposition to plan B or Alternate B. I am not much of a traffic engineer as I watch all of these i slides and all these statistics and so forth but, if something would have to be done or needs to be done, and it appears that it does, then we would certainly support Alternate A. As I read the assessment reports and the information put out in this public } 22 i 1 i 1 information packet, some of your work Hans, it seems the most logical approach would be Alternate A. It is certainly less costly by approximately $4 million. It provides, according to the report; better access to the'Tigard triangle and better road connections between Tigard and Lake Oswego. It also doesn't disrupt any of the businesses along Bangy Road. Conversely, B is $4 million more. It disrupts those businesses along Bangy Road which, of course, would eliminate the tax revenue that these properties generate, and I would think with the cost, especially in this era of measures and reduced funding and things like that, that one would want to look at the most least costly approach to handling some of these things. Our main concern, as stated, we have two businesses, two stations on Bangy Road. They do a significant volume of gasoline. There is a lot of customers in that area, that obviously trade at those two facilities, just by the nature of the volume of gasoline it does, O so if we eliminate that, I can't see of any offset locations for 1 those properties. We talk about offset,.but I see nothing in the area where we could offset that volume or have a place to serve the customers in that area so, I guess basically to summarize, Texaco would strongly oppose alternative B. We would be very supportive of alternative A and I would hope that the governing bodies that review all the input and so forth would come to that same conclusion. Thank you. JIM MC CLURE: Thank you. That's the first time I've seen two service stations side by side. A little different. 23 1 l 1 ROBERT SMITH: We won't get into that. JIM MCCLURE: Todd Mains of Tigard Chamber. I TODD MAINS: Thank you. I an Todd Mains. I am the President of Tigard Chamber of Commerce. Some time ago, ODOT was gracious, enough to give us the models for our chamber office and we had some publicity in the Oregonian and we invited our membership and the general public to come down and give their feedback on the two of them. We formed a transportation subcommittee that looked at the, proposals. Their recommendation of the Board of Directors, and it was a unanimous recommendation, was for alternative A. The main Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce took the recommendation and they also unanimously approved Alternative A. The reasons given were that visually it was more appealing. For Alternative A, it would have less impact on the existing i businesses, although they are outside of our area we are philosophically for business so there was that. We also felt that it unlocked the downtown Tigard area better, the way that it aligns. Although we do have some questions and we would like to work with ODOT to be sure that the interchange there where it meets up with Hunziker is one that helps the flow of traffic out of the downtown area of Tigard and maybe helps with the development there. We also feel that before the final plans are drawn that the possibility of light rail coming Tigard's by way of I-5 or Barbur Boulevard be considered. I think it would be a waste to build Q something and then have it have to be significantly altered in order to accommodate light rail. 24 i ( JIM MC CLURE: Bill Colton, La Casa Real Restaurant. l DILL COLTON: Good evening, Mr. McClure and panel. I am going to be very brief. But please don't take my brevity as evidence of a lack of commitment to our position here. We feel very strongly about what I am going to set forth as our position. I do represent La Casa Real Restaurant on Bangy Road there. So I'm sure it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which alternative / that we prefer. We are one of the five businesses that would be. 1 t displaced by Alternative B. But putting that aside for now, for our own selfish interests, I would still propose to you that even an uninterested bystander would look at this and see the logic behind Alternative A as much preferable over alternative B. Just briefly, a few of the reasons for that; it's less expensive by between 7t and 8%, it does not displace businesses. Alternative B does displace businesses, taking valuable property off the tax roll. Aesthetically, A is less objectable because of the tunnel, rather than the fly-over aspects of B. In terms of meeting the 1 goals and objectives of the project that Mr. Conradt set forth, A does it as well as B does. Those are just a few of the reasons. From that standpoint, even an uninterested bystander, I think alternative A is much preferable. As I said before, unfortunately we are not an uninterested bystander and so there are a few other comments I would like to make. We have owned and operated our ! restaurant there on Bangy since August of 1980. We have been there over 10 years. We employ between 60 and 65 people, part and full j time, split about evenly. 22%, nearly 1 in 5 of those people have 25 r S , i s been there for more than 4 years. Almost 10% of them have been there since we opened 10 years ago. These are people that are I making a career out of what they do. They. are a stable group; particularly in our industry which has a tremendous amount of turnover, that is very significant, and we are talking about people being displaced here as well as property is what I'm saying. We have a very loyal and regular clientele that we serve. We serve. the business community, the retail community, and do a very large 4 lunch business. We have other La Casa Real Restaurants in the I area. This is the most profitable of our restaurants. Displacement of it would definitely create a hardship on our 1 employees, on our clientele and on the profitability of our company and we just think that would really be a ridiculous price to pay for an alternative that is less desirable, even on its face. So O our position would be that we would support Alternative A should j there be a "build" alternative chosen and adamantly oppose Alternative B. Thank you for your attention. JIM MCCLURE: Thank you, Bill. Perry Arana. PERRY ARANA: Good evening. We are one of those businesses who are going to be affected by either Alternative A or Alternative B. i The name of our firm is GVNW Inc. Management. We're located at the corner of 72nd and Hampton and so we're going to be affected by either plan A or B. I have some written comments and to be brief, I won't go through my total comments, but I would like to summarize ! 26 I i 1 t I them and indicate that we've addressed three issues as we see them. One is the general concept. Basically, we feel that either plan A or B provide reasonable access to and from I-5 that is located. south of 217, so we have got a rather free flow of traffic there. However, we think that both plans are somewhat deficient because they don't address the traffic which is to and from the north section of I-5 or to and from Portland, if you will, is that under O both of the plans, the existing lights remain and under one of the j plans, an additional light is added. So we think that there should be some review, at least, to see if there cannot be an incorporation of a better flow for that traffic. That's a general comment. Then more specifically, as a preferred alternative, we, like the majority of the other people that have spoken here this evening, prefer Alternative A as being the least disruptive to the majority of the businesses in the area. They said it doesn't directly affect us on that. We have just a very brief, specific single property concern. As I said we are located at the NE section of Hampton and 72nd. Plan A takes a small amount of our property, but does not appear from the rough maps that we've seen - I've not seen a detailed section map - but does not appear to encroach upon our parking spaces that we have, nor does it bother the current entrance that we have to our building from 2nd Avenue. A I t We analyzed, requested from the Department, a second document which would detail the traffic flow under Alternative A and Alternative 27 t A I I B for the design year and that was provided for us and we'd like to thank you for giving us that. We analyzed it and what we found was 1 1 that the traffic pattern, the volume, and the lane configuration at that particular intersection are identical for both plans. That is the total number of cars that are going to be transitting it, the _ l number of lanes that come from the east, west, north and south are all identical under both plans. Plan A does not take any of our parking spaces, comes in a little bit on the planning section that.- ' we have. Plan B however, is totally reconfigured and removes f approximately 25% or would impact about 25% of our parking spaces l and more severely, of more concern to us, would take away, it j appears, our only entrance and exit to the property from 72nd Avenue. Now we do have an entrance on Hampton, but unfortunately I it is inaccessible for anybody that's coming off 217. You can't O get there. There's a divider, concrete divider, that's in the middle of the street that extends well beyond our property and so ? in order to access that particular entrance, a person would have to I go east on Hampton, make a "U" turn and then come back and I don't think that really fits a good traffic pattern. So we are very i concerned with that-aspect of it. I had some discussions during the last session with some of your people and it appears that our concerns can be mitigated if the Department will review that particular intersection configuration, because it appears that there is no substantial reason for changing I that design between plan A and plan B, if you will. And so, if that can be reconfigured to more nearly match what is provided t 28 I i t I s 011M 1 1 C under Alternative A, then that would handle many of our concerns. But absent that, we are strongly opposed to Alternative B. I'll submit my written comments, which have some substantiating data in it, alright. 'Thank you very much. JIM MCCLURE: Thank you, Perry. Richard Buono. RICHARD BUONO: I'm Richard Buono. I'm with Pacific Realty Associates and we have the property that lies in the area south of, Bonita Road, west of I-5, down to the Carmen Interchange. Our understanding is that the traffic counts, projections and assumptions used in this EIS are based on assumptions that the western by-pass will be built. The western by-pass is under study and the solution to the problems that that by-pass would be constructed to solve, will not be defined for at least another year. For this reason, it might be appropriate to slow or defer O this project until the actuality of the by-pass is assured or the impact of less than the by-pass could,be calculated. If the by- pass is not approved, solution to the I-5/Hwy 217 intersection is likely to be substantially different than either option A or B. We also are concerned about the collector-distributor road shown in both options on the west side of the I-5 right-of-way. We believe that this collector-distributor road, as presently designed will significantly impair the value for destination commercial development of the property lying adjacent to the collector- distributor road. For instance, the Pacific Corporate Center ` property, our property lying south of Bonita Road, is zoned so as C 29 if 1 f: R : 6 1 to allow 20% of the floor area in the park as commercial-retail uses. One would assume that these uses would be concentrated on i the freeway frontage. The park will support about a million squarb feet of total development, of which 200,000 could reasonably be calculated to be retail-commercial. The land value for the portion 1 of that property taken, plus the consequent damages to the i remainder and to the surrounding and nearby properties affected by the reduced convenience of access, may be substantially more than. O the budget of the project presently contemplates. For this reason, we feel that further consideration should be given to alternatives which do not require the use of collector-distributor roads along the west side of the freeway or modify the collector-distributor roads near the Bonita overpass, perhaps with an interchange, which I think the HNPB material suggested is a possibility. Another possibility would be option B with a 217 southbound to I-5 ramp I taken to the center of the freeway and then merging from the left would be appropriate to reduce the need for the long collector- distributor road. Even a shortening of the westside collector- distributor road would be far preferable to this design shown on either option. If a southbound 217 to I-5 ramp was installed to the freeway center, and the frontage road took off south of Kruse Way, the impact on the accessibility of the commercial land and i industrial base lying south of 217 might be reduced to a tolerable level. A method of accessing the collector-distributor road from I-5 south 30 { of Kruse Way, say near the Bonita Interchange, would help preserve l the values and the viability of the properties west of I-5 also. We would like to pursue some of those alternatives and opportunities with ODOT during the continuation of this process. Thank you very much. JIM MC CLURE: Thank you, Dick. Is your concern primarily the exposure of the commercial properties from the freeway or just primarily the access to the CD road itself? ' RICHARD BUONO: The problem, as we see it, is the fact that the I people with a destination near the Carmen overpass, having to make a decision to get off near Landmark Ford, or pass on by and then have to jump off at the Lake Oswego interchange, which is a real mess. JIM MC CLURE: So the proper signage to the facilities is your biggest concern then. RICHARD BUONO: No, the signage is not our biggest concern. That is imperative if this is chosen. An ability to access the collector road or, in some fashion, south of Kruse Way, where you have a better line of sight to the property for destination commercial is what we feel is needed. We are afraid to pass on by and then have to jump off at the Lake Oswego interchange, at least as presently structured, that one is almost impossible to resolve 'r 31 F c to take the additional traffic that would have passed Carmen and f still need to get back into our area. We think it will have a tremendous impact on that interchange, plus severe lessening of ' values for our property. There's probably some ways to resolve it. We'd like to explore those. JIM MC CLURE: Thank you, Richard. RICHARD BUONO: Thank you. JIM MC CLURE: Mary Tobias. MARY TOBIAS: Good evening. Thank you everyone for giving us the opportunity to testify and testify tonight on behalf of Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation which represents diverse business interests throughout the western portion of the Portland- Metropolitan area. TVEDC recognizes the importance of an adequate I multi-model transportation system to the maintaining of a strong business economy and environment in the Tualatin Valley. We are l not going to speak either in support of Alternative A or I i Alternative B but rather to a more, generic problem that impact business and the continuation of business, over time, particularly through construction and with the design of the final product. The reconstruction of Interstate/5/Kruse Way/Hwy 217 interchange is crucial to the flow of north-south traffic through Washington I County. In reviewing the two proposed designs for rebuilding the interchange, the corporation does not view either option as having greater merit, one over the other for that purpose. But, the design of the improvements in the both the alternatives is very 32 Y 1 confusing to say the very least. And, as the Department moves from ( this conceptual phase through preliminary engineering and on to 1 design, we are hopeful that some of this confusion will be removed. At this time the corporation and its members are most concerned about two potentials for traffic disruption. First, is the i interruption of the flow of traffic onto and off of Hwy 217 during the construction period. The second is that the completed project could prove to be so confusing to drivers that they would avoid the route, or that safety could become a serious issue. Limited local access, inadequate signage and any number of other factors, both during construction and upon completion of the project, could be detrimental to existing businesses on Kruse Way and at the southern end of Hwy 217. We recognize that it is important to maintain reasonable traffic conditions on Interstate-5 and we understand the priorities, given the nature of that highway. But it is of equal importance to minimize the impact of traffic disruption on business on the Hwy 217 corridor and in the Kruse Way area. TVEDC urges the department to work diligently to keep traffic i moving in an orderly fashion throughout the construction phase. We do not want this project to become a repeat of the State's experience with I-5 improvements in the Jantzen Beach area. Further, this highway improvement will have a significant impact on the people who work, ( live and shop in the 217 corridor; I'm expanding that as far as Tigard and the Tigard area and into the Lake Oswego area and actually as far north as the most northern end of 217 to the most 33 I i t 3: r isouthern end of the project area. For this reason we urge the Department of Transportation to continue with an open planning ` process, insuring public "input and information opportunities throughout the entire project. We appreciate this opportunity for formal public hearing, but would like to suggest that public involvement might be better facilitated through the use of open t~ houses, much as ODOT is doing with many of their other projects. These general information forums often provide a better opportunity for developing an understanding of the intricacies of the j complicated issues than does the hearing process. Because this 1 project is of such.importance to the region, we encourage ODOT to proceed as quickly as the process will allow. We, at the Tualatin 1 Economic Development Corporation, offer our assistance in providing ' information to the business community if this would be helpful. We look forward to continued involvement with the Department on this important transportation improvement. Thank you. JIM MC CLURE: Thank you, Mary. Mr. Elliott. 1 BILL ELLIOTT: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Elliott. I am a new i resident of Lake Oswego and have -had an opportunity to use your new systems. By my count the score is now five A, one B and two abstained. I would like to add an element to favoring Alternative A. In recent years, I have been involved with earthquake engineering as it affects life-line facilities, and of course, transportation systems are one of the key life-lines. Having one of the best engineering firms in the country, I'm sure that, if 34 i 4 S 1 either alternative is chosen, they'll be able to design for significant earthquake affects but, from my experience, I believe the subway or tunnel approach, that you call Alternative A, offers the best opportunity to have a secure facility that will be able to withstand earthquakes. The high, curved ramps on and off that are proposed could be designed to withstand a significant earthquake. But, I think it would be better to follow the example that you folks in the Highway Division have begun with strengthening bridges, to take the most conservative approach. I would favor Alternative A for that reason as well as economics and many of the other reasons that have been expressed so far. That's my key interest at this point. I also believe the separation of activities gives you the opportunity possibly to accelerate the project and save additional money. Having the tunnel work going on i_. with some of the other phase two work may lessen the public impact. Rather than stretching it over multiple years, you may be able to have multiple contracts going at the same time. JIM MCCLURE: The point is - constructing on the new alignment would be less disruptive to traffic on the freeway. BILL ELLIOTT: That's my view from just the short time I've looked at the material so far. F 4 JIM MC CLURE: Thank you, Bill. That's all the cards I hav`. tonight. Is there anybody else that would like to present i 35 i I 1 testimony? If you want to fill out a card, it would be a good idea ' to get a card and you could either turn them in later or just so we can kind of get an indication for the rec6rd. ' CRAIG PARKER: My name is Craig Parker. We have Parker Furniture, Inc. on Bangy Road. I am definitely in favor of measure A, as B J would eliminate our store, which poses many problems for us. One, we are a small family business. We have seven, third generations that are trying to join our business and with elimination of one store that makes that very fragile as small business is anyway. We have been in the process of looking for future sites and expansion and we have explored Clackamas. We have looked down toward 4 Tualatin. We have not found any locations anywhere close to what we have purchased on Bangy Road most recently, that's only been open a little over a year for us and a hard displacement to have 1 gone through those great pains and then end up losing it. I want ~ you to be aware of the sensitivity of what a small business is and it's a lot more than dollar and volumes and it's a way of our life and we're trying to go from generation to generation of which I I think Oregon is all about. We have the most small businesses - I think that's something to be proud of and this would have a major impact on us as a small business in Oregon. Environmentally, I i would definitely take A; cost-wise definitely take A. I have heard many other comments that would favor A. I am sensitive to what Farmer's Insurance is saying. But I think their hardships would be far less than we would experience. Thank you. 1 36 w I i i JIM MC CLURE: Thank you, Craig. I believe we also have your l letter and we will be making that a part of the hearing testimony. t The gentleman over here. SCOTT MADSEN: My name is Scott Madsen. I am a resident of Lake Oswego. I am here to speak in behalf of Farmer's Insurance and 1 though I sympathize and certainly do with those business owners on Bangy Road and the circumstances that would affect them given the. { adopting of the Alternative B. I want to just speak for a moment on Alternative A and I think what's a little misleading here is the comments have been expressed earlier, publications and so forth that the Alternative A opens up a great access for the Farmers Insurance site and creates a desired affect or a desired access for that site. When, in fact, what occurs is with the split into the four quadrants you basically find, if you look at the freeway coming down to the north and the most, I get turned around but the one to my left anyway, that becomes a very narrow width at points of 200 feet, a very long rectangular narrow portion, very - in a ( non-buildable circumstance for future development. There would be very few users that would in essence want to locate on what becomes and for intents and purpose a bowling alley effect for that particular portion. The diamond island in the center there, I would recommend possibly to Texaco or someone because that's about all that would fit. It's a very small service use on that if it's accessible from an access point to 68th Parkway, which given the traffic flows are going to be, at peak times along 68th 37 intersecting with Kruse Way, I would be concerned as to the maximum capacity of that site or to the site to the south there, of course which Farmers is in, as -to the traffic flows there. Larry mentioned earlier that 324 people are employed currently at l Farmers. If you have one ingress and egress there at 68th, as I close to that overpass as possible, because you have the swale in the lower areas to contend with coming and going at the closing hours of business time, intersecting with the peak times of the. other businesses in that area, you can imagine the length of cars that will be backed up from Farmers as well as backed up at the intersection of Kruse Way going to 68th. So I'm not sure that, at least there has been nothing to give us any satisfaction that that can be handled with a narrow of 400 or 500 feet from Kruse Way to j the freeway there on 68th. So I would have a great concern about the capacity of the traffic and the blockage with the signalization 1 that will be there on Kruse Way at 68th. I understand that is a signalized intersection and given that signalization at peak times 4 with the, again the 350 people to the south and whatever else is on the other side, I think that poses a significant problem. 1 Currently, if a Farmers site presents one of the few remaining developable sites along the I-5/217 freeway for sale for economic development for users. Currently, there are two significant companies that have expressed that site as being their number one site on their short list. Constructing buildings of { 100,000 feet on one particular user and another user for a 60,000 feet requirement. The 100,000 foot requirement will not be able to ' 38 I i rrr be made. It's doubtful whether the 60,000 foot requirement can be made given the amount of property that's remaining there. For all intents and purposes, the only buildable-site that remains out of the 15 acres, not including the Farmer's site; is the site up to the I-5 freeway there, to the left of the freeway. That currently ! represents a 5.5 acre site as it sits right now with the freeway and the slope easement it's reduced about 3.5 acres. It's not the bowling alley effect that it is to the north on the other side at 68th. It is buildable and probably is the only reasonably buildable site allowed for Farmers. Farmers has previously made a decision to place the property on the market for interested groups and companies and so forth and has since taken that property formally off the market, but on an unsolicited basis, until the ( property is off the market. On an unsolicited basis, those two companies have approached Farmers for interest in purchasing the buildings. So I would just say that I have some trouble understanding how perhaps, along with what Pacific Realty Associates has mentioned in terms of the value of the property, I think you'll find that the creation of that on Alternative A will greatly depreciate and diminish the value of the property; not only for Farmers but also I think the taking of that property, given its prime location and the current market place that we are in, will create a value, will be a cost, I believe, is probably in excess of what is being planned at this time. Thank you very much. JIM MC CLURE: Thank you, Scott. I'd like to provide a little bit 39 i t l ; of information. What we are looking at again is the area in the ' front of Farmers Insurance building, which today is a freeway, but we intend to turn that in-more as an extension of Kruse Way and about 70% of the traffic that now is along that portion of 217 in front of the building will be taken away as it would be in the other portion of the project. So, in a sense, your corporation will then face more of a Kruse Way type of facility verses the } freeway type of facility. It would be a difference in traffic- volume in front of the building. Also earlier on as we did the preliminary engineering for this project, we had representatives of Farmers Insurance coming to various meetings. At that time we had kind of an indication to favor Alternative A, maybe from an aesthetic standpoint and visual affect to have your frontage on a more of Kruse Way, Parkway type facility verses the freeway. LAWRENCE GILMOUR: That was our regional manager and (Inaudible) f SCOTT MADSEN: I was at the meeting. I am a real estate broker. I favor it and I have seen the plans to see my mind thinking of access there and needing something buildable. What happens is not leaving property disposable so you're not creating (inaudible) with e the exception of the site that is north of 68th there, it is a 1 smaller site, perhaps could take a smaller user but the property north of 68th there, I have concerns about the buildability of that property and the market demand for that property can be. The • ~j 40 I E a common statement in that meeting, again before this was (inaudible) good for access to Kruse Way that sounds exciting, that sounds neat but what happens is if you don't create any (Inaudible) JIM MC CLURE: We appreciate your comments and you gave us some clarification of your concerns. Thank you, Scott. Is there anybody else who would like to offer testimony tonight? If not I' 11 go ahead and we' I1 close the public hearing on the project and remember written testimony will be received on either of the alternatives and will be included as part of the hearing testimony up to 15 days from tonight. If it is 16 or 17, we don't normally don't worry much about the time. We'd like to have your comments. Thank you for coming. CARD COMMENTS: From Anne Craig, 12360 SW Knoll Drive of Tigard. How would Hunziker be impacted with plan B? MARY ELLEN WHITE, 5918 SW Seville of Lake Oswego. Regarding the Farmers Insurance Company's comment on the increased traffic problems for their employees at the present time they have a small 2-lane road built to their building which cannot O freely handle the traffic in and out of their property at peak times. The problem with traffic already exists and they created it. I 41 ) i i i d i t t Willamette Industries, Inc. 7895 S.W. Hunziker Road Preprint Liner Division Tigard, Oregon 97223 { 5031620.6672 FAX 5031684-9048 November 1, 1990 Mr. Donald R. Adams Region Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division Region One 9002 S.E. McLoughlin Blvd. I Milwaukee, OR 97222 Re: Public Hearing RE I-5/217/Kruse Way Interchange Dear Mr. Adams: Thank you for the opportunity to endorse a very important traffic pattern change on 217/I-5. We can't measure the benefits of Alternative "A" versus Alternative "B", but we suggest accommodation of 2005 traffic volume with 1990 building dollars. Gentlemen, start your tractors. cerely, David Hopkins General Manager DH/mep i 1. OE PPM CE TOS,---RECEIVED FA S P lt~r CSA l .n IN ► 1X991 S PIA Region I RSO F RA.S PA EM rNG a ? NTS -SEAT 7 I , 06A RE OE PPM CE November 6, 1990 TOS RECEIVED ,SAE FAS CiI'/ 8 1990 PDM TAM CI7 i OF TIGARD csA OREGON SPM Region 1 P.M RAS :PA EM TNG LM Environmental Section Oregon State Highway Division 324 Capitol Street NE Salem, OR 97310 Re: Environmental Assessment Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse way interchange Pacific Highway Washington and Clackamas Counties IR-5-5(99)292 I have reviewed the referenced environmental assessment and have the following comments: 1. On page 43 of the EA and in the Summary on page iv, noise abatement measures are discussed and certain time restrictions are proposed. In addition, ordinances of the City of Tigard prohibit all construction activity between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, and 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sunday. Under special conditions, the City may.grant a permit modifying the hours when work is permitted. 2. Page 50 of the EA states that "the runoff of the existing highway enters the Fanno Creek system approximately 5 miles above its junction with the fg Tualatin River..." The actual distance is closer to 2 miles. Sincerely, Randall R. Wooley City Engineer c. Ted Keasey, Region 1 rw/I-5-EA 13125 SW Hall Blvd, RO. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 f 1 2> RE 02 PPM CE "05 RECEIVED ,VIE FAS POM z y3 :sue<. CSA M SPM Region 1 RSO• RAS PA EM TNG LM ide®s unlimited 11/15/90 ~Ted Keasey, Project Coordinator and Donald R. Adams, Region Engineer Hwy. Division Region 1 9002 SE McLoughlin Blvd. r Milwaukie, OR 97222 Gentlemen: Regarding the public hearing for ODOT on two alterna- tives for Hwy. 217 and Kruse Way... I think it is important to remember that many of the office buildings located on, or just off, 72nd Street located here for one primary reason... location. Should that location be changed (by that I mean the accessibility to I-5 North and South, and to Hwy. 217 toward Oswego and toward Beaverton), then obviously the rental property we hold is less valuable because it is no longer near a freeway interchange. It appears that your design alternative A would not be ` a desirable alternative, because people would need to go out of their way on these distributor collector roads in order to go north or south. Is Alternative B better? Is there a direct access from 72nd Street unto Hwy. 217? That is without going out of the way through collector routes? Please remember that very few automobiles from Kruse Way have a traffic pattern into Tigard, and visa-versa. Most people working along Kruse Way seem to be living I in Lake Oswego; those in Tigard do not go into Lake Oswego to go to work. ALL OF US BOTH ON KRUSE WAY AND I ON THE WEST SIDE OF I-5 HAVE A DEFINITE NEED TO GO I NORTH INTO DOWNTOWN, ALONG I-5 FREQUENTLY! The second most frequently used route would be to persue Hwy. 217 routing into the Washington Square and Beaverton areas. Please do not change our accessibility to downtown Portland by making zig-zags along collector routes. 7160 southwest fir loop Can you imagine how hard it is to explain the route to portland, oregon 9722: a visitor coming out from downtown to visit our show telephone (503) 620-077C room? (See map enclosed... this rou/e'makkeess it easy!) Sincerely, f; t 10375 S.W. BEAVERTON BLVD. 15151 S.W. BANGY ROAD BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005 LAKE OSWEGO. OREGON 97034 } PHONE 503 1 644-01 55 r PHONE 5031639-5320 • ~ dr PAPJTR 5*rZECEIVED November 15, 1990 c~<< DESIGN CEN= Mr. Don Adams R-A5 PA EM TNG LM Department of Transportation Highway Division - Region Is~o~s~ 9002 S.E. McLoughlin- (J~C Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Re: Realignment of Interchange of Interstate 5 at Highway 217 Dear Mr. Adams: I would like to go on record as strongly favoring Alternative A for alleviation of congestion at the I-5/Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange. My preference for Alternative A is really based on ny aversion to Alternative B. Alternative B would displace five businesses which employ 100 full time and 25 part time employees. My family owns one of those businesses and we have committed countless hours and a substantial amount of capital to make the location viable for us. To have expended the incredible amount of time and energy with O the end result being an "off-ramp" is not a desirable or happy prospect for our business. we cow..itted in excess of six months time to acquire the location and spent an additional four months in needed improvements before we were able to open our doors. Having been open for business less than 18 months, the prospect of having to repeat the process'is less than exciting. Please consider this a strong vote for Alternative A. It seems far more economic to me to solve the congestion problem by routing the alternative over unused-undeveloped land as opposed to displacing five developed and prospering business concerns. I am sure that local governments would agree with me, preferring the alternative which has the least effect on their tax base. Yours very trul , i Gary L. Parker I're. 'dent ( (;L.P : 1 am } 3 ) i ARNOLD/FORCUM & ASSOCIATES 5 Commercial Real Estate Brokerage I i November 19, 1990 Mr. Don Adams ! Department of Transportation Highway Division - Region I 9002 S:E. McLoughlin f Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 1 ' RE: I5/Hwv 217/Kruse Way Interchange ` Dear Mr. Adams: I ` I attended the public meeting regarding alternatives A and B for realignment of the above intersection. It was my understanding that the consultants involved in the project, State Highway Division and all the other agencies contacted regarding this project had no preference, i.e., either alternative would achieve the objective of satisfactorily handling anticipated traffic volumes through the year 2010. ! If the above statement is correct, then I feel the only logical alternative is A. To displace the five businesses along Bangy Road does not make sense to me. Under alternative B, not only would the local municipalities have their property tax base eroded by an additional $3.1 million (difference in right-of-way acquisition), viable commercial uses which enjoy adequate vehicular access would be lust to the surrounding population. If forced to relocate, there is a good chance that the affected businesses will end up miles away, a loss for the local taxing districts and the surrounding population. Yours very truly, J! r% V OE PPM CE I "^S ZECEIV£0 VIf. Bruce A. Forcum ? BAF:lam CS:: SPM rze5ion I RSO t RAS PA EM TNG LM 2525 S.W. First, Suite 201, Portland, Oregon 97201 • Tel. (503) 224-1980 • Fax (503) 299-6703 E t~ r ~ OM RE OE' PPM ' CE TOS RECEIVED ME C FAS PDNI i CS A N O V A199`J TAM SPM Region 1 RSQ PAS .PA EM _;.T.NG LM i IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERSTATE 5 ) AT HIGHWAY 217/RROSE WAY j INTERCHANGE j TESTIMONY OF _ PERRY A. ARANA Vice President and Western Regional Manager, GVNW, Inc./Management Novl~Ere 29" 199 i ~ F F j 1 My name is Perry A. Arana. I am Vice President and 2 Western Regional Manager of GVNW, Inc./Management (GVNW). 3 Our business address is 7125 S. W. Hampton Street, 4 Portland, Oregon 97223. We are one of the businesses that 5 will be impacted by either Alternative A or Alternative B. 6 Our property is located on the North East corner of the j 7 intersection of S. W. Hampton Street-and S. W. 72nd Avenue. 8 In my testimony I will present our corporate and 9 personal views on three aspects of- the offered 10 alternatives. First I will make limited comments 11 concerning the general plan concepts. Secondly I will 12 address our preference for the alternatives presented, and 13 lastly I will express our specific property concerns and 14 request minor proposal revisions which, if adopted, will 15 mitigate our concerns. 16 General Plan Comments 17 The existing traffic flow patterns between Highway 18 217/Kruse Way and I-5 are currently inadequate and 19 significant congestion is experienced during the morning 20 and evening commute hours. It is obvious that, as 21 additional traffic attempts to use the interchange area, i 22 the congestion problem can only become worse. We do not 23 believe the "No Build Alternative" is a viable option for 24 the design period under consideration. 25 Either Alternative •A or Alternative B would provide a Page 1 ,a F t Mill 11111111 1 "free flow" pattern between Highway 217 and I-5 south bound 2 (towards Tualatin) and between I-5 traffic (from Tualatin) t 3 and Highway 217 north bound. No restricting traffic 4 signals are encountered in either situation. This appears 5 to meet the Goals and Objectives of the Oregon Department 6 of Transportation.* I 7 Neither alternative provides a similar free flow 8 pattern for.traffic between Highway 217 and I-5 traffic to ' 9 or from Portland. For Alternative A, I-5 traffic from 10 Portland encounters two traffic signals before joining 11 Highway 217. Traffic from 217 to I-5 north bound 12 encounters three signals. Alternative B is somewhat better ' 13 with either one or two traffic signals encountered for 14 comparable traffic. In this respect, both alternatives may 15 be expected to continue to produce significant congestion 16 between now and design year 2015. 17 We recommend that this aspect of the proposal be 18 reviewed to determine if design changes are warranted to 19 improve the flow for this traffic. 20 Preferred Alternative 21 Both Alternatives A and B suffer the deficiencies 22 noted in the prior section. Between the two alternatives, a 23 we prefer Alternative A. It requires the least dislocation 24 25 *Page 5 of the Environmental Statement. Page 2 } 1 of existing businesses in the design area.** 2 Specific Property Concerns 3 As indicated earlier, our property is located at the 4 North East corner of Hampton Street and 72nd Avenue. 5 During the public informational meeting of November 8, 6 1990, we requested that traffic volumes be provided for f 7 this intersection for the design year 2015 for each 8 alternative. We suggested the information be displayed 9 similar to figures 5 and 6 of the Environmental Assessment. 10 This information was provided to GVNW on November 18, 1990 11 and we thank the Department for the-extra effort and the 12 timely response.*** 13 An analysis of the two plans shows only minor total 14 daily peak hour traffic transiting this intersection. 15 Alternative A indicates a volume of 5,895 vehicles, while 16 Alternative B reflects a total of 6,100. These figures are 17 the combined total of the morning and evening busy hour 18 traffic figures. Even this minor difference may be a 19 result of Alternative A indicating a design year of 2010, 20 while a design year of 2015 is shown for Alternative B. 21 The key point I wish to make is that both alternatives 22 23 Right of Way Impacts, Pages 33-36, of Environmental 24 Assessment 1 25 Copies attached as GVNW Ex. 1 and GVNW Ex. 2 C Page 3 E 1 result in similar peak traffic volumes. 2 Both alternatives also reflect identical numbers of l 3 traffic lanes entering and exiting the intersection. Both 4 alternatives also reflect similar roadway widths. In f 5 short, the patterns, volumes, and lane requirements are 6 virtually identical. The impact on our property is not 7 comparable under the two proposals. f 8 Alternative A requires some taking of property 9 currently used as a planting area, but does not appear to 10 eliminate parking areas or disturb the existing ingress or 11 egress to our property. 12 Alternative B, as presented, appears to require the 13 taking of a substantial amount of property. It appears 14 that we will lose up to twenty five percent of our total 15 parking spaces. More importantly, it also appears that 16 sloping requirements will eliminate our only access from 17 72nd Avenue. This is our primary auto access and we are 18 very concerned with this possibility. our only other 19 access drive faces Hampton and can only be used by west 20 bound traffic on Hampton. East bound traffic cannot enter 21 or exit because of a raised divider strip. We do not 22 suggest the removal of the divider strip because a safety 23 hazard would be created. East bound traffic attempting to 24 ent-er our property is forced to continue east past the 25 divider section and then make a "U" turn to return to our Page 4 ! j f {4 t i\ 1 drive. This entrance is not and cannot be an alternative 2 to our 72nd Avenue access. , 3 We strongly oppose the current proposed impact of 4 Alternative B on our property and our business. 5 I am not here to speak for anyone else, but I would 6 like to make the Department aware that there has been a 7 significant change in the property use of the property just ( 8 north of ours bordering on 72nd Avenue. The older 9 residence/business house that is shown on the Department's 10 illustrations, Appendix A, Sheet 5 of 5, has been torn down 11 and replaced with a two story office building. This O 12 building was just occupied this month (November 1990). 13 This property would also be severely impacted by 14 Alternative B. 15 In my opening statement I indicated we would offer a 16 specific request at the conclusion of our concerns. i 17 Specifically, we again state our preference for Alternative 18 A. If Alternative B is chosen, then we believe that our 19 concerns can be mitigated if the Department would revise 20 their proposed configuration of the intersection to provide O 21 a property impact similar to that provided by Alternative 1 22 A. We believe this is a reasonable request and encourage 23 the Department to give our request serious consideration. 24 on behalf of GVNW, I thank the Department for the 25 opportunity to present our views. Additional comments Page 5 r I R y 3, 1 and/or exhibits may be presented within the remaining 2 comment period. 3 This concludes my remarks. 4 5 6 i 7 8 ' 9 i 10 11 12 13 ?4 .5 .6 _7 .8 .9 .0 1 2 e 3 4 5 6 Page 6 e c 1 1'I i Jtillh-T~•e+dA~VENDE rzo 38olso ( ~ ' lilt { 'C %r I S-0 So CGo) 90 <f oa) NO NWY 217 ~J~ htj4' hu j ENTRANCE RAMP v r HAMPTON STREET y v~- { NO 14WY 217 1 1 EXIT RAMP `Qd ( { I 300 (/cc) 30 Czo) _'_-y ( Ssc 3701so i ( I ( `JW 7Z nd AVENUE I I 1 I ZftO (2l0) II ~ rto(loo) g~ vc z so (zsa ) -L'!~ l K cR v MATCH I J• ' 1 2e EX15TING I J i sQ r~ I. I o~ v P T { ~p Lsa roc 1 { I I ~roa)(SSo)(2Sa) GVIVW EX. #1 ALTERNATIVE A SW 72NO AVENUE & HAMPTON STREET/HIGHWAY 217 RAMPS INTERSECTION CHANNELIZATION PLAN I I MATCH ~ EX1b71NG I ~rTQliS~EE7 ~JI i WwZI►cER J7 a I J~',~? r sZC3 { 1 ~y" i s tp, N9 WWI( all EN TRANCE RAMP _'9r w® KRU5E wAY EXi-f RAMP ~r• { { ~•}L, v ~a. ~ t fl 11 \ { I I f ' aW.7Zr,- AVENUE ZOO ) { i AI\ 7 SB HWY Z17 I EXIT RAMP V ti E3 KRU5E WAY ENTRANCZ RAMP { I r~ I I G t YARN STREET X+ INK y°,.2 fl (x.~~) o,-7 Pirsr r GVNW EX. 02 ALTERNATIVE B J SW 72ND AVENUE & HUNZIKER STREET/HAMPTON STREET SW 72ND AVENUE & NB HIGHWAY 217 RAMPS INTERSECTION CHANNELIZATiON PLAN ~ s~ 1 t I i 1 TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION i C: t.1 V.E GE PPM CE November 29, 1990 RECEIVED ME Mr. Michael Hollern 219 PDM Chairman N0V Q101N TAM Oregon Transportation Commission " SPf1i region 4 p.5Q Mr. Don Adams LM Region 1 Engineer S'~~:•TN6 . EM Oregon Department of Transportation Mr. Hollern: ' Mr. Adams: The Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC) represents diverse business interests throughout the western portion of the Portland Metropolitan area. TVEDC recognizes the importance of an adequate multi-modal transportation system to maintaining a strong business climate in the Tualatin Valley. Reconstruction of the Interstate S-Kruse Way/Highway 217 interchange is crucial to the flow of north and south traffic in Washington County. In reviewing the two. proposed designs for rebuilding the interchange the corporation does not view either option as having greater merit over the j other. The design of the improvements in both alternatives is at the very least confusing. As the department moves from this conceptual phase to preliminary engineering, we j look forward to some of the confusion being removed. 10200 SAX' Nimbus Avcnuc . Suitc G•i • 1 utard. Orcgon 9-223 (i03) 620.1 I•t2 At this time the corporation and its members are most concerned about two potentials for traffic disruption: 1. interruption of the flow of traffic onto and off of Highway 217 during the construction period 2. a completed project that would prove to be so confusing to drivers that they r would avoid the route or that safety could become a serious issue. Limited local access, inadequate signage, and any number of factors both during construction and upon completion of the project could be detrimental to existing businesses on Kruse Way and at the southern end of Highway 217. We recognize that it is important to maintain reasonable traffic conditions on Interstate 5, but it is of equal importance to minimize the impact of traffic disruption on businesses in the Highway 217 corridor and the Kruse Way area. TVEDC urges the department to work diligently to keep traffic moving in an orderly fashion throughout the construction phase of this project. We do not want this project to become a repeat of the state's experience with I-5 improvements in the Jantzen Beach area. Further, this highway improvement will have a significant impact on the people who work; live and shop in the Highway 217 Corridor. For this reason, we urge the Department of Transportation to continue with an open a I r t } 1 planning process ensuring public input and information opportunities throughout the entire project. We appreciate this dpportunity for formal public hearing, but would like to suggest that public involvement might better be i f¢ ' facilitated through the use of "open houses". These general information forums often provide a better opportunity for ( developing understanding of the intricacies of complicated issues than the hearing process. Because this project is of such importance to the region, we encourage ODOT to proceed as quickly as the process will allow. We at the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation offer our assistance in providing information to the business community, if this would be helpful. We look forward to continued involvement with the department on this important transportation improvement. i t i GREG'S HANDYMAN SERVICE Greg Lancaster (P q -7 -95.29 P. O. Box 800 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Ofi~ PiPM T )E TOS tECEIWED ,VIE 12-3-lo FAS DEC 61 i CSA M SPM Region 1 RSOl i;AS..PA EM -_TNG ' LM I h x ~~SPoe~s~~i . om4v-a-Al )'~A' 0-^ Vv1~ a,~ ~t~•~ _ 10~ft4-6L&.' " ?-1-7. we_ aa & uy PAZAei' ~,iic u cQ A- Gin f Gam. C'A'uv--Z-`a`e `Q -fie UA- O'd 6-IJ C9--l bn~ ~ ry rte, PAL 5~i5~ ~A-K~ ~ DES i f3L-v ~ p2E64ON 4q-7 1 Residential rye, Commercial B ® Industrial 0 7MD AVER Institutional F99f9e Washington County ~ ~ ~ ~ • ' • ~ • • . N DO.. :BANDY RD'• ~ a a~;::~ ~ ~ f. filn.tl✓.Vi`f w'~' ul::~ M sd9. ♦ •~Y, • • • • Y KRUSE OAKS DR Clackamas Count W I Sq I ~~Q U (X Not to scale Fiaure 15 Existina Land Uses I - COKPOK-%TE OFFICES FOR 1 ® RESTAURANTS. INC. (;&am C December 3, 1990 C11.1 4 OE PPM CE Don-R-Adam G5 R E C E E D ME I Region 1 Engineer Oregon State Highway Division SAS ~ 9002 S.E. McLoughlin Blvd. CS _ Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Re: I-5/Highway 217 Interchange R AS .PA ERA TRIO UA I Dear Mr. Bothman: I am writing with regard to the proposed improvements at the I-5/Highway 217 Interchange in the Tigard/Lake Oswego vicinity. The purpose of my letter is to voice our preference for Alternative "A", one of the two "build" alternatives presently being considered by ODOT, and to voice our emphatic opposition to the other alternative, known as Alternative "B". Bill Colton gave oral testimony at the Public Hearing on November 29, 1990 on behalf of our company, but we would like this correspondence included in the record as well. ff Alternative A, on its face and even without the emotions normally attached by t _ property and business owners affected by projects such as these, is clearly the preferable of the two alternatives. A few of the obvious reasons are as follows: O 1. Alternative "A" is less expensive by approximately $3.8 million. This represents a 7% savings over Alternative "B". f 2. Alternative "A" does not displace any residences or businesses. Alternative "B", on the other hand, displaces five businesses. In fact, $3.1 million of the $3.8 million additional cost associated with Alternative "B" is for right-of-way acquisition. The impact on local government tax base by the elimination of businesses is obvious. Furthermore, we question the cost estimates for the right-o`-way acqu; ;tiou u ider J-10ternative "B" a3 very low. The property where our restaurant is located on Bangy Road and other property along the same stretch of road is very expensive and becoming more so all the time as the surrounding area has developed. 3. Alternative "A" meets all the goals and objectives of ODOT for this project for traffic flow, control and safety. 4. Aesthetically, Alternative "A" is much less obtrusive because of the tunnel associated with it, in contrast with the fly-over structures included in Alternative "B". ` I i 280 Liberty St. S.E. • P.O. Box 2508 • Salem. Oregon 97:08-2508 Telephone 503-585-6221 0 FAX 503-362-0798 s~ S 1 Page 2 Don R. Adams Oregon State Highway Division December 3. 1990 i i Our La Casa Real Restaurant at 14991 S.W. Bangy Road in Lake Oswego would be one of the five businesses displaced by Alternative "B". We have owned and operated the restaurant since August of 1980; we employ between 60 and 65 people, approximately evenly distributed between part and full time; 10% of employees at this location have been with the company since the restaurant opened over 10 years ago, and over 20% have been at this location over four years. We serve a very loyal and regular clientele; and the restaurant is the most profitable of our restaurants. Displacement of this business would definitely create a hardship on our employees, our clientele, and the profitability of our company. In summary, from the standpoint of a business owner, and from the standpoint of even an uninterested bystander, Alternative "A" is clearly preferable. It would make no sense to displace five businesses for a more expense Alternative that is less aesthetically preferable and is no more preferable from the standpoint of meeting the goals and objectives of traffic flow, control and safety. Any support you can give in i the selection of Alternative "A" would be appreciated ' Sincerely, Bob L. Smith President BLS/dlb cc: Governor-Elect Barbara Roberts Senator Joyce Cohen Representative Randy Miller Darlene Hooley/Chairperson, Clackamas County Board of Commissioners Daniel Anderson/President, Lake Oswego City Council Alice Schlenker/Mayor, City of Lake Oswego Robert N. Bothman/Director, Dept. of Transportation t y. i rD ' December 5, 1990 CM RE OE PPM CE l SOS RECEIVED ,ME FAs c PDM. CITY OF TIGARD CSA TAM Ted Keasey ou Region 1 U04 OREGON Oregon State Highway Divisi~srf 9002 SE McLoughlin BoulevarlaAS PA EM TNG LIA Milwaukie, OR 97222 f Re: I-5/217/Kruse Way Interchange j At the recent public meetings, maps were displayed showing the 1 project phasing under each alternative. The maps indicated that the ramps to SW 72nd Avenue would not be completed until Phase 2. I feel that this detail of the phasing must be changed. The 72nd Avenue ramps need to be a part of Phase 1. SW 72nd Avenue serves a large industrial area. A substantial volume of large truck traffic uses the ramps at 72nd Avenue as I access between the industrial area and the freeways. If the ramps are remokred under Phase 1 and not replaced until Phase 2, the i traffic will be forced to use other routes during the interim period likely to be 5 to 10 years. Under Alternative A, the traffic would be routed via SW 68th Parkway and Hampton Street. This is an area of office parks. The streets are designed for office type traffic, with rather narrow lanes and decorative islands. The streets, intersections, and pavements are not designed to accommodate substantial industrial O traffic. Under Alternative B, there would be no access to 72nd from Kruse in ` the interim period. All traffic would have to detour south to Bonita Road or Upper Boones Ferry Road or north to the Haines Street interchange. The detoured traffic could be expected to exacerbate capacity problems on these roads. The ramps to 72nd Avenue were added only a few years ago to satisfy a critical access need. It would be unacceptable to now delete these ramps for ten years. I request that the State Highway Division review this aspect of the proposed phasing plan. I further request that the phasing proposal be clearly stated in the final decision document, prior to f requesting the cities to endorse the selected alternative. 1 Si rely, Randall R. Wooley City Engineer { rw/rasps I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 i i I - Timothy B. Pieri 11935 S. W. Burlcrest Drive Tigard. Oregon 97223-3213 r".1 AE VPPM .CE December 6, 1990 ; os RECEIVE 0 ,E EAS PDM CS.% TAM Mr. Donald R. Adams Region One Engineer SP^A jtegio" 1 itso. Oregon State Highway Division 17:'.5 PA .EM TNG LM 9002 S.E. McLoughlin'Blvd. ~SnON Milwaukie, OR 97222 RE: Highway 217/Interstate 5 Interchange redesign hearing testimony and hearing transcript request. Dear Mr. Adams I would like this letter to go on the record as testimony in the November 29, 1990, hearing of design Alternatives "A" and "B" of the proposed redesign of the interchange at Highway 217 and Interstate 5. 1 am opposed to both design suggestions. If you will refer to page three of the Public Information Packet, figure two (copy enclosed), you will notice there are four ramps at the 217/1-5 interchange. Two on-ramps and two off-ramps. In the survey illustration labeled existing (1987) and design year (2015) you will notice the following in both; Ramp sl (my number label) from 217 to 1-5 south carries the most traffic ' Ramp *2 from 217 to 1-5 north carries the second most traffic Ramp'3 from 1-5 southbound to 217 north carries the third most traffic Ramp *4 from 1-5 northbound to 217 north carries the least traffic. ODOT's suggested alternatives do not address the Ramp 'w2 traffic volume pattern. i a i 1 Pieri, 217/1-5, testimony, page 2 i Both alternatives "A" and "B" address the Ramp xl traffic volume pattern. And for some reason which I can't seem to fathom, both alternatives "A" and "B" address Ramp -'4 traffic volume patterns, which 1s, 4 if I understand the enclosed "COMPARISON OF PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES the least pressing in need for design change. i If I were to design an interchange to reflect your traffic predictions it would definitely include direct access from 217 to 1-5 northbound. And yet yours doesn't? To serve the Tigard area a direct link from 217 to 1-5 northbound has to be included in any redesign of this interchange. At the open house of 11-8-90, Mr. Hans Conradt, representative of Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff, the design consultants, said that when Ramp :1 access was improved, this would alleviate Ramp 02 congestion on 217. This statement just doesn't wash because the number vehicles that want to go north on Ramp 11,12 is still going to be waiting at the two signals on 217. The number of vehicles going south will not reduce the number of vehicles wanting to go north. Alternative "A" will also add the 68th Parkway stoplight on 217 creating even more of a nuisance and congestion for traffic wanting to go north on 1-5. Ramp -1t3 carries the third most traffic volume of the four ramps. As it is now, when a large vehicle (like In truck) leaves Ramp 413 northbound on 217 traffic has to slow considerably. Alternative "A" will now have these large vehicles stop at the proposed 68th Parkway traffic light. What I see i happening because of that 68th avenue light is vehicles leaving 1-5 at the current Haines Street exit, proceeding south on 68th Parkway to Hampton and using Hampton to access 217 to avoid the official 217 access from 1-5. It appears that the people at ODOT and/or HNT&B have gotten } 1 sidetracked from looking at the traffic pattern studies that were conducted. You have totally ignored the Ramp "2 traffic volume. S 1 3 Y. 1§y 1 Piers, 217/1-5, testimony. page 3 In figure two on page four -(2015) forecasted vehicles and number fold increase are shown. Ramp 11'2 is second in both categories with 1450 vehicles and a 1.71 fold increase over the 1987 traffic volume. Again, let the record show that I am opposed to both Alternative "A" and "B" submitted to the public at the November 29, 1990 public hearing because neither addresses the Highway 217 southbound to Interstate 5 northbound traffic problem. I would like to receive a copy of the transcript of the November 29, 1990 public hearing testimony. Respectfully submitted Timothy D. Pieri 11935 S. W. Buricrest Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223-3213 f' 1 i,. ~~,r1osvtt~ ~ ~ -rlo~ PACE pUgU Y ©7gj}M<ruse Way lntefe~n9e 1-5 at V A in F;gure are illustrated tw© ,way the year 2415 ow peak p ~ leases of ~ es for roportion \ er;od trams v,I Un es. -1' the psts of peak F Peak period volumes shown are th F t Fore • ~ tra%c• traffic demand 2 a Per 1,01* along with ,~stv vehicles p o"r teary i hwaY to volumes cover the existing at the p south of the year 2015 trams in F;gur L Highway 2e ar~idds wM incT ~ y at two dia~ be be oval d from .011 unue to at other dire 5 n of the interchange. Comparing $ea the interchan also show the ost. 217. Thf e the de m~ands ~ been H 0way and Some venue. S.W. ~d A 680 5610 300 400 730 850 WAY V.Sus HwY 217 t0 :•.v; r ::.6020' : i ';=.i;-t`:::r: 29 6090 3so 460 290 3sao 930 ::..also 4__ EXiS~1NG 0871 6600 2300 l~'Y 1 .a 2.61 9s0 600 tt00 2.67 2.33 1460 t.51 t~QU$E"NAY 0 2t7 N 610 wY to o z 2 fi 9 1.61 t.sa •an Bso 700 600 2,43 t.s2 2,07 x800 J4 t 1 t 34 ~s (1700 t6s0 1.49 E 1.99 pESIG~ YEAR t20 t 51 K .~APF1C y~wa yo~~~,Es CpMPAaiSON OF P pEp,K KOUa YrpA 205 P~'i9urg 2 1 ~IS7lNG VS. Z C 1 j HILLMAN PROPERTIES NORTHWEST v 90o NORTH TOMAHAWK ISLAND DRIVE PORTLAND, OREGON 9721 7-7999 (503) 283-4111 OE PPM CE FAX (503) 283-4 1 54 1 05 iEC E I V E D ,M December 3,1990 FA' ri ~v i 1 - C5A M SPM Region 1 R50: RA.S PA EM T.NG LM Mr. Don Adams QQ Region I Engineer Oregon State Highway Division 9002 S.E. McLoughlin Blvd. Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 RE: 1-5/HWY. 217 INTERCHANGE OFFICIAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON PROPOSED CHANGES Dear Mr. Adams: We represent one of the major landholders in the immediate vicinity of this intersection. We control most of the land south of Kruse Way to at least Meadows Road and from Bangy Road just beyond Carmen Drive. This property includes 7 major office buildings and over 80 acres of developable property. We strongly agree that something be done to alleviate the congestion now and in the future at this very important interchange. After reviewing the various proposals we support Alternative "A" since it is less costly, is visually more appealing, and in importantly, oes no displace the businesses west of Bangy Road. These businesses supply needed services not generally available in the immediate area. We do, however, have the following concerns with Alternative A: 1. We oppose the construction of the extension of 68th Parkway and are especially opposed to the installation of a traffic signal at 68th Parkway and the new Kruse Way alignment. This intersection would add one more light on this heavily used roadway and would make acces-I to Hwy. 217 more difficult for our tenants. We feel this extensic is not required, as access to this area could be maintained- off Hampton and 72nd Avenue. In addition, deletion of this roadway would keep the Farmer's Insurance property in larger, more usable blocks. This extra intersection would also make the south bound 217 to north bound I-5 traffic pattern harder to follow. Traffic would exit from a freeway onto i an arterial to get back onto another freeway, another light makes it tougher. 2. We are concerned with the long length of the collector/distributor road along the east side of I-5. Northbound vehicles on I-5 will have to commit to a decision to exit foi, Kruse Way long before they can actually ~J see the retail businesses, hotel, and our Kruse Woods Office Park. At a ~J minimum, special signage for these businesses would be required to allow drivers adequate time to make their exiting decision. tt i i ti Mr. Don Adams December 3, 1990 Page Two 3. We are especially concerned with the impact that construction will have on the traffic flows of I-5, 217 and Kruse Way. We would like to see special attention paid to these construction traffic flows so as to avoid the "war zone" type of congestion which occurred on I-5 in the Jantzen Beach area during the last few years. This type of congestion caused many people to avoid the area completely and could have the effect of driving away customers for retail businesses and potential tenants to our office park. Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns on this important project. If you have any questions concerning these items, feel free to give us a call. Sincerely, Sincerely, ' ~ Ji Petsche David R. intz. Project Manager Vice President ' JP:bw I cc: Ron Nielsen Jim Edwards Dirk Koopman i e I { i FARMERS INSURANCE GROUT' of COMPANIES Real Estate Investments Department 4680 Hilshirs Boulevard, Los AnOelesm California 90010 Telephone (213) 932 200 CAA OE PPM CE December 4,1990 T05 E C E! V E O VI FAi 1 lll'~_ r CSA J T rn Hr. Don R. Adams Region One Engineer SPM Rogion 1 P.50 Oregon State Highway Department PA EM TNG LM 9002 South East McLoughlin Blvd. Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 7%) SF D(a Re: Interstate 5 at Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange Dear Mr. Adams, This letter shall supplement my testimony given before your hearing board on November 29, 1990 in the city of Tigard. As I stated at the hearing, Farmers Insurance is strongly opposed to alternative.A for the following reasons: 1. In our opinion, Alternative A does not improve the access appreciably in the triangle area, but simply reroutes the traffic through the Farmers Property. This rerouting divides the Farmers Property into four quadrants, severely restricting Farmers access to its property which becomes an island i surrounded by freeways. The Environmental Assessment Report addresses this question of access, but only in general terms. With 325 employees working O at the facility and an estimated 100 other visitors coming to the facility per day, access is critical in order to maintain the current and growing level of activity and service to our customers. Your proposed access somewhere along the extension of 68th Parkway appears to be hindered by the wetlands area running through the property, and the close proximity of the 68th Parkway and Kruse Way extension intersection. Careful thought should be given to this problem and, should Alternative A be approved, sufficient access must be provided to all portions of the Farmers property. 2. The dissecting of the property by Alternative A will create a loss of value to the remaining parcels because of their loss of O utility. The proposed route through the property is taking a large portion of the most buildable land. What will remain will have much less utility because of the reduced size and r 1 1 I Re-configuration. In addition, the value of Farmers Regional Office site will decline due to its isolation by the freeway systems. Farmers would expect not only to be paid for the right-of-way and slope easement areas, but also for this diminutive of value of our remaining properties. This will surely increase your projected $4,000,000 dollar cost for right-of-way purchases and decrease the tax revenues generated by Farmers remaining land holdings. r 3. Alternative A will severely restrict the pending growth needs of Farmers Insurance at this location. Alternative•A will take at O least 50 of the existing parking spaces and probably more once access to the site-has been defined. In the long term, should this impede Farmers growth capabilities at this site, Farmers would have no choice but to discontinue operations at this location and relocate the facility. , 4. Finally, alternative A would severely change the quality of life environment now enjoyed by Farmers, its employees and by its ` neighbors due to the openness of the site. The facility will now be surrounded on all sides by freeways, thus increasing the noise and air pollution at this location. A loss of the wetlands area to both highway construction and the conversion of a large portion of its total length to a culvert would be devastating from an environmental and aesthetic point of view. Although it appears from the hearing, that alternative 'A will be the - ' approved plan for this interchange, Farmers Insurance strongly requests that you consider these concerns in the final design of this project. r Thank you again for allowing Farmers Insurance the opportunity to express f it's concerns concerning this project. Sincerely, I L wrence H. Gilmour Real Estate Investment Manager I LG/ rp cc: Harold F. Gingrich, Vice-President Real Estate Mike Bigley, Vice-President Field operations 1 Paul Roesler, Portland Regional Manager , I k i t i I CfA OE 'P-PM 'CE TOS RECEIVED FA S C5A t,.h; GIRL SCOOTS ! 11(15- SPM R:~:un I RSO TPAS PA EM TNG tM November 28, 1990 ~C~i dNS~ N c ~ , Mr. Robert N. Bothman, Director Department of Transportation 135 Transportation Building Salem, OR 97310 Dear W. Bothman: The Columbia River Council of the Girl Scouts in 1987 purchased a building on SIR Bangy Road in Lake Oswego because its proximity to the 1-5 interchange with State Highway 217 provided convenient access for our 25 employees and for the hundreds of volunteers who need to visit our headquarters during each month. The building was remodelled to suit our purposes. We now learn that one of the proposals, Alternative B, for -Don rebuilding this interchange will take a part of our building, P;ea;c rya; -ect. Rs~am either forcing us to move or to substantially remodel our cccy . • ce t._ facilities. w:,')~, yc Y m ~Nii~rlf,rl '~-r I-c7r~c our investigation so far indicates that Alternative B would cost ~I• 'L. 7.7% ($3.8 million) more than Alternative A. $3.1 milliion of the additional cost would be used to acquire additional property, primarily four business establishments and our building on Bangy RECEIVED Road. STATE HWY ENGR I Land is scarce and very expensive at this busy interchange. i There is no other nearby space available for necessary service DEC 4'Ge1 industries i.e. Texaco and La Casa Real Restaurant. ASSIGNED TO We understand that the engineering staffs of Tigard and Lake , Oswego, the two cities most directly affected, both believe that FOR Alternative A would provide a more effective solution to the W; o W traffic problems that presently do exist at the interchange. If i3~ a better solution can be had at a cost saving of $3.8 million, and without removing ,8.1 million from the rolls of local taxing _ districts, it would certainly appear to be the wise course to RECEIVED pine DOT DIRECTOR REFER TO We sincerely urge you to adopt Alternative A for this proposal. I j'e t urs- DEC ~s 1990 ~VGa1' ~~JOSe deL FOR z Columbia Scout Council ;2 - 7~y,l r = COLUMBIA RNER COUNCIL • 15171 S.W. BANDY ROAD • P.O. BOX 2427 • LAKE OSWEGO. OREGON 97035 • (S03) 620-1567 1 c:r.ti E PPM ICE- ~OS RECEIVED FAS AA DEC, 17 1 PA C SPIM Region 1 O. RAS. PA EM . TNG LM ral?n~plff `IV ar7 7 ~6 Q~ P~'~GJ l` d %o e avs- L~~~ %ez Gnu - Ae . C"~ RECEIVED IL f DOT DIRECTOR I REFER TO i RE WED STATE 0 Y ENGR Q/ DEC 11 1990 DEC 2'90 i Z)ai Adao _ 5 FOR Please reply direct. Retum A SIG ED TO copy of initial correspondence with copy of your repy to 71 F R ~ ..tiara tY fefs - 1 be- 2,7 RECEIVED R" GE STATE HWY ENGR DOT Ot►fECTOR /l'I'. l~D~rl1 14~ E~ g~ DEC 31 '90 /,3 S"' 7 Y~i~S oa ~~~~..,Q~~✓~ -StGEG T DEC 31 1990 by T-~o-fir. v►'ye a J: Je, C o lS; d r a. Jia•-. ~S E•% 7 n-, Gam tr•i+7r./ ~ fl/f~•~~a.7Y~ ,C~ ~ cx,vsc. UnnPGrtsa. y /~/v~u j'I ~'s• ,Dro /e.,.t s ~ SPrc~i c e ~r.r _ - 46 I~tbiYSrk7~ 'yE7 G~tJIlS Ar9d J300ir/S, fil c ~.Sp r ~ c ~rn ~v A ~ t mss , b /U ;s rY f ~r...- f d~7`Yi /PCrc{~rl ^d %!~t l r'►~ /`L7rIr rr,~7~ ~i/ 6~~• ~c/ fo~clalt y'e f~•i~ %R~n4tc:i C?ryl~ (cJc1•~ri/► . ~j• .~hpP~ Jr~~ l? is/ JCO~ .Srr✓~cG• ~Ltl~'~ (/Jet o ~lo~► -74a _s j► ~n ~a log a ~"C~~. Ems. F rj Garr ~t ; c°~7 i Fig. 7~ 7~ /h a K y r+ c) • I? a 7' h F o --,V 7(D IX- F-~~ct co ~r d nlvt y>cr~ ! c-~ Jr,S~% d>./rGSC ~c~c~S i 4100 Coltsfoot Ln. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 January 8, 1991 Mr. Robert N. Botham, Director Department of Transportation 135 Transportation Building Salem, OR 97310 Dear Mr. Botham: It has come to my attention that the realignment of I-5 and i Highway 217/Bangy Road could wipe out the Columbia River Council facility on Bangy Rd. if alternate B is chosen. I strongly urge you to allow this valued Girl Scout regional organization to continue serving Lake Oswego and the surrounding counties at the present site. I know you are seeking the best solution to this traffic problem. If you are still accepting testimony on this important decision I request you select Alternate A and NOT Alternate B. .1 Sincerely, Wilma McNulty PPM CE ZECEIVEO ImE P O PA C! a . , TAPA n 1 Region 1 R50 ~!as :PA EM _ TNG I i.,V1~~ `C/ j E C STATE IF~f" E.VG 3 DOT D RECTOR ~~~~Pc~i`}S~ REF R O n: . 11 '9 oAAyCAM= t~tiEU TO ,1.41V ~ NOW 10 194 F to OR •M.a 7" ~n O ° ° FOF? (r GIRL. SCO TI°S December 3, 1990 Barbara Roberts, Governor Elect State of Oregon 136 State Capitol Salem, OR 97310 The Honorable Barbara Roberts, My first letter to you must be a congratulatory message. My very best wishes for a successful 4 years. Your Girl Scout ! friends of Columbia River Council wish you the very best. But - I have my hat in my hand - so to speak. The proposed freeway interchange revisions being proposed by Oregon Department of Transportation for Bangy Road a,d #217 & I-5 O could cost Columbia River Girl Scout Council our building. Alternate B would wipe us out! Alternate A would be acceptable to us. Enclosed please find a copy of a letter being sent to the Chairman of the Department of Transportation. Copies are being sent to other state and federal officials. We need your help and support - we have been here at our current RECEIVE location almost 4 years. It is in the hub of our largest DOT DIRECTOR membership population; our parking is great and visibility is REFER TO ',high from I-5. From February to September of this year there - were over 2800 people through this service center for materials, meetings (troop and adult). We do -not want to relocate from one n r~ 8 1991 Girl Scout Service Center to another. Anything you can 6o will be appreciated by 15,000 Girl Scouts in FOR 9 counties in Oregon and in Washington. ~ ~ ac ~ $ vs a ii Most sincerely, - - RECp/V D DEC 6 Grace L. Raymore ,'kF3BARA ROB- Fxecutive Director FIAyy OF tZRTS f _Srarr hh COLUMBM RNSR COUNCIL • 15171 S.W. BANGY ROAD • P.O. BOX 2427 • LAKE OSWEGO. OREGON 97035 • ISOM 620}1569 • 14=-3388S248 i 1 1L041C. cru..r rv 1 ••N INTERGOVERNMENTAL PRW1.1;•• ' REVIEW ..r t ..JI Steve ' _ Bill State Clearinghouse :rgovernmental Relations Division PLEASE RETURN ! 155 Cottage Street N. E. + 0 Salem, Oregon 97310 ORIGINAL FORM f 373-7652 199 S T A T En A G EE N C Y. R E V I E W Proj ect Number V ' ~ 10 ? 0 Q - 5 ~ + ~ Return Date: NOV 1 ~ 1 97 To Agency Addressed: If you intend to comment but cannot respond by the return date, please notify us immediately. If no response -is received by the due date, it will be assumed that you have no 4 comment and the file will be closed. + / PROGRAM REVIEW AND COMMENT TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE: We have reviewed the subject Notice and have reached the following conclusions on its relationship to our plans and programs: [ ] It has no adverse effect. [ ] We have no comment. [ J Effects, although measurable, would be acceptable. l~. [ J It has adverse effects. (Explain in Remarks Section.) [ ] We are interested but require more information to evaluate the proposal. (Explain in Remarks Section.) [ Additional comments for project improvement. (Attach if i necessary.) s 0 We recommend Alternative B as the preferred option, since this would not adversely impact a significant wetland/stream corridor on upper Ball Creek. In addition, since the proposed mitigation site is not on highway property, a permanent construction easement or deed restriction should be incorporated to protect this area from future development pressures. O 1 ZZ t ~ .Ay < cm rtl [n 'ea+ A 2 ~ zc ( eo cn Agency Lem rV By o :PR #2 Phone Number- C?J-- I F 0 R7 IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROD: ' REVIEW ~ State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Relations Division PLEASE RETURN 155 Cottage Street N. E. ORIGINAL FORM j j, Salem, Oregon 97310 1 ' 373-7652 B T A T E A G E N C Y e R E V I E W ; ]J{=~ VIV Project Number y n 9 d t' 52-4 Return Date: - ~I 1 To Agency Addressed: If you Intend to comment but cannot respond by the return date, please notify us immediately. if no response is received by the due date, it will be assumed that you have no comment and the file will be closed. ~i1J G(_Q C ) k_c, r=--------^--------------------------- PROGRAM R~~IE.1 AND COY-K-ENT TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE: We have reviewed the subject Notice and ! have reached the following conclusions on its relationship to our plans and programs: [ ] It has no adverse effect. j ] We have no comment. [ ] Effects, although measurable, would be acceptable. [ ] It has adverse effects. (Explain in Remarks Section.) [ We are interested but require more information to evaluate the proposal. (Explain in Remarks Section.] [ 7 Additional comments for project improvement. (Attach if necessary.) RMEMAtLKS (Please type or print legibly) The Department of Fish and wildlife will be an active participant in the Removal/Fill permit review process. The Department recommends inclusion of its Columbia Region in O the evaluation of wetlands impactsand the development of mitigation plans. Agency By IPR #2 Phone Number 2;9 - sm/h x NL~i i 4 1 6 i , } - ~ vav 1aY1r~~iV ~L_•A.►~laLia~atfL LAVf~• L~iir it'+N State Clearinghouse DFORM Intergovernmental Relations Division PLEASE R155 Cottage Street N. E. ORIGINAL OCT 29 1990 Salem, Oregon 97310 373-7652 DEPARTMENT OfENERGY$ T A T E A G E N C Y- R E V I E W ~iL7 i 3~} 0 -2-4 Project Number Return Date: To Agency Addressed: If you intend to comment but cannot respond by the return date, please notify us immediately. If no response is received by the due date, it will be assumed that you have no comment and the f ' le will be closed. ~l~'ti G r~G ; QED -r---- PROGRAM REVIEW AND COMMENT TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE: We. have reviewed the subject Notice and have reached the following conclusions on its relationship to our plans and programs: [ ] It has no adverse effect. D.] We have no comment. RE ";5 ~vr~cuvav~.= [ ] Effects, although measurable, would be acceptable. [ ] It has adverse effects. (Explain in Remarks Section.) ( ] We are interested but require more information to evaluate the proposal. (Explain in Remarks Section.) Additional comments for project improvement. (Attach if necessary.) REMARKS (Please type or print legibly) ~t,•~L, ,e.:a;~ G~i s+~..-? _ ?.s'~: cs~..la/ •E~'- dak4' 27 i Agency r t -S BY mss.- ~i AZ, IPR #2. Phone Number 17r-d~o9g K, tl1 Y Executive Department i `E'- Dx"0T 155 COTTAGE STREET NE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 1 • i November 20, 1990 ! Eb Engelmann, Manager Environmental Section Oregon State Highway Division 324 Capitol Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310 Subject: Environmental Assessment I-5/Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange PNRS OR901026-052-4 Thank you for submitting your Environmental Assessment for State of Oregon review and comment. The Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Energy, and the Division of State Lands, have submitted the attached comments for your consideration. Sincerely, INTERGOVERNIMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION Dolores Streeter Clearinghouse Coordinator Attachments I + 1276T t i . U2iY:(iUIV 1LV'1'Y:a(bU V GLiLVl: 2'+C11ta-+ Y2CUJ L~.'1 it.L V 1LN - ~ ^i~ it Y p 1,. 17 State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Relations Division 155 Cottage Street N. E . PLEASE RETURN Salem, Oregon 97310 ORIGINAL FORM 373-7652 L S T A T E n A G E N C Y R E V I E W Project Number L a 0 ? Return Date: To Agency Addressed: If you intend to comment but cannot respond by the return date, please notify us immediately. If no response is received by the due date, it will be assumed that you have no Comment and the file will be closed. fib PROGRAM REVIEW AND COMMENT TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE: We have reviewed the subject Notice and have reached the following conclusions on its relationship to our plans and programs: [ ] It has no adverse effect. [ ) We have no comment. [ ] Effects, although measurable, would be acceptable. [ J It has adverse effects. (Explain in Remarks Section.) [ ] We are interested but require more information to evaluate the proposal. (Explain in Remarks Section.) Additional comments for project improvement. (Attach if / necessary.) REMARKS (Please type ~J or print legibly~)/ /J 444 a. 4~ ~ 1n~. f~..o Yv.a~6 -lit r'A4 6i► - VJ ov0elk uv~i r` Agency By r)~~. t. 1.1,•.,: C IPR z2 Phone Number ~c i STATE Or OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY l Memotandu'di f f i F. Jn l ToAlA. C~(,~..~ D'~¢S2. Date: 4 ~ / S gD _ mom: W I~G~ MY Da Subject: a- 'f~ Q~C.t ~~kJCi ~Q q-ig i f 5~2 JOL--~ DEQ-4A t . i f I i f 0&z=O Atr(3t1MATM • ."-try anon u A...._ ' 3A0-r1•006 i 2A0•aI-026 NOW. ."rear •w•cG. L . seers... L." s12-.rtes or. boor ..boat" .1 r.Uiwo-&~w FOIL: ]daieb ••7 sa.6• fah Gueu►17 •ssu[•G ••eLaaGO G ire•o alloaaG. apowdtni " m• •oatl•►(ucy of do" ad S!. ica(ALllOSd.sor:SOY of Cost [e7t•••nr 7nse..c aryi•prt+u "coact w -4o ea ttr r.l.•. cechnipes for pr.dlctla6 1•aelr6. 1ts•r..or soa.ihls, asrAral •M see7•Lat saute lw4 an"II M dls9136uiahd. T.ho 1ba«i►t•d) ",,j- o[ coat -prasonc stop-d 4LoC1.as a." to 2.h• eels.. (20) Oascoload Auoeatim CVLA): Too poR1" of • M-L;fa6 wc.L'a ",,j- 1eed1s6 4op"It7 ehae Li alloeaood to a Of Su mis ' i or fucuro P•L.c soostos of p•lluclon. ZT.L. C wclcuce a ryp• of ]sacar q-11t7•ba.ed oL'lunac 1SALL"Left. (21) Tool KOOI • O•Ll7 Lod CLmW. 1h• ~ of 2.b• Lndl ld-l c2Aa yt0, a1.00f fw pLas s.urso. d LAA for s.epoLao seas" ed bo•kv-sod. If • M-A im wear has -17 ow p•Lae .oust. dlsel ac6oe, cu. =L Aflaltlow applfaa►L to ail b.slw -2-s aaec ac sequlzu .Ll•erla.: L tha mZ st that pots[ saa.o ctA plw Mho Us for a0y asanyeLac O-C-4 K 7alLstlse .d wcOM.L bac►6NUd somas./, troucariar. Cl) 'fOD• sao• S•dq 20'C. hl•••a••-••'•a 0+79•a Doa•eL. or dlas•ac - om. YwL sm b. agraos••a I. corm of oLWS ' seas For C!..' UOIciF. or ocher srp-prLats Your.. It fest 1 (2) 'D[p' oc •DopareaSac' wow eh. Oros" Seats Osp.r:-a•ac of ll.rr6MMc sraccl<.e (son) •r ethat "O"Lat soors• Mul-oa .racroL eako err. a.dmg." 1-4 tuousi"o prasri<A►1•. - f.KnOO•asal Q-11ry' wsGL•d all.rael-o w s." lama ocriagac. Shut. d. St0)L (1) 'W' rot dlssol ed -79a ►a+a.sa P-.•Lda• for eo: p.Lac .cert. c"crol crd-flo. (A) 'MCI s'*~(iilll~.{°^• Yaw ch. Otof.e Seaea L.L-~es•oosal quailt7 (22) 'land D•wi.pwse• rotor. co a.7 lm- induced ab". to Lapc-.d f.~. n ocLapmood rool ut.ea. Loolatlas bat wt LLLtod to • c crocclm laacallaclou or wqt t" of a buL1d1a6 or .that (S) 'LCU:YN• wears. arms all L%•4 L'roab sad .tale!. Meats to c:i. lmd 61•rlsloa. dclIllog Ad eI" aLcanci- s..h u I we..1- •r uys tno rbe polar K oso.nle wear lace stag • • shat du. a lead eeY•.e. a( d-d6let, 6fadLsg, de =L.a Lau" G . u- soeo•eelas th• ooesaose p.Lau of th. ho-o-s L oarchom bras. P-1.6. I.PM-•ra- for v. Y 7-kSa9 or or V.-CLw Jat:l.., scarap. oaca 91- or cl-log. (f) •Sadwal.l easu• stew n.7 utold. fas.•w, rdi•.ettw, or (22) -Jurladleti•a• "fen to =7 elt7 or crrmt7 sga7 in ch* Iu:aLatla "Ild Mare subsist. •r o cs•►Lsnclea thanat r salt:Se6 e:m say 91oor sal Oawfe irk. saibutm that "S.I.eaa Lid &-top-= • 7to- of 1ayop7, a-awUrl.6. Cade, or b•mfa•ss, or I-- oeC1.lCLea elzhla SG lo-d+r'L.s by wprrotai PL-, tea pLad or cy dowL7owe or rseowc7 K -7 s]o0•c.l r•sw¢cu. 6+a+>af Vomits or lead dowlesrac. (7) 'Marlow -AAM' stab all oGmla. eCsbon MUM oaMLdm of (24) 'I:ML" C-crol place' shell b. a 7La ssscal In s 11sc of beta oo--e_.r K" d YLch" e. sart2easYa1 list- of Ch. sun eaa6.aset srw:lw ro b. "Peed *,cla6 emst ucti" to CNC01 .L 0-jam. and LL"t s•LL .root". (s) •.g/2* aoow alutfz.w 7.t our. • (23) •ILDL'e r rks roJ•rr' camas ace. lead ds"L paost .-d-z.4 or LL-m-4 by a local. sun. .r'•ooral iorsmeal body. (s) '„u~a• Mama etch ~•-•l •ri" or of ro or LIt. Coai a . Le odor of aleal. Lhe or ►Lo1.6i or ea1 7vep.:-; of C ov? •o•y --M of ch. (if) 4'$U~cor 0-11-Y Shia.. M chat L L :e 4.COl :.Lots G -y to G drale.p w7 tsar st6n.d. s•ov wclaccN. od •rlat..CAL... /Lao. •r`~f .._.6• I. t.oa.iueea s. zadto.e. L .-»w a or te:: .•i:d2.?. -L2--- sod f!A-r, ro-ice. or eacala surf-. wear . ff coming ..b. .orora, e.•: .._e for oho ?'-.702. - ubroeso Lau •ay ".or. .L ch. s-r .6Lch •i by t-a11 rd after • sZ4- 7a•e of ..UT La ese.c-=on w1C -7 etl•s a b.Mcce -LS•sas..LIX or ec - Ls7ts..a.ts. :s as7 s,isa laelu4. but roc b. 13/:.d Ls. oslst~i r--Ably. b. a.;.-Z.4 to • pablL. ' - .c :eadar Such Grr.s ouch u .-[trio.. wear (]r:17 awlif, and p•oco aka h a_•o aata:Ataod Y s:ar_vA-: ~ol fact2i»u. ' "con IuaAal...c:iaoaeal, or taJeriw - 7uolf< :cal q"U7 cen , (27) -cater 0"11:7 S-1.- Ls i -c-al d"ns -loo or xfu Wliw TS~7K31 1 loam 29. 1990 2.J 7:gcII1K13 3 J- 29. 1990 s&f-y. or wlLaro. or G Mo•eeic. -rcial. t:1uszrial. atteh .sod G -.PO...ily s<.ro, nuu, or Shear tore: Sot th. a6titsi~rsl. coon..CZ 2. or •Ler 1.S:Ltaac. b•vetc(al W Puri... of Lapc•.Ln6 ..,or CW72q. or a ti C. .tldlil•. Leah or .ca•r .coati[ 141•. or lbl:ac th ch • (2S) 'Ice IL- 1•.• waav a IN re11.<Gd by a Jurisdi<tl.o L. U.. of s n• ztaa <s:us.-ue:tea •:.a••iG fua.aur twub [.noel (:O) •1'ublic wet' Maw tsar u --Z.- of tearoom Lorili.elllsiu. (LI) •S•W ..oast :h. w:.:•ur•iN basso or -.1-1 .eau frs - - - I]e.a -La.ee.•, b.Lldisu. t•duac(a2 eszablL-l--. or •th•r pia rr • L7....SL e.pch.r Koh such 'z..meuaue ]-d••-a»sn see n2. au .near ear Leal A~ce•!.!-r sup b. 7-sosc. a• .4murus• .mesh sNe'• u b+r•La dafta•d .f ~a-'~"1'--• - •.'-4 t { ins.ocisl or .uGS, - eata•d to ..t=oes (6) ad (23) ,•.+-ce n _ ,A•L _ of mu teal. -11 ale. b• coastae-A •a•.a'•• -tthL zh. - - • - - b - - wwLY of rb.. Q.Ls1M. - a=t - - (12) 'R' .e.w -."Mod Mlldf. Jafsnsrt ° coca t• . (11) 'puw• am ..•.•i.. !r]duoclsl w:•a. aM a:l •L`rL uautd. _ +n _ _ 6aa••.., ..lie, zdGot:iw, o[ ee`,.e ar:7.:a]r•a ubLSb .uL or []O] •a,o~n..tt~ T~:-re- • rv t) oe~. r• - -7 .noon p.llaci.n K coot G ta..• 741ud•n .1 say macs of eb. Semen. Ju A -x..•n•.r .+2.e. e' (IA) .Caton of ch. feat.- Laetud. Lk•a. ►.y. L-7.•rdla6 • d'°*• - e d da f-.2.•e. rss-Li . sPv~is. calla. riven, 6-. c-.•b. -I... ..rasa., lal•G. cools. Cho ParO a O<.Y .iL-" th• ear:ie.rtal 3.I - - • t e ll--u of W Sean of ar.6M. saA al: •w: bodies of su.:aco or ud•t -0 -ton, "coral or set- '!.1. Lalmd r coastal. . from or sale. wblic or prl+ec• (-.Pt ch.. Pziwco -can - - .birh b we tester or off-r a Jmr:t•n aAth 2.V=_-.1.a :T • or bCl w r.r•._...o .~.y • „p. , t t •d-p-" wean). •alrb or..b.Ll7 or iu"-ELI ber-e- f a~• r~G er vlebla iu J.t'Jdlrr!-w. f•'~°Z'~e^ e° •re~+ - ]r b ar_~ie1 Sfrt.er^e±.-. • ._.e _ - _ CLS) •L. a- 7•ri•d• race c!. f1•w is a s:ro" rosulcta6 1:M •>'-•Rr•• are_ - i . d s ..r~- praeril7 p•eusd.aear dLehari. •r baf.^rn •.p•oz.d sae 1oY.• A. ae• _.e es~ ] to sad storm. pnJ•eG du-tag the 4--.- mod K Ch* 7so=. S9. ^'dr+ a - C dr7 Mother p.ct•d .oriaa aeroa• O• Stan .carats{ G Cumte •r'•.•tar. ad topog-p". wba-moor tbo Io flea Perth L t-^]eaeed In e`.e eae t Ouallry :..s.6••.ac rlma. shit pence has b••. aPpre -e. 11:1 G••e!~.• f by a I---- noncan. eh•to aspliewlo La • .u:o dise::ari• 1 •e] ]t a Pont.. ch. lam fl- MriN w7 b. !ur3.r d-fL-4. cube , ,,,s r _ ( (:6) •S.0a4a7 ¢uea.ee• u b. 1.12w.L i esems u7 rosuito fort r'e teid2`• a -r.r- - •1~ d r~r• t r°e~e~n 2.a) •S•..6• .ascu• s•an• L1. v Taal of r..anc , analo L.d b. I7A :•;uL»eY 7.:fra.;r - Ivbu< L. 97.2.00. •:aers::al and .=or meas. •ou:cs.• •La17 r.ncr.l .tuL-L-t to east pr•c»c-L L:.soma (SS). C tl') ..came : S.u: c..• - s L1 r• _ z. e a of to a. .a 7.a:t: ~a_•: s.• (1s) Ler:+( Cara::. ((.f): no'r•ac••tof lo•siri tic a •a:•2. .•L...• v._..eu. •.O.•_ , a.•: t•:a~ ~ s:•at.tda, ."1Yd'6A:S lean. :9, 2.!90 7.:~~^)t~:] , _ . ~ i Tal3Cia AND Ctrmn.•ra CZXImALl= AZnje"U -0 ALL MSL+a I4O-41•026 e. •te .•eert Orr t- um-2zllm f.-1fr-2 1 .ei~.r r. ~ ....r-...~cs....• tet.•,.n~~._ ee• .rotes.-. ro [-f:,e e..e,:e e . +.•ft I Lalsr2ad Asds -r-97 -eels -41Gh ese-w eh•ee t•n1• f-~l:,ete. d.•et! efei•,Afe t.- o.osaoAC7a rapers ""opC•a of fish. she L2fSah. I" .Hall. -1 r.C.-Lit lad - -be .nut -loll end ♦-etacW IOtY. ch. f:mysse.aem-eS Qf-SSf7[ atrml. Ka w- CrmdesLw tle-•as. azn fell s-•••• •clq t the L.taip'w0~ ma -•ardl-.tiua d IteJlle vAr3el►s.l-m r• !t pas•Ll.r .(m 04Cpi1L6 plsalaC lt.ee•.. a lwt.[ we-[ (D) tae KCLatL7. aspeest-m. er sxoorcl iees"I"CLDs a aw I f••11c7 bt -•m.--+a7 ant JAL eaiesoie •e octal or inct.e-w dteei-re low L eaucaut with the dweL.~eac. me. aiieevmr w lL d••lv -o -7 .11•tr 1Mr "b.-twpd U." Ised W !),map Y .•wt{eeee( b7 • .mare gm.LLq a a -locs•un elate- L order u p•pd a .tatemaac of lari mw 6-umtsbLut7 tzoa cbQ avvv vrlata saettya-Sem K e .el.arW 1e•c•eL gelblte ba-lli d lo-L /Lfa•Lx4 -pap- . ..Lfetm. L e.we, loem•ot. -ow d-amlallw K .+c-r t feslle7 La[ertero'Lt& K beer L-Jurl.om to -4•leatlel-1 Cb) Oeeisa•- owe Oealit7 -..iamKC p-11sb• -ad lroc.- Yr .f decor 4.u. setts. g of be f-U-1.9 .re-s: stttstmgtdro that Duiw•o eater ►edlu law - ft-tG cavmsley u -relatlem aa. f?o-•R-wp-Y-o i.s a.ea.ls"sl•wd•Sa (y • ' lob: .trees•mr-prw•i--iuo.wd-o►.•Mw1•re•-o •e.: i (i) 4t1--.t vtu d steels uwta: -ryllemrsw+f•.».rae•wJa-1op-.l•.-ew1a-... •lew (C) w .-s lrs••es•e s-fup.: emhe,.%....fsed.•-Amw-ww1r'-sews-wr..sa-Gwtoa4- (D) state, herb. u.faL]-•La~ -Ivy-Ww-.me-*l•l...ld-.&...11-.17 . Cb) P•Lac -acct. li.a~-rLH ab.U C.U- p.U.IH and W+)as.r -rwam.a .wdingly .1Y11 -bl. x). !S7 IW). o-d 111,1471 m~.Lnc ..•ac. lvt ffE•1.a••t .o•_t,LoLL••s- c+e topetmetc7 to . at Lfl,. ( La-.ouy- .ataL•...7. eel C2). fu- 1. -4 La L41 rn '1t _ Sloe nee t2!1 [K)r too.R'e t9•e ate. .wficoo-aemt P-lLe7 ~e~srm117 oL mn7 tsass.d 011 -0).-M ae-fw)). tad-+t•r.o e4o.tq e/wlt M beta m agLidt: --c-rle. I K Cstr <I) ID .[der m °-L=-s- the am.LLtg -Z"-- U the S"- of a-9-- voo sKCfr. Me CC-a +.faLtbYw-J De di bas a It L m tm.rs:1 M1Lrl •t m 1~ m r.natr- 'A-' F•o'-h d e•aal0or -4 trllevlai: allAll . 4wlmpar-c N aeae~wses! >7 Larrs-sM .1llelefr7 atfi LfK11eKe-s •L eeoce czyocoomc d aesti.t --b c9-e i--r.Cml11 f .imm-...., Lff. CiYG[L- lhtw. tleey ged way l..de ht• e.L..Ug --tale- 4.c ese..o- proo--ey Li-4 a..hotgod lo." esape as pt-weal to saction (1) Ad-acme, One-.f-stS-sa ICU"ca. A.t.. ae7 be (I) of OL. c.I.. 1-camases .lave cL men-disch.cg. or 131-4 (1) Th. Cm-L-L- .t Pi 1-65)1 A"•-""m •A7 eco9~•o• ta olata.ti+u h- sass- Faatat sdwt-• - ci - C2) -ad IQ 165)1 a.d alpv.-1. n ~-a jl! [(A)[ fat .a•eioo.OtiL .LLK:s OaII fse 19t•Y..d ol+-~P altara-elw. An -Qle Aa7 be ch. JR Kadatpd asst eels! dteeharL•n. r.spelwl7• a Je[ p•Omtl.L d.CSadaeiw L SM d.."r tom )ma dlseharp•te Lneltads t2mso Snd.s=al d domestic -ware 2 th-t era Ppzs..zi- L oast--. el..-Lt:ed Y -J.r •w¢w LR pec.L-- tee r•-•7-sie L. GL ]40.15- 07](2). (L) lmoct L•fecta. T.cm1 r--o I-L-i nor be r.&.-d ch -tlelaeciw R rw- of .Wr 1. aLt.-L g some K lsc•.ase. stsAhatied I.".. Col. c..aa.L.6 -.fate, dL..b----. R cLtwsk . reame .a !a , R -'7sae•Kff A^• -het ache, L•ll.v!•at !Lndlp: CL la--I dL do p. ♦ -aestca CMC upL- mar OMLe. :n: tsaa aeceyu .ddl1•ul au `ea _ass :.V meta or --••-e ' le.G -.:4 wt-r s••-_•-i y e•L•1-:K: ffl.L.ne C•.- - -me or s7stm. or -b-.a 1--24•-+ - be dt-ehorp 2es4lap 4~-~g p=...s of I- stt.u (i) Sbe meet K snc.•.ssea t.acb-...•4 lead ..sid net [1nr oe7 be p.cmictw an Lacteaeoe duc! Js lest ~:oaun e: L.p.L an• e.plt-e 7"-r•to'°'L K dare-.i of llih -_w. be>wfLel.l YHI=~ _ _ .Alf f,_ ~ - . t7.ntaILL,S S - Iasi 39. 1190 l~WOMli T Ito 2!. 1!!O sj= [~s+.te.. e- •e.•f <LLL) sea-ticSa, L:fKta. LM apvlltacLH, u,LLed welaed- an LLeect.e..r ether oon.dlscharg. _ ,ALfA.e t -1--cl.-- for avpavrLtal7 CY-N v.mcowur _ _ _ i1 e 1 m-7 [•vl-nlsn irs.ee~.eui 1-1. end L baMe t _ _ --.d• - -.k'~. - efl- d Y-1e1L-clw GpKL7 t .ag e esh.evle. lev -ve.V- p.[tw. r.ftt~i. ee etches • _ 'fee-ft~ •Y _ ~~•t ~f ~ (L) 2sse.•.t. Lf_sets Ct'-:ar!A. Then Y-talla:i,o c-peel? . vn!a+ _ _ _ _ A,fe `Ate- aiita In ..eaa-. and be. L: J Je go,o J[ Lnttees.d CC) (7---..sm...-stdll-elarsM_1.sd-.he5s •a..-M•• 1-.diaW LL-, a.t hew .4.= ecl7 F..:.: _ a:yl:-omtml Kfocta than oc4a[ -,tariCws to wpws trassie.- fews..seg--o»r•Lrlu•SlsN-u++Sng L- d us harp. the KH.ole a. Me et of tnet.u.G 1LSeN •a:efe-o!!. y.13.tan.-..... wlmood •'•ffL •N.-l-.►.•.d itsel--p ees. ~n»la-N 1•.dlni n111 1. es.aLGtw. ieeneol- eKll be of .eta..-asawas.~►.smasswel7-o.-ohe-wr•w.f•1 a•e $-..I c7vs: e...Latedadsr..+Mt+r-•er-o.-i.-wwr ~.a)Lq <L) tales of As-lsllecl o CapKSq. TS. auiaLla clw Slalewt-.md1~~f'••-. i!t ^~^•.i.,-.•. •---d to <apeelt7 •L c -C-'- -=-rm are f3Lta. but the of _ , ° t• el.., -Le of this to Kl. e[- firaa►11 eta •f_!oe .f i+_r _ -.drat t.+ .ed _a ]eO. P.-c", ym !e to Laperaac =Ac vrlerin be .t-oast Set r.• -tte~ • a-- u flees b.-ftetal Y uc it-else O. _f af t Sr---- rote- (beafleL.l nL-: we c. the f_ reeaf wee - - ~l-• -4 ---Luc,- capacity chmc -U c h. =l~ .t1lLtad. Cat !L' bane.Sc ' teser.e u,L-lla4w eavael7, wll u - - gc-.L.1 fveta-• ben-fleLe, rill be wlgs-e a-Sme -he Keewle b.-f-- usK.aud . I:b _ ~ct.ea•e leading. • __1 I. .d. ;•••n .1 I tLl) WL of Ttudee A'_nslep. The teas UR&Cod Ae..leee- .f- .t d t:eao.ec tee_ me-w••-A~'fe tee e._t•-. di-2-90 -fa-L-o ena+11. _ rte e.aly-4. ' ±1, r MteA m ' e. ~te•• efteAl.fA e•~ fA1 A -.e.......c-t.. .mot. _ _ _ tw , _ - •"-1,1~ ati y - - - - l..tt -esa t~.fe•.-..•e. •1. - - ..fete-- - ' ' - - _ filet tee e' _ . tftr2er-_ - ~tseGti 1!~t_ ~+e~ e_!f1 a_ _ - - -eeet.•-. • e - eWtt~ •~'t'•d C'- ]LCLit0e61101f ! 1 lb, It-•-r m- d. et o a•• srlo ,deee!~. -Ae [f - te•"•ee• e _ _ ' l➢l Ile [T _ - - et .r - - - -;21 c IIIAL' >r:r..eau a ?'!:~q!:e.:a ) . _..,....:asD .sea 1 i $ ~a ~ kcsUa;azs e ! e :e r~CC~ ~ ~ ~ ~r •c"~s~'~~~p^c r~r ~t ~a~FFF ~ R~ j~ ~ ~p4~ d pF ~ r•~p9f ^s ag" a E.~ ~ r~ {a~ a t "i~~e~ ~ X47 x Is S nc ~SC, C;peC Q D~~ !n •~~~i ~ its, l 91 f iJ€~gnti t€ R xp~o~ c 6 jfp life ^ y " o ;c p-i a -Trial '4' YE~~E~ rV~F x ~~S~er~ ~ E^ ~ ~€~c ~ V Ne ~ sv a ty ~ ~ ~ ~ aR t' q e3i pf~`p~ap Y~~ ~a Rik t . r : v r f ~ C"c" rw f . ! » 8 a ' fill, F1A p ~ i ~ ?n c ? .G~ 4, ~ Q c a c : ~ c ~ a .E` psPr. Ri rE fill a~ff E ~a r 5ps~" Iu~ c~k~ c:k ~r~£~~ r ~ a ~^•,~A r ~t ~~g9 p ~ ~ ~ p ~ E E e r~ a Rr, eea~ a e tk$ p 9E~ c• •a. ~ ~ p c c ~ .p as IS. p~ ~5 aE a sa ~ ~ ~~~~~~E' ~ ~l~~a c ~ ~ . !s~~• F^~ ~ ~ e ~ s- •a c ~ ~ .p• asp :c cps ~ ~ r e. p~ are^ ~k ~ r:r ~ ~pas5g ca ~ ~ N ~ a p _ ~Q ~ Fk~£s~~^ ~~~1~~~•i~■Eij~~ k~~ •pk~~~~ 1~ x .K~~~s'sg~~~ p~c ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ Y F~n~ ~ nR Y : Si w„~ OryV p ' % • •h pri ~7~i yy^ ~ , npS y~ • e~• ..^r; ~ ~ n K ~n Cw .1^i .•i ~ Y~ p SS . w „ •o „ n . C ~ app r iQ er r j ' f 3 ~~Y$xF~~;GZCE g' g••~gF$Ea ~ ~ r ^ E 'E ~a o a $ rxq. c^$' x~+ !d a r';" p E z:~ PH sfi -~c dF=gF~g s rihs^~~ trF ~E$$ r^&E€ "C. ~ ~ ~ E a$~ E~~ ~r 'd x, ~ ^•d~e~ iQ a^sK E3. E d^c r F i<Rg gi^' ~e sr yi "d y .s' d x s R; V siRk~ ..c ±~l.r.xF2 r"~~ ~ Rx~~ ~e'r• ~ ~x~dye,~ ~ ~E~t: i jF: r~3; E arsc4~~ $R~: ~ b:~s¢~rRx~~$ ! ~d•~a"g~i a5rs ~Es" 11E 1 ,F.Ax r: eGG' a x c9 d? EWEE "r~~^c•xt ",;ad;soy .dQia~stE4zs R a 3 E~ S$a to & d g=." `d^'' a ~S`8>s eatl R.d,E~Ar^$• s 9 ~ .@6~ yE $ t ° ;H c °^"e i S¢s "a ;Eas$a rs. 'fir $ _ e~~ r t e"". ~sFa •9F •sc^c.:c•c E ra yk"~ $ r 'E~d_3r^ ° ::=~R~3 Fd xc~=d~E,sr d~E.a rkdRri $ $~"p wj- YoeN 3 :o~n•. ~o EE CC' 4M r^ rK CC3ri ` C[ gC: .CC^2Ci C'~ •C~ ~6 AFF'gi~e Eat ,pG~ ! .Cifc~dr$"=c sR 3V k ^>"cFe. S C, r"r$q a cs: E i e1'iM " go Q F.F~~; :c e. ~ Eia ae a $ k ~ a 7E& ~ . S:i.~ :xe: ~ ~^~rrA s:f cs~ fir" p $ ff ~•~r ~ fit `CES Ce~.e~r} gy CC 7 ~~a` F~ F E" a rd x.•.• 3^'~ a e R `Ra e°c~ ,.,~~d r~ a ~g~ 1~~~ ~ $ k'• "a a F ~ssr ~ E,i ~3r c~•• o ~ a c e:~. s~ i l~ E ~ ~ °~sE ~.r? "gam""c:gd~ s= e s sc 6~ : s ~r AE F •a• `g3si:R ¢:EEE£ =Y x a A ~r M 7 f 9 E v rsfcR r R Pr F""G es`c"dia _r P;k s a s~ s sER • " ~3r t~ xr •~~w R'i. ~ e~ ~re.°~ ^ n 2 Er f~FB C ~ ~ •r~.a ~~G K4a w y~g~ si a~aa "°^•7 ~i ~ `a ~ e ~ ~ rr~ .i dd a€ ~ ~ dr ~ s~F z~=a is a g F F g is F~F >w~ was IE r. ;a3-. •;e."~~~ ~^.s c kz ~FR F F r tit EEO ~ 49d Ile 33~~a ~ t , n" e cg arc @ 33 e F d c F' Sy rg~ ~d@s$ x kd"~ °c~; F"~• k~ '?$dF E'd$9' ~ ~ • diPe~I•E.3. ry6 SCa y ! $ for @ ~ ~ } .e'wZ :d rr. arG ~a gg r :Ga EQ~ a r g ^SrE c.~. i::.i•:xF~ d ~i?C 9. ~c c F cF ~ ~ v ~ p~~ ~ ''•il°~ aa~.'.Gf.. ~ "!G" F ~ °o ~ Y ' > ''`r~ $r y~ ire C^ ~ r^~ 1• ii a G M ~ v a Mw 2 0 r ism 3 w w F v All lip I err I. j 3 "Fga9 Ell ?F€iaF pF~c i ; i # R9 AcEa gQ~aE i tc gx _ p F'QJ E. yrEE1~t ~r ~rgc r } 1 c h e oxA~•ff or ;Fc ` Fla It E o ~ d sort Mt iTR TiVi t •e 1_ _at~ 0•al-42t w A..ne.e 6!2/19) 11111 4D-n tot sons 1~..e .,eur.rlen_ l•.S.nA wane. eetl .fan •e,ygh.r nen•e1,eA.ro .te•t±. ew .rer d9lrmasc•1. _ • rod v enlenteh - 70:2: t)t..r+A•rlf..rd par:.- of .p•.... Props..! adtiziom Yde - tlR - - te••l. . ins vr,n _+w one u the role.. W) It i em.r ten a 1»M.•rler er v .row tb. Fb...iwaod) P."I- of Mac repr.... c Prop e..G delecleu code s «n c •e t. be hales. 1._+....•I. rlTar of Ce•_+rte. DAs. d+tellaNTe a acres oe1 •e. ~ . o b fe tt11Mr•d rhrr +•~-ee~~•ed l+ed Inyefn. •.ill t +f+emelT set aawr+ •l•Hretweneal• r*L=i1 AXD RZDCL1= cn LL= ATMCLUM 10 ALL SaITS [f th a .le.m.rl+e.•mrt...w..•d dl rr~aere_ eh• - w=t. •rfeee •t inr..~ t••et.e elll )r• a mte.eed-„ 310-.1.0'11 - r t. [t o rtt2 e• eM_ eel Mw•v•e (1) (a) 4istisS high quality eomro abic► eed the" t.eels reesseaty /tl ~yj f .•t.tl.siT. ~••-.lr. YA• .•I.t1.Mt. m yre PCOpepei.a of fish, sbslul-h -d Hldllf. -A t t4.een•a .e-e~.i are, tunics. buy CLa rotrtepet•a 1. aeW w Ch. wur ft.nnll N a.tnul..4 and protected yDLnit 1 °••~~f dot. ~°.e_far ore e•re•~Ite eeale•a me ZwLrovw-•,: quality Comtsslee choeaes, ales full uniw°d ts1_t....rre the, rtergie+!• tlaseact n of ebe tnurpT•ma.nul -dleaet.gud public ft cross. Ae.eflr+•l m • tonne .serf .o et.. sctetpaeion pr•elai.oa of the eantlnulng Pl4.n4e9 Process, to a e,:•n tb.e.[t<t.t mel eet.N_e. • c.. l.wr oater quality for .aeauax7 and jusriftabls aedomie or ••at.+t.etT. f - t- - wish ber..et+t*•a ..eul derol"oe.c. tba Di[ote.r or hu•deals- uy allw isu.r jD-.rnm . ett_.,ttt twneftr t-.,~ rer+. uaear quality on • above-Cem beau in order to respond to ` 1 ll et6 setR T•12 r• tset•ne1 •t fins n+e ehe .fG .e.at,-"- .r to .fb•cul.. Protect pab11. b•alrh and eelfam. Iq / t ~T111 M r.t.hee are, ar ee•eae, be--.. a.r dedradaeloo .t .stet quality uurf.es etth ~gD•[te _ e.e Tte1. t,.rra.+.a ±e.ef nr-. or Donor tgjerieea to eba be.efr.i-f use of oats vlthi. surf... t+auro .f the l.llering arses: tttl fid2 °f Tarvnelorf_ TM eeer of (--d .•fa.. 1 1, rw a+d tfeI red Dacl.eal P.O.: s•h+... Y.r,Ltlwv shall it •e•luae•d. (a) paWnal 011d and Scenic 11wrs: (C) 4cuool VUdlif. Llug•s; 1111 KIM rer any co. Moot. s.or . altemocivea bit], .--I I . tams or (D) Sum racks, dl.p.aal Xb se discharge to P.bU. esxare .ball be SST.. blgbe.e priority far teen ebameer peoetiG.bu P w ..race. disebarges oay be (b) y.L= source dt charg.. shall fell- pellefe. and guideline. (2). - a;yraeod rubqoccre th-iv-• i 1 f eh/r -)a- Ebr-ah. L1 FF)". and LU F(1>I. AM noepetnC aau[ce ae%Zrtria. $hall De►arenosa.SS•r ..a..rJl..dwr..-lgws a+..es ~ealSgrr fell- gald.Uosa fol. m_ gal f91. and flol_ Fis),40 -F%)1 boeofis."I ....+•111+.eerr-dSSatSS.u.+r-1.rg.+.+•.eur....r.o-ba (g>f-ra.iP>.F •PPrw.a•►r•w-cnTN.w..ai ~..als4•c.~s..s.n.j (2) to ardor a slamft the quality of uatero in ma Sum of Drotm. is 111 FF01 M Mothers- of ..aces ce lakes or r. -Lm shall be .llewa is the -1 Mllq of Cho CGC to squire mac S-Vch sea 66"I"oene ggr:we -1d d t, seerion 1. F.rl.l+ae-eP..SiSo •.Py..+al ~i-eM be aeeoredetN by l.c:see.a •CLlc-'MWY and effeeclT.na.a of rsec. •1 t:oomane and e.e¢el arch clue raeur.bl. future dudurged ~ca 1.W Lew eztacing ..u[c.. de sec oacoK prot•ecly aliened diecbarg.d 1•[l FFS)) Log Dandling Is Public eaters .hall conf.o to currant I*C Lads w nr.+le_= i. f erten_f71_ Erslves<th.wise petioles and gaidell..o. r►e.Sflea11y ~P►....d •br-eM •.CiCri Ln Ftg)) Sand ad Fowl :e.eToca:um .ball be eenes:aG phe a.= to esyaraced lyre tie le. Sit --t t et- et t7) •nA t•1 a prat: the D1T--- tisles of Sca Stees L a.6 t rtl•ter _fer et: ~.r.srr eeh.r ting a=- bra fclgbe 9.:s rAbe: coos )be z.all± a -_A-rbla.^ ga <i+e~-re.~- - _•,fee et+ „-...s +n t a to•e-te1 preseulatl and souse us..! ytxasa sus .rack j. I 1 ..r one d r.~ ~ 1 1•fed . - rate Prtsrieohl.. DLehargs.. rpr allaeed. M :r usyap or -aaaap e• :s fee to tuns l~n-s1.47s t11. Public vaum shall rose: eouao a rtclsel...f "Car gra11_1 s-_aeesrdc er _ _ aee.rs.17 affot: legic3.aac. OueC1GU1 mos. 310-.1.026 (Aa Aaa.ded Jwa 1. 1959) Pop T.l~:d137g 340-d2-025 (A. Arnded June 2. 1919) ?.Be ) }a'\Cd]37S a s5 fyl !n .11 earl roe n. r f b t h ~ 1 e S 4 Dt_e a +h.lt r•~r~>_. !e11 eT1.•. @nef nrr• 121 i)%>i Logging and !er..: -gaaant ee-_vt C.a hall he nett ae r e• Keoe4u vt:.h :be Ci.ton forte: p: ae:lees het .e ♦s .o alai_-.• a 1il 1e row r Svreied dt :charred ! d •jr - aNatse •!lae:f en rater gullt7. - 1*1 t(g)i Read b."etng sad .aiac•Gtne. K:1Titiot•-he!' be tent :.d tr. - :amur a t. k••P -ca eau--at. out of public rote :e and a .1:. "••fe -.yam -ft t 1 realee of cos bank.. f111s. m read ssa_-laces- -q 1f•l da r cei~* rea,.e df. h r e 1 d h ]t - 1< LIU FF9>) In erdsr ca Lope- cen¢el. eat mope .uses of !~c tt p.llrtiee. GderQ. cute, .m 1•ul uaw•rea f 1 tf• d g.aagC ag•nG1•a x111 ltat e+e ..,1.., e11. 11.. der b. •.eeueaSod and uatsead to se. rGi.au plae.lnS sM Snp l.rncaeieq of stt@eeM dt.eA.» r y Tt .e to t 1 pr.Srsr to c•gultu or ...reel runelf. oteaie.r tnibi"Cy, atrfaa iadirertlT eh. e t ) CeoPa rarure. at..- nau. and ebe etc•Adrwal and use of 1¢1 clan ' e. t.. wr rd•-qtr. 1+-. e• ear .e A baain•etde approach ea u e. yreuet me 11 aod •r_ rr b•offletal mu of --I and r.larsd ruerreea. Sueb yre~ gas _7 lIIl cl- rt'tr' set lcclude, but me be llafcad c•• the Collo.ring: e 1 e t -i t-h ti t leral•l,ne elr • Meene d p [ t 71 (a) Dwelep.ent of yroleeea fo: ecerap and release of eateabie t~setbnt[T ere. ehe _ _ eert.ea resat _ _ _ - guallq wens. ;e aup.ne lee a.r•aa jsl ores•e•a w. emtt 11 t Q1L - 1 (D) Vrha-t stew[! eee¢el to r•dre. .eaten rlae Drteene+ r bealr••haT+ a tins it Au Aaee•.•ed~rh,rQ,+ ~.e n .been (lino. ~ ^ CC) fo.aibla s.dLII-ca* of :-liacie. Prsetie•s Co r- or and 14 Ct - f .i.L.U. adwra. lepaete ~-oa SrrlitLlea [•CL~I t:ebaaler~ rb•r ..mlA h_ meref .era. n to ores... Agee t n - t (e) SCcofat bank .naian tetuetlea Peel •eu. coacl- 1, a- ..,ate seine of dol. rt, 1 + 1 I r _..ee Int. •.M 4rut rt eeluahl. r. [Aar _ of 1 . fen.-.OR - --r1ft .t1T ...n aeeel~e~tteT r r i2. ~ ~ t - .as>,tt.~+ y.~r..Anrtn 1. b t• addle. en a the redo rf to rub,ae f ) C -a1 f eA CeeQf,r_ r DtSee ,h.11 « ~ f 11 SA1 L~.rtr•..•. r.l a cr+ e• _ y^tl Ad+.r.• Drt.e C-Srr ~ [ff ~ Sv • The 1 ~ t d t ales •Tea_v e r _ +nvt-n.aa,-, .1 effee rLA~.r. rlhe Sneer Kedwdl•e _ +I re - 1~ -h 1 e a t =cane.. r fr lme t1 + 1111 znr - ieut - 1•. A c• a th_[eueh eliel a _en •1 G!rrh,rrr• e~ re.rh , - _ al e-eLa-e_ rru -1a =2C ' e • h 1 LWnr f•I.fr [ !~\~%:3:t •nGC Jrnt 1lt51 gap 710-AI.02a :A• A -d /tear 1 :7L•l~•O,C 1 n - h ~[f7~fC._`lrj77~ M V410 LIN M 1- 17- It 1"OVE r L ;q -rjrAT"T-r-nw-7r .53-M 1 rz rT 1 t 1 TM asmant-s{camv mo-~z===~i9r l - nxrnoun an n%Dnoi Tn=as i I M1 1 I. MISUMC D(SIC9 C.ITtiLA )Oa TtItATMXt agD COWMOL Or U&STts (A) the -...itch aVs or ney likely be se" at the 3e0J1-e3S rwetring attar: t►) Subject to the tmplao.nucfan pngtm sec forth to into .340.41. I►e .iz• and octane .L (lw OC the roc•lring s:raen: 110. 9tlar a thech.go of •mT row Lt.e eAny nds rseen o[ ow e•atltbe 9"Llicy to any reuCO (h The quantity add Nallry of rota u M ctuc•d; and a[ the Y11Weu LLwr Wl.. tech .hall be :roared and csntrsl lad I\ to Atltltioa designed W a-OVAdeas Ktf dr L•llerlat Lot- titian. (D) TM prooeaco or h.ons. Of achat tour... of pollreaM (in Nslgnie, er•Arseee tmilleisa, rwt.g. conditions oral a n-reel range w tbe.seas w-cshd. a1 verla►lllty uo peerolly eead L ee..6l lahLµ de.lp erica[fe. A tattllry acs. s." at" W placed to operetta. ON"" apesea at or rear (e) Igen Let utiLl, e....nLl, or senid t ihs design llAdt at of ch. time, bet any opera" balm red design ) awtmL alpnlflcaot "rtieied at poineciala toil tesl. cr e ! hall he determined ILtt K cams dr a wrlakl.a ableh sin rmptedtCtabla or ~ alw.e., erwarnt r aNeiswma s411 M Ntocnlned oocsmcrolla►L. This I. possisrlotly tree for ►Ll.gieel traaeee- etLltti.g sppepttwme Unease". 9-ilitt". TM caul opor"tot Molts are L-9-0-4 to be -9"11shea by perch perswe a OM "".740 nod mists" Cur be asaul M[tar.asce (d) tedwectel awned WCa"'Ons"LaLng stp.ilicacc boat Ieada l...l sir at class be Lau than the design hall be SrbJocW to .Lfacre n .-list K Mac recera y peter in dLSbatp a PAIL -toss. • (1) Sowgo rasuc: r (0) rHvo pnedectw -hall be pcpriwa to, prewar bypassing (a) Will ces User end -Lbcorlas •seePC 1'wlaeia 94-C Of at raw, se in,degraeely es..tN SrdwcrLal races to Cry to cry frDWL: WbiL wars. (A) Duttsg Part." •f la .Green sloes (aPP...L--ly fuy I (f) rutlltte. shall be praetded ce pre.oat am vm4t&L rpllls to 0co►ee 31). Trearsoe :..-ICiag L eeaclly -cog. at potentially U.S. oC huatdous eaceri is and . pa.LCL- a[tlre •-•--••act - so, in --a 10 .%A of SOO PCmicsm Lae wulamm•ne cad eLwreq o[ ouch gtlla should d LO an of If •t 4"Lenlent nsae.l. they oseac a1a11 be dovelopol ad moos. (t) Darin, ch. Varied at high scraae flwrs (approximately (3) )W-polac coon.. poll.tiw eaacnl to the Trslsys LL-, .ub•basln tt....►ar 1 o Apra b): ♦ .aa'__ of secondary std lads de.Wn to Osage LAke (w-M-p-Sasd•afesr crooner oc aqul-leas -.1 and -I..a owrviaa Samees7.lr•SfpOJ: spxLfL"Uy .alb-lsed by be D•parts•nc, "start- at ' all rasa treatment and Code- 1-AILtiaa at -I- (a) (3bo-N11wr1a21 1.1Sub-se-LOa(s) MM of %te -1, shall practical oraclobey end a[feeLwee.s w u a apply in say nor land dowlovesm Within the Tualatin tlwr ecru dlsch.rt.. a PAIL wan. -6 0soap L.kn sub-bestow, except ch- --lapses.. Ku• applieaet.n darer prior Ce Janvery 1. IM. The application Ch) Sal. stn 4u_•+- liver Lrao o.ua to Csscoe cries. "1. 0 was sMU be ch- data an rblcb . Complain application far in 43): developeont aromeal L recalred by the local Jutisdtctioo in eaaatd.nae a lc% the rag d ci w at Ch. Intel J..Ldlccfan. (A) During pectedo of law scrs4o flare (.pp...t-..ly Key 1 a October 31): Tzeaoeot tesaltiag in monthly ..sup Ch) For lead dawlopasnt, m PTalLainzy Plot. $tit plan. po-lc .Maroc csmtrscteu sec is -ad 30 .&A of 200 er "It. weeks PnJ Cc -411 be .pp.-wd by -7 J-L.dicti-n and to at^ of SS or •emLwlest Central. L choss aA-bas La urdess the e•a"tions of be pLe p.-Lc or 71- ".Osal 1-C•1 p fagilita.. i to be s.nalcplan uc. d er -4 (3) Durlsg she parsed of high ,-..a ft- y Ch". War rerl.. -g $--bar 1 ce Apra M: -noon-.z nraltiai Lm eeecu-early r.zh land wwlope•ne'sed to be epetatod duziaf sonchly .wrap affz. csac•a-cite net d cast- rim to c 1 =M discharge of sediment to the 20 &A •f mcm and 20 eg/1 of SS or •qulwlan:..Cz:pl, swrzwesr -ff. TM .-.I- ..octal plea 0411 utl2L-s: (C) vain at" Teals -'tom LLwr .Sew Caren (:iwz late Ll) and (A) protection CaChnitw. :a central sell -Cast- am •11 tee-arias a the Twl-ci. 11wr! T-car= z•wlriat -alias-- ZT-Mpart co Use than one (1) coo par acre per L mthly aver." •ffI_.C eoateacza_•lu not :..-.ad 1 "ors as Calculated wing the Soil Cataareatien Soe♦tt• eg/1 of 300 and 3 Wl of SS ...trlwl.nc C.n-al. OASwrsol 3-11 1.. trua.ieo or ocher pulralent i ~ eecheds. S•• FS gas:4s 1 c- i In Alrt.:'DCS I [.r (d) Twlacln Lire[ Seab+,:n: :h• li,,olr•e -ay{•n 1•=via tr. :A. •aagl•a. The --L-n cent-.L plan hall Inel.d. •!fle.ec, :ass e uaperary seClsen-Ci- be,:- -r S aeeta•nr te nrnet elscdart•IL oral: not _)an a y:. dart... rear, b-... at ,•..p ,nep•s or -h- stc~ N im tee Celuobla river: Poe!-Ls ca-lwntt-:e, .,her a -s1a ad! C.ncr.L nsthe. VU! MC likely keep the ,aato•nc transport Co (A) D-ing ,rs,ser (May 1 c. October I1): Tre•tmonc leap Urn w (11) Can par acre per year. Th. local n.rltiag fs owehly ...tap e[fla.ne <OK•nCraCLON .at,dLetlons y scAbLLsh- addltieni ngrlnwaes for tLet an qulralonI detT.. Of esec:el. Any ,edtaonc nee ce oce ed 30 -g/1 of 3w and l0 .y1 of SS or Oa,las --Cod hall b. Lod wig 1.3 fee. manlmua oqui-l..c -C..L. sediment $urate depth plw 2.0 fear •"ego depth .bore During mater Cge-ab•r L to April 30): A lalese of far • uctl.asezsee. be .-rat. Capacity of the secondary q.awnt or •aulr•1•.C control and whoa, basis s41t be sized co core 411 of the sediment that a .ch.miza sp•etftcelly wchali.wd by the Dep.rwnt• cndcaly."bo the•od and potential d•cwasing Z,rrCm .f •11 rasu crown. and a nzrel facilities e tow •+h1le la the erosion p."ac1.s. Oren e ere has boon :s W sea • .t s•sfaw pracsLe.h l• •[ficleney and .Lfo<elwn.as re basis. ls, of other sodLdts.ne eaneet fac feetlI allot... can be can be as co eI.Lou. ruse di,charpo to p..blLC -tors. r.eoe.d ane the size re•wred at par cbe final size Dies. All sedtasnc basin ah•ll be colorised rLeh an (f) LLlleenc SM eeeCeneraClen in og/l. 4rld.a by the dll-Lan -19-7 -.fl- a .-.at- - fall-. at No 1-1.1 is of ..!ring I-.- flan - .ffl-nee f3W) .bell net aec•.d one (1) u loss other tse specifically eenulnrenc dike, at .pp,.-d by the fartrees.nsa! Q-11e7 Cewi-I... A sell • s control maerlc darired from and (t) Sw4te vu...s sha21 be elan inf•e tea. , •r e:uwn:, Cents"-crt:hChe anlrer-L rail less equ.clen ogriral•aC ce thwrmgh miring Kcb sulftc L•nc chlorine ca •pprer.a by be Jwi,dteeaen or the Gp•rtm.nc, prsrt4. • r.stassl If at laasc : Part par .1111- at-.. SO (C) The Direear eiaau. at e.a[aet tlae wises ch.- spec-fle•LLy o07 ..elty ApP.adtz t •a rreusa_-y rithsue gPr.wl few C-' E.-L-Casmeal Q-llty Ceeni,•i... Th •uchort..a by pectic. Director say ratify APp•ndLz I co impllfy It and rs k. it - Ch) Nsiclee pnueeLa shall be prided ce Prw.nc DyPase lnt -Let tar People u apply. rw or Lad ereacaly created swap to public -cars wterr (d) IAS•loesl• }wiedle.Sown.od•ra-•-0.paraa.we-.!!pored-pngp.m e.b.C.L,s "C.-d by Cho Dep4rwnc anon e11.t1acLen of id♦IW and infU-caen r-It he -zzary, bvt nee ......Cly K°rM •'~"L -bye' '+'1"1'Ip(3)(f>r-[Mw•petnSr•wnss )•eps-.pPSy.a. e.wl•►mae.-t.-.ha.-Jvlws..s.w. J )reetica►la. suhreetfen fit ♦a) e[ Mt. A tt I dee.le•••nr !dg..' rA T.."' !1 .d 0 - - (1) fate sttLatsne easte c-analc and c.a-e1 ratu/recanto say beat rn - . be !.pant ..he.. •i•<Sal Cse."t.he as7 .",Co. fd1 t± NtA w-if e,tlen a•[., serf (2) Zed-atttal rases. law 1. St50 TA._ e0at ee.riw. a .h.ti t.~ t-- rh1CA • ocelot if et f 'e I - -••1 t (a) Atat asa1,.es practicable Sapi.nc e.ee:el, • alnle.o of w..edsi7 t...eaemr er •Nlral•aC eoetre: (-4-1.6n of rat.tree b. M 1 1 } Lai f t the M r yt•et.r.•_eC e tee.. lurtsat erl~_ awwnd.a -It" and e[t is u:e[S•1 A re prow.: In I1-i tf.ane tweed:i•+. afloat:- GL,:.far..- rh.T• fJU Dee ell •.d - [T) [ .tl ewlll i t t beet•rl•1 {•O.i<s•C Tall` Mel st tnlfieaK• z sear. art Con . Of :oil ar _he, :.•.C:rieral bas:. i.2+cce rdo-. r.::t ca. t! a a[te-~e { / pnri.t•n -frOi• Pl+n, aa9l:Can1• f•C•al Ta:.n:•. aDSLL-t ' -e f. efe!e aloe er `ogre Con, lC rnG :h• lotto ai- gaol: ){3 7:ewaD.r lTCX7776S t- X.-b.: 30, 1989 30, 1989 }t 1 f - f • 0`vrr [e,nl+aten ernt.t«. ch,e 1L1 „atev r eel rernlr+ •t - e of I a 1u.fearcf en e« ..e a u+rL• ...b•~ccine feat br . •rre ev Iert+elr -t• 1f yy.ltn a ref fell lttee [vr v ne•rele[ee.r+e• [Ae felteutnr _ (u •1 f of dl 1 , atel«neef [h- a ,,td, [vr n (31 fee dr.a ev,enn t•er•r [A - ] l ••llc. r i+ ,euLra,nr [ ctlen !a f/te el+n +h•Il lnrlue+ el• h Oreln_--- eaeec.e ~f.nlr.. e..+v.l.n ire Av .n or..en ..f.•,rrd ift ply. ~:i« [ - M. a ee.re a •t`il ~itet•.AA.w h.mee+efm.A fn a -t h rtl r - - t n[ten .r . r,•.. rrentr. rfr.ri..f~rGC.a [ .MI.... ~rl rtf - t t •S•ril.nr a ref.. +.e.a rer caul ene.eAer` eetree e. rn + - r.ae a e..~. ter Mf. eM..rrf en_ .~ttrr ert•t fwrllf M,•- ad le, fifes«{wl ~ It{l TA, ,l•rs[ ,f re ,l.n ah.ll Iw r .f l.ffG .eeffzia en.e . ! ~ .ne _ ne :,-.-rr r«rLi+~+[~.yJa - m( -r+eer.r [Sf..e .r eo.itf,. a f•et 4ret,.fnf rh.«r•r.e.n ,(nef.er•. r.r..f r.e 1 ~ ..~..rele..- - blil • M rdt----- rn.te. (er .a..ect..•. ech,r M.n u~ a Her-rt.l ....r•«. .f 1 f - .n el:d rer e. +r.en. m eel nr rni+ uet. [ +cn. lurt.dtee:vn .h.v fr e e te.e - t - Mr et a A.Il rer{d [et p.retf. ar..tee,r vtM M. Ivrt+etrnen en.~ • ~1_fen eC fn_ti,e be er er eeul.t Lrt[ [hwr [hr frerf+v,nr eevrrel tl tet,+ ,r w hrnf o+ tlu[ . + ttei-nrlnr rer r•.d etvre.a . erd+n, ro M, e1,,, . t•elf fAed in • ( ee{ereA_ eCt-rite + Meenlre a ,Lr, el•n er,t_ Nfera Y-tl 1. C fill 1 Re • ,e[f en +h+llrE, er•eefe~l,_ [A, Inei edlreten •h,ll -_..fef eten tf rrtr. w - rf.•~-->•I . r,.e.trre e. M+. ~..tM d .A fe[ 7d+n eiMn lee+ef an er Me erh,[ fl.u_nrt.l , eu[rrc•.-.• • ~ { w...l[[, en eel f•eillrr M Ida furl adt eat en llvl I- A l -•t.dl f Mt h A S- ~1 - _ _7 - ] t . elm_ eu11eL e,eate a acct tz•fe[fen of «rfuron[ +terer+n e•ulier ratee[ slult M •eerv[ed t~ •fet Iurl adte Hetfrln General C•ef liel e+ rhrll file v{Mrth, 1 - ~4 •+l Yh, aMtetef~ ,f rn, e1.t_ «c~le_ Oee,r[nrnr_ w •ef en ..n rlinnn•ff.•e elm far elm -.....1 reautn _ al~ltn [rat [ M, , eNlter een[rel f, tlf[t„ v( Atn I --tl{ + -cret sAe ~ri•~In.atrt.fe~ eel.ne~..ir1:- - - y~unr+aair[ten~ 7n. e« .[ton r„e .tr -lets[( [re. t}•+ denr,leeewn[ slnfr ]url adf relent elm +hal ,l]o•r (nr ±~Alie eeS.rsr rahte• tell ` M ewtd, gLtZj2W, -"t- and reel a7f_ ,M ...tore efrlndt.{te•! _ t]Lr [ mp .1n1.1r, calla[ Cr e. erlnr eaulf e•r een ! (reilt[f r+ 37" - - ~tde...rf• . (erefinen[ fate, [,r ~u.t.dSe[ten a eriren se. •lull co- cret r ~.l4er - ~1 f,ef ltet~( rf~IrofeAo[t_ +ll w [ M, e,1nt•fe e _ I - r.rft+rL.fFfne.~re..,ras „t ~hrtn. e.•. ,tten .,.e ..-Gorr .^^•~rn i Th .tt rr t t. elate. [n,tl e. 161 e irrd nlr.. , enefener..f r eel ,t!{rt.ner ~ r.rfe[ ~ eeuie,d he a .en /el et M4. ref en Mr i I e f t••f felle•rln - /art aef er4en - calico t reeree tf en [el of thl, K-fee tt eA. Inriretr[Sert rFenaf eeee Ann e • '0.100 - 7i 8118- A..eaa, e.,Sf_ lreefe . rf.•+ In.S S... fea :Hel v _ t•L+ tt. m coca Mrr.- e.r,n+, ,r M. + er ew,leee t'Aerre ee,errmiw. enter ! r es. t leaf r_ten ern _ • sy - t,eelred aM,nMr... -e-_e.,t rf!f et,ne _ _ _ r.elr e _ .tr.Al. p.,_. w.er.., free ecefr r«[!tr_ - C: UH3736D • ~ • A,fefab,r )0. 19t9 ?--\QD7761 • ~1 - ft-b- 30. 1989 " • ly lh In-tlee be that 1u bmea w _ noble • (re, c !ellorl« eau•cien• -•f - t n eee c ~f •dlei_ _ evade f _ of 11-r _ eel • f . df` L0 7 + 311. r0 ] Aa1 . 10.7. wll_ r•-111 t ae(e eLM lane eealeeeent can see Lne tO.Of f - fAi + 0 Ut i t .-eee ev i fhelt lneluar 1111, _ + ee!rtre e( F ff.an LaMfrfW ri Mif-eL-vr • aulal[Sen Rere• d f 1 i e t p1= fract!en e( a eat f [hf[ if a ved jU T1•. 1 ( dl t A 11 d 1 1 .li L t[r _ ui th eurFf •M Lh•[ en in t nlle Led fll [h/e aeh In a _ vi em etrenrf_ t e t r{eb• le` r! L d'e e! e 1. ed fr- 1 1.f•n . rf ra e[-•. pl_ fr,e[!en e[[reer.al r. , Ma[ t• e•wd 1•triert man e[fen and e_m L•!ee!e te a!Sw t [ r..u ! rtru•_.•na f..•t+., 1--d a +f uv ~ 2Ae erdt+~ +rp•.i l+hl nt eFe to-l lee !ee aA.ll Sne lean • p~ fr•e e[ rer•1 ere tn•L if eulletnr t t « e e• ehe ! • in a reran a Ln, eee v,rkt+ r di•ina [ ,[te eC Mehftee _ _~eCf a C![elent lAsl`AA elf h d df a e[h a off Sn +ueee -aan (wl_ Le O 70- pf~ ! __m eI [ [el • LUe if r _ •ena a -ah • _ ~j d 1 ( h It a eed r - n f! Mc luri•dfetf en if eele[ e.ede ti «tf eheNte py~ Crw eC c t,l • _ r MfeA rune![ fee Iden[ifvine [h, iQtpe_ n far the e _ +i ee fc r.•••ter v11: e~eallte led ant r [r1+eG a ftte myl+ 1 f alt t utd f _ eFe vim b e•rtef dlaeF!rr d-t,-,r tG1 0eer[•ewn[ a eve cell,[ oeeAent.... M•e •lle•r L•1 flay 1•rt+dteeferte a en e,erf ena r •r eeaeleoe,n Th, Dee• •lt enlr , coat, e,eh•n!•ea Mer[• 2 auk - Ct •er loafer aC!•ff e, frer~•r euwtt ere reel [,e il1[tef fub+ee[Sm-Y The [lee,rrn+ne +h•11 M rorf rf ed Ln vrielne .fd tF•[ a vain '+{te en Mere ueenfarr m ,dd{[Len•1 rffro[f a«!ffef+ne ff eaed_ TA, Lea. ihle_ Y e[ •ddlef anal -t-~[! a«!f (cfenn +hal ee DL_d m fetene•fte d•L_ The lurSfdie[Svn fh,ll dt+eent{Hue a m1 e••e [ten (el fA,li acct. anal! a /urifdte[tm ,deet+ r[ ,n •edlLien•I ruro[[ eee [!f etene It r e 0eeertx - a Mae ertee fir r calf lane e - f` f• [ L[ ~1 fAf•lt[+ [e®i+f!Qp eeS rota rlncven de- ratty! ueh , u if na[ n n Mrn t[ eF.r•~rtfeLee•an•ree ~ nlm vet-eE ea OAA ]LO.Len. =f L70171fr1. h.ll b. rffA 1w1 e( L f •hfe--ten 32 _ «LSed e! 96 Feuer .1.r'.1 'h• re~a+i .(!felt-e. + _!ra In + rLh fAl +C :.a•f fel+e te!Ea enl.,{•+ rui cexn and -^..\:~t7: 763 .s..•f l+: ,0. 1969 ..:.-d77!!S C,: .eresvec !C. 19!9 I 1 1 i Ar.~on t ,O - . ~ ;~'r N~J • .may • 1 cowrxx= rAl. I a.L.rr-1 D.11 I.- r9••rtJO ~ ~ ~ 'J ~ ~ ~`•C, t.ll. l -t• V•L-. It..►(pttJa cants cz .T ' 1 T4 a1. 1 1yle4.t.~, T•bl. . z.u crwa♦ rte. X a. t 3 f t 8 LS ..t... ;a T"L. S 7 •C- rRt... tlklcy rer4'rs - rtlPa.l lotacgor.t..t.• a t 1►.r1- Ttsur. 2 Tm"rJO.7 Tae.ss.rc.r C1Y,. rive % 3 L-.1 irr-&- T--1=.. 3-dL"Rt i T:DUr. 5 rA. st.P. or t,. 3 3 * l ' s - riior irabLlL-K Caratyc~J. L1eme. ! - L. - "-r n J ' M2.l W -L Su. St-. NFU • ' • x5149 ra,a.t a { &A,x SOL Lr•' tou.*r.+. Twat ] MTDR0LCCiC SOIL G20ur Or T)IL50tti -weTc. Co-" p r'....r. _ • :lr •.p.:•Jr. rne..a.ra +4vK V -a •a•+el. I.o :d Glaill :'14 .JIJ.i •.Ot111. !.<:p M PC LY' fl r. •a7it4e .r L7-JIC S• {:rn..9 3d L3, -.101 IL.~.._• C..rCa0 .J L'lwK St4lts VTJNrM O i4iC,a1Lf4 3p11 Sor: Hym. ::.o logic u1N;Y Rao 091c 1Ctlicy V-h- •a • J~yf.Cl1WK N•e nKTf 7.t ae•, :pit G-w im of Gr.~_uo ;6=r4 -t- soil :--.a S'., rua - a ti.r nem 19JU 1 C J.4I HUOULT 22 u +{I11' 2 C V. 13 JOaT 21 C U.2 AsTom!A 1 t U.24 KILUMS 24 C 0.15 ' 3R!EUVE--L 4 i 0.26 LLICXITA7 24G f 0,1 K ma •1C307,r %O . tan T,a. a a u ralrnrl.p 3XIE]VE1y i D U. t 7 V"PA 20 6 u.77 Or,.d,ra yooal v -v a, G".0m ,04 ZAALTOK d 3 u.32 LAOM 27 u 0.2 a.mt a pea.c•.v rpn.r. :ASL:OE 7 C 0.77 LJJIA.V-'.7JW 2d 9 0, =1EV{LS1+ o r 0.77 "MEE 7u O Fz; "£.1ALlS • D u.<a •tELi0UR1¢ 31 D 0.24 • IS wp.eoc.ao-,an+:u, • (naa b^F7s -+-7ALl S tl: V.J7 - Ja<LSt !2 C 0,12 w yno npr-meal esa,o row a c- -1 z3hr !US 11 C U.47 TIC 34 y 0.12 LEKrOK Ile C U.aJ PEKV IM Id C 0.24 C7 c.~.r I,GY. Ua. lA .:..-J w~nwir m pose ~w KKCIUa WIX J7 C 0J7 01-M& an10 ¢r ~IC.C01-M& 7wtLg 7 rr 4 (AKf (2 C 0.17 yyPt !a c 0.12 u 0.2t TOL7.E J9 9 U.?Y ►1 rml crva t,taa ncor, u,• 0.91«•1--t J,.r.a,no -UTz 33 asow..lo1S m ar10 ea+1 acoa IGasr nvK, .-rE 1 R V W IFLUtE7T5 4u 3 0.17 U•TTOK 15 u 0.47 rEROVOKr 4z u 0,28 o ° p0pf° =+a id 0 0.47 IWATO 43 u 0.12 s-Yt: 17 C U.17 u1LL44r, Y y 0,12 o wm11e are,n.l. fist t>a•Or,gp gas.aKS Id c 0.17 a ca tr A rla Ef •ta,e9 a% w .ol•. aan tr S•Jnr7. 4lai 1i-aws wo •w... qp TVIA 19 C U.37 ALpuCmurS 4e 9 0.43 w t.M.D 1 +E3>L 2u t 0.12 NMLOStAUL:S 4y E 0.12 aIt _Sid0:W 21 D V•49 iEKW1at_~r5 47 0.' Ca p. aty .w ire trr a JbJlo0w.w. S3 ,M tY7• m a 0 uJlicnn sae...Jle Z= oirc Ir AID MA 0.02 c r+or. m, K.or. roles n+. 5: S aou eon f: ao. t :1v ~7,ri .yea : e.l.n1.. Irr LD d m vrhaln fS..:aa. . L «rrJlnncll: sa cPCV ••rv, rr«s Gino{,. w. r..l. l.rs.. 7.., tAl na.. ,e,. 4 a.nnonoco.em:uvam rY i/ .uop/wq A O.nl. M R Y4 LS .WY la '~.Rt ~ C•l.1 ••..P.rYw-rlrYll. .11w4r O...► fl... wr..01•r niT ~~Y J•114fprr M rw.1 fJnnl.rt r.p NI 1d •C1 r4 >r .1. KqC. d etef.e {rJ.Y ..11r1••... ,1.t w e a Cwwn o ..L, •r.A S.•11 ry lewu n eMUa Of. WIa1 ur.m s.o,11r, raa f KYIO o er ,ro M1J. A p•c~,llM w ..e ra.r Sr np•q •1m«.• .•..•wn ror+.w.w.yw -s•a w vll~•q erw s nm«... w ~ .a••.w mrl..s.•.a Hb•• w ll... •.aar«..1w o a ~a •<,-m• easq -eww1. N: s son a««•..•w.:. cl.euq anr+.,r s,pwvr+ •esc +•..a11•naw •w uyel' ~ M n.r.~. CwvY b .a l.Cr'M ~I; G1iK •Y1 :.~5 iw :N :S+C'CG C Iw.pwrr wpl Wool a««n«l Se.• nF.q ae•..«rue. q.r w. meyw...ea w - w a ~ urr•4 'w• lw Iw. .o..w m-+.w a .«w a w -.n ~s«ua. 1^*tl' .•v oar..•. - ...q vn Jr1. ••.•••11 n.r.naw ulr.•.p.. -.l•c 111. { test a m- lu• -.n . ^•P. 1~.4 ,irrr•. rr• -.w . c«•.n-v +y1 -rr .1«CCM r uc a•r r r w .1l vws. r. N•M. w ....•M. .wrw-. T•.• •L• • N-. WI.•.Y•r..I wwM.yR ' .ties 73 :ate :tt:, :ea'ac ,..si tt's vsi~~cc. H ta., tgaHE SSrtC :aaTt -.`-aIC.YtC.."Cg Y .1 v tCYS LCYYF YC:FC nL:FC G r t C = G~ 0 :.%r.... g - ; e::: 66666 6 6 6 6 6 . •QS~•,3 r i IG SdSa YLESt bniTt ~tCt7y «tFCFCS Mist •re.er e,ree,eo T^. ~1 ••F • CY-.: uvZ : CFCs-e C t dtaa atbot aY - - ~7~^ FEttL tti~t 7i: fY t. ^ $ELC2Sti r•. e. C 2 rrx.e :cec: eici anti: a4lcza "rrrr rrrr' ccrr••e• Y ii~lil t[ t tl « tFEEC YETIYt CCtii E .oaa c:•ar's faire ic.a~ " saa _sicEs~~ ~ Gcrr 11n ~ ~ ~ i'"s : i - :rc: a: cr L:cF::..•° p.r aHCC us:r iSrE: a:ct~ c.t:r c~Iticsa3a tt `s E :tai e'ca't: t'arar ~actL eC9. aatr r r LC» C F'-Fr rr... ""rrr r• rr... r. ....r!< E Lcrc 7aucr. Yscc cs « tsar: arz'. gist U11110 %%Sri teccx scaa'E c'tnnc - " ~ e stE ~ t -L rGe, sttaa SaL'sC Lars - Fc •r er e,oerr,o i i t G 2aFFC c:: F LG. " rl^.. ~sitr Cx=it rats:s'r'tta --»:1 't'ceeFGga Er rc• - r ':tTS ittau Tir=c ic~si t:Fc~ is c ru:uc ::a-.;; cc.. tear star:.%uh gaacc tcc3a =cxr:ccs s • S 1..a Yia.: 3:CC2 ~:Gi~ arEaC HCLtnC}f:: ~ ~ e FFFC FFFre rr• r•~ra eererre• CF.CC CCL. .1989 aHdat r:Ecr -rr -ts;E :$McL 7 cc~ 'sa:t .a:a5 s . tisu: :ct•trc 6 t "Tt »d; Ca f rrrrr »r--- » r V :aa~r taass 'sETC& uyg:C at't~_Tg f e iraEf_Yiia n:rsT 1499: tLYYS LYYr.~Ct „ arCY: YYr C ' CnGF :CC:CIG.r.• "rr" rrrr •o•e,• a a L'.._ ,CY ST YC•:.ta :Cxi H i oini stags :1=12 EC:CE CE2LL "LSCGL'a c;FFF CG.. 1. • " acg:c - cs. " - ra:t iiaaa 'ss:rri44asu "-Lru actacc= wF3:r ~LSS: :diSG SYS_"LC• i Y -r_ n:CC CFCG y G.vE oii:e 7aEtS 24LtYt zriS1G ...LrGZ+t f SrtT~ TiLs~ tom..". .....«".-F H « " tv:u i'tri 99999 tit:. rtGril's'cBa" " ":aac. IAMI' 'C' FACTORS (OREGON) CONSTRUCTION SITES 1.00 .00- E i. a F 80--- f ! f ti A 55 i~{ La i f C s0 ( j T ,s Y B c~ f ooCa»s.:~~a"~1sEEEE~GCCCCC~~ bbej R .36--- f.jjtl Kai^=r^r'^ ^II"! F -'^r =i =r r- t S E ISbg~~fT1G8~t{fU{18G1SM.g~o~o"o~' .20- - - - - - - - its i+ $$B$$$$$$$$$B$$$$3:=$YY$« l:~b " I 0 - - - - - n- - - LOOSE SOILS s F } 05------= UNDISTUROEDSOILS r7n~'a, ~'88~~8$SS~k~~~8$~L'1So88>I~$ 8f 1 L -A .00 0 10 20 30 10 50 00 70 DO- 00 100 1'1:11CF.NT WINTER VEGETATION AND RESIDUE COVER } 4 i_ r a A i. 33 t N i• i L `1 4 • ii . C ' • D n ' • ..'Auk lot y~ M y • u C MORMONISM - SRCLL f01.7C1B AItD COiDC.17R3 340-41.470 (S) Vlthta Is aracA after the adepelea at these rules, O.ahingcon. Ct-ka-s. n.laeeah catm.tl- and all Lnc.tpeT.Gd cici.• rtthin (1) la order co eserw the ..LCtng high Quells, -ter fee aunicLNl th. To llcls Liver -d O~CO lab NuM-L- .ball erbeic to the rave .ppiieo ant --act". It to the polity of the ux to prehlhlc GpateaenC • ptosc- vlam fee conK0t11ng the q-Li r .f urban aa7 furtYr was. dlachurp. to the -.or. of: .corn true!! YttbL" t4li roorective )ur1.4ttcla.i to .."Iy rLth g. c•Qutrmr.ca of secdw to) Yd .f thou -I.. (a) The Cl tltaaaa~ Liver swaba.ln: (D) A!u[ ]1217 1. 1989, tlarraadnio of Aseeernts bore-m the , (a) The Mceawf. Liver uA&_tn aMw the D.ydea m4. (river Dopovto-es of [orrery sad A4%U%leuro ant t4 Dopartae.t of aLL %3)i tarlsoma.ul'Quatlcy "411 Lealuda a tae ocbedule low o.,-IvCL g • prover pL-- for mehuvlng the r.Quir.aeau of (a) no w rtl gm t- Liver subb-tan. eedCL~ to) -d (b) of th" w.L.. U. p-gt- plasm .ball )e (2) The ts.lsee-ecLl wwomitsad p the Deparmwr etthLa is a Cfw of the ederaem of Coaliey r--••-Son .ball tswsdpu. uL.ebor thi. wula. vith -7 elb~m alfoat d a"- .gust-, rbe sow at mal.tal.laS or Leant e.LSLL" .+-t-- flsn aertag she .noes U. flat parted. (L) Web" ame bueere4 awery (120) dq" at A.LC"L of the pr.gree • pl_- tad -Ital. "lacy (60) dole of the pestle beart a. the . (7) la OTdar to Leaps-w eater q"UL7 within t4 TualacLA slwr e-bba•La to latlwes.aul Q-Ucy CmmL..lw oWl eichar approve or reject seat tea alattes etter quality standard far di"aelvrd Or7360. and the tba plea. If the CamWLan rajoeta the plan. it shall specify a 13 -94 chieCrpbyu . -cLO 1-1 •uvd I. OAL XO-a1113o. tie ieptince oclw"a for casubw4tul for sprawl ud -11 specify 1.11--ias epaclal sal- far total ---4--' daily leads, wants laad the r.Yme for the rejection. 2f the Car•umlon dauralue. tot alloeetleee. led a12oceeteea, and Lglaneaeadon plan" are am egaecr by me see. • feed fetch •ff.= u ptevta - -sablub". app-ka. plan vlcbtn • z•aaaaabl. clan. the Crau.ion -y L.wb appropriate enfozcema.c and- u aU-d (.neat lat. T4 (a) 4Lnz saplaclm of to tar ceacrel fac111ctam and Cea"sion .ball reject tba plan it it demo-•-+,•- mac the plan Smplafeeraclon of -t-ec plate approved by cbe coo.4r.i.e will -t meet be t.Qulrarw of shim rule wichla a reez-bL. tinder thu rule -d m I= th- ]ma 3D, lffl. m andvsd.. ma.tmc of Aso. Before appr-um . [Seal ptosrY plan. Lb. aball be e2Lwd ad re v-cw.e.t shall bA discharged ce the CmLssim shall reeonaidev mad soy re.1- the sumo 30, 1993 ace Toelada LLwr or its clDutmrl.o Yim.ee tb. opecifit ■tsced in -wine. (a). (b). ..d (a) of this rulo. 3ie."l-C wcb.tLratiw of the Camiaalw mat - ch. monthly swdi- eorye-.ts of ca. pest- plat x411 bh L-.Vted i.- pe-ita or co. ce&ttoa of want pbeepborum at the teeth) of the aemowsadw of sge.ammac Y apprwtut.. tribatarL- llstmd Delve and the •pecULN points .loug the ae1-tea of the Tu.latia It".. Y moasur4 4aL.4 the Imo Live (j) for the 7.Z".. at •salsting local sawr..es is "chieK.g U. period loeceean (ley 1 and Qecob.r 3t•. of mach year. -1-s reQuisea.su of chi. twine, t4 D.paraaat sb.ll: ! eri~ mpKLfi.d by the Drpaieac. u exceed the fe13..i g (a) Oithtn to at the i tattsal 14.12 led allaYdo- .tad led all"ACtw amour ch. maieerw_ (Rhn w1 TriaYS sine usll polar .Thee dad awnpotat snaree nemprae .gouts.. In the Dania. The" .13aYr3onf o411 M e.a.ldated Saari. fad uy cherry Crane (07.s) 20 Sweet- Ct. s0 be r"Iscribuud bred rpm ch. cw.clesu.m of can aVp-4 DL11•y (33.5) 40 we. Cr. 45 prose- RL-. Colf c--- Rd. (32.8) as Dairy Cr. 43 Rood Rex. (33.3) 30 N .K.7 Cr, 45 (s) Withi. 120 days of the adoption of tb.sa vul dew L.p Tarstngem (33.3) 70 Rock r_ . 70 gmldaat. u mup.tm source ose.g•a•at aS-L- Y n tan Rimer (16.2) 70 Tow Con. 70 spKLfit emtmc of ma prograwe plane. S:aff-6 (3.4) 70 chIck- Cr. 70 (C) Within 190 days at the adoption of these sale.. props- _ (b) After coewleclm of v.st.wt.i cancel fact/lad.. 4.d ad4lcseeal eul- fat permits Lowed a local j--LodletLons t. t.ploa-c"ttm of ecrugeo-c plus regoired apprevefs by the .lore.. the .heel .L muss racer Icon der dosalop-.t C•e..laa lea ..etar chit rule Ted ne later the. ]w. 30. 1993• m .Seta Ch. TLalow. aes o-s. I". wbb"LY. The cul.s asClvi= •holl be aliowd end ne w C-ac.r shall be ai.caarsed shall consider the fella.i.g faturs: 1S\wm333 1 . co the Tualatin Rlv.r or its CLbutati- without the sp•cifse Nth-LLtatle. •f ch• Commission that taus* the monthly wadLan (1) AIL.-CL- c-eel Ceeeeurtatiw of •esonla-ni TO •n •c ch. -the of the -Lb--.. soe fe[ fcw this .u sulpobla of .-L71;4 wl tot 1latee b.lw and the •P-Lfi.d "tuts .lens the -insc- of the dens am (D) T-I..L. LI-e. - setae. be-.. May 1 .Rex No— 13•. of (11) 0aL.C-o arts operation of M..-=.I syo[eea: each year. -I... eth.rwt.. fp.clllea by the D.paro.nt, - ..G.d t4 LllewiaS career --r-tens: (L11) Ae.- ee of. .susI- ewcrel atria[ -moll Y after (T7n eS/1 2rYbutsri.e aril eoa"czucdm. tS.~w the.. (67.1) To U. Cr. 30 (D) 1. cooperation vim tea Depatoa.t of Asr1Ct1tueG. vithln 180 Dlllcyiy 143.9) lD Cai.~ Cr. 4o d.7. of 0. adoption of thu role de.elop a -1 strategy far addro-l.& tae v-aff fzw container -art... reLf c-. fd. (32.3) W Darcy Cr. 40 Roes Rd. (3t. s) 3o Malay c'. W tot .rear em lure.. w ewattev vSt1t1, eh. Taahttt etwr s.bbaetn e Tex=-g _ (33.3) 1000 Rxk Ct. 100 hone ds ref .etas v__:`l=..e.ne-:r tar c+.. Let (.vin..... i.t_ Ctom.r (16.2) sso Taw Cr. 100 ~.t. .t want. ta.ey . Ie.e .tat tea. ' ' SC.Iford (3.4) 330 Chicba. Ce. 100 anti - _ wl -,hithad (t) Th. Tex of crib-wry lend allaucieea dad eamce 1sW 1loutlons (at A_frte+teY.1-1- a • e-e1 roosttete+ one a fee Coral pb..pbsrua dad amanL-nrtrer•a can be .-..ad u nl.ma see ewd b+ the [e®t+rten ..Mar HMis n.ie~~ -erLara- mar po..Me pet day by eultLSlylag the tnse.am entarra by flee 1. tl. ]aeon ]0_ L9L_ _Kea.s [host M atiewee e _ cuuCa 7 Sex to sae by ;h. -.Lou factor 0.00337. The toe of shall b. dt.eF.rs e .ee to ya_hill RiwwLer ter r•__t•.._%ari i.iar load .1leuelamm .-C• tad 11euelons for ..lacing er fueuso vt eheae ate a FRrt-ar of ehe eesat..t- -tee a -he --*-Lat •ewrw . aw pe(ne .oa.ree ala.b.rg- eo the -L-t- nmat f- 7 ehewha .ea roe +rt a Tualatin Rlwr me •liee.eed L. a tribteaty lead 1IKaelea ee d...•e ten. fie.. aorta. bey.- rvv -.Iv wave t to loon a12.tatie. -y be e&I-Latad Y the 4Lff.e.aeo bet .m .,e Oeeeh.r ]t~e.wa e etc w th+t aaaa (Craria o..lcrplLd by flow) la.viog a .eC- .lee tane has onsering the segment tclurLa e..tdpllod by nov) from 1l (bl W!atR w e.ra a w•-tl- et thee, -ate. t-+., o semeee pls. 1-- -.lallaei-. evtR...itt. ,e toe... .tt nays(...love wet.EUla a et R.. r--i.,. +e eel Ftn. A eM he, moist (d) Tba eeau lead alleues- tl(LA) for soul phosphavum and ammonia- -dtfr rhelr s . [artif(r• ya anent- vies ett.~y1. .Foram for OnifSed Sowras. Arend of tymbinrt- C-7 L detorml..d by •-btraoctng the nee of the e•leulaced lead at Road (et Tf,al a el.w+ [Fall Fe r..f•wd and .m mod-~G Rena and Rack Creak fr- the taleulated load at Tatalare.a. t i+ften -TF. ratan -r esf+Dr, at eetct.. ~Ila ran ysri3i • eerewd All eteaeaed ! ,•1 e (e) Svbj•er a the p1 of me vavtal Qe.llcy L= fo.ton. at.n. +h.tt M +nF1K_ e~tte F.. ar!er a en. te.rar..,~ cba DLSK;•t eay mo61dify .alsci.r veaste rb dI N•cha:go petsLLts Cer the OnLfted S•sersg. ASaoc7 of .Yht.rto. Covacy and allw u-perar7 addltla..I w-ts •weu o the TW1-La elver pr-L"d he (dl !be Re,arae,[ .Fait vtrfitn 6D d_: of ad-1- of t~••.• ...1 Dlroeemr fade thee farilLtle. 4lla.nd by the oodifled p•ralt are Also-ih.,r nte•.t w ] e ti ..M t n It me L-a at-e amd vLll me Lao•a Ceapllsxa with the ].me 30, rF. oeine•L naat,r . In tt•e•b s •tn. t. 1"3 der. f !Leal a -1l-e. 4..d ate Dntfl.d Seeormg. 4S.-y to ehau be a n+td.rtd tar.-~- a+M le r -•b • •e ~ d'• - I. eoapll-a etch the C-Lei- apprsw.d pt.g.- plea. - anon see we o _ claw.. L!) Wtthta 90 days of the sdeption of Cb4s, rel.[. Ch• Qni!L.d S.wotat• Ag•erw of Wen:-gc- Caamtry st ll ..Del: a preseam•• plan t:Kif. date. fee Gp1•rsg wL h thl. rule wr be -Wtt_'-d m w ttao . ~•aul• to :D• we•roene 4o-r'.baa9 ion < rn- :ae physical cor4L-Ions no,, ;aep.earus) at the •Lvtng wa-r and g- err will -di=p Lts moans. !aeill::.. co to-p17 vLC1 =to nail ban find L. LeMIrL4 l - - an p rnly or a•mot-.- of uada:f:Nd:-g ev1o. Th. ecese- pl4R bell %C:Ivan pr waled an ::s..tioe.:le we by the Deperflonc. The Doper— ahatl .-Lao.- rest- da•t;•I for eewlapL.g Td lmal.senct neing • o.-S hane pion a ubr u ^ev. ri aVCaa-.t with be Lake Otwre Ces7eucien far aria;-al. Suiaari• wr .awl arbor N1.vYt lafesea Lien vn.n y &4c.1 troves. I. Lk. 0sw gee L.U.9 the epeeLlla ae.dltions u be Lns•rted Ln the paatts or a.seranNaf of -dorst•nding. CarA&.-eea sbell be cetuletont wtct • Ceoif elan-•pp[awd pr.,T- pIa-- ad ch. Ln-r of CRi. -I.. I~4H 7373 • ^!t•-11733] 4 ( +11 1 ij~ r a+ Far cL• P-V.- rt rhl..•ccl•n ch. nd.., pr•{ran PL- 1s d•tls•d W that lawl Plan gar dawl•Pla# . aaac• wue saaa{•arsc ystm wd d.aarlM• sha Pr..anc Phpalc.l sac la.cleucl.sa► letraacswtus• am ch. Pnp.sN .laaup [•r sAanp. iaclWla{ alura.ctwa. A Pr.{ran Plan . aL.ell alas Isalwa !scar{.wrsa,ac.l .{r•aawu and aPyrev.L, u .PPcsPeLU, time chad.L gar -.."U-lost {wL. ladlWla{ iar.r:a •bjoeil- •ad • tloerls{ Plan. . r-C.. a.u. r.e ee.etvin. tires nf. rai. a•r k e•Mfrlamd e.. e~.4e,1 e•.Mf rlww. ri_._. !i.n,_ r.•e•r, etr•1 of rh• r•e•Safn. r e..a A .11 M •e•ef fl.d /n ..alirlAU1 wr•4 re .e •..•reMn•• of r:r .MIn• l,,,,.a s. d,. e.e.rr..nr. n,. n.•.rr~.nr .e.]] .fa.r .+.r.. a..l.e ' fl e.r•. efter R.w1 rf..• .M neye rr1.•.nr Inl.ra.rf sw M•n { -~Al l.l.ln. .mr{f1e eeMltlen. r• 1r lw•.er.A 1w rf, --fn e e..Msr. •f .e.d. r.rrdlm J • ~ i •aa.ar,a P I • I 1 1 f • I l I i i ar ~ l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 7•I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Highland Drive PREVIOUS ACTION: parking-restrictions PREPARED BY: City Engineer q9 : /I DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall parking be prohibited on a portion of Highland Drive? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Summerfield Civic Association has requested that parking be prohibited on a portion of Highland Drive in order to improve safety. The area in question contains two sharp curves, as shown on the attached map. Staff agrees that the prohibition of parking would improve traffic safety. While the prohibition would include a portion of the frontage of three homes, ample on-street parking for visitors appears to be available nearby on Highland Drive and the intersecting cul-de-sac. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinance approving the parking prohibition as requested. 2. Amend the ordinance. 3. Deny the request. FISCAL NOTES Approximately $300 for signing. rw/highland C i s -270 ~r 2 70 J~ 260- . n 50 260 O X M.H. p M.H. 250 X 240 ~p~75 C5E M. X236.4 HIGHLAND ~Ro P D AREA OF QAizxi 4r 'RaSTRIL'T'fON 0 !I jI ~X X 10525 2 - __H _ 4 M.H. o M. H. _ DR. O ' f{ I G H L A N GREEN f . % ~ 231.0 1 i :SQNO 220 . ' 2~ p c x Mo - X y M.H. MM y X208.! t~ ~ 1 S~MM~ ti u _ r11.11'1.~~` ~l CIVIC ASSOCIATION • 10650 S.W. Summerfield Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 i 620.0131 ' D ~ June 26, 1991 2 7 1991 Street Department City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Would it be possible to place a NO PARKING SIGN marking the curve between 10525 and 10475 SW Highland Dr. and the side of 10480 SW Highland Dr? There have been near accidents on that corner. Will look forward to hearing from you., Sincerely, D - Charlotte Tice Administrator g A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-Z3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130 PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW HIGHLAND DRIVE. WHEREAS, TMC 10.28.130 prohibits parking at any time on portions of certain public streets in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the Council has received a request for prohibition of parking on a portion of Highland Drive; and WHEREAS, it appears to the Council that the requested parking prohibition will enhance traffic safety. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: TMC 10.28.130, designating the streets or portions thereof where parking is prohibited at all times, is hereby amended by adding the following: "(77) Along both side of SW Highland Drive between the extended east line of Lot 166 and a point 50 feet east of the extended west line of Lot 165, all in Summerfield No. 4 subdivision." SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1991. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of 1991. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date dj1RW:high1and ORDINANCE No. 91- l Page 1 r I t Mr. Chairman Members of Tigard City Council I am Morey Williams. I reside at 12025 SW Highland Dr., Tigard I am representing the Summerfield Civic Association, having been appointed by Howard Graham, President of the civic association to put this matter before the council. We would like for the council to consider making Highland Drive "NO PARKING" on the S curve b etween house number 10440 & 10525, on both sides of the street. Lately there have been cars parked on both sides of the street, which makes for a very narrow passageway for moving autos. At the start of the S curve the driver is blind for what is coming.from the opposite direction. Unfortunately drivers do not keep to the side of ' the street which makes for a totentially dangerous situation. The reason I.was appointed to speak at this meeting is that I almost had an accident on this t curve. There was a truck and a trailer on one side of the street and a car on the other wide. I was going west at the same time another car was coming east. Neither of us could see the other at the start of the S curve. Fortunately we were going fairly slow as the eastbound driver was using the middle of the street instead.of being close to the car parked on her side of the street. She was wrong but these things do happen and it makes for a very dangerous situation. r There have been several letters and phone calls to the Summerfield Civic Association from residents complaining about this hazard. i i F r c COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Z _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Aucrust 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bonita Road PREVIOUS ACTION: Parkin Restrictions PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall parking be prohibited on Bonita Road between 83rd Court and Fanno Creek? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently, improvements are being constructed on Bonita Road between 83rd Court and Fanno Creek. The improvements were designed on the assumption that there would be no parking on the street. This is the standard design for major collector streets in Tigard. Currently, adopted parking ordinances only apply to a portion of the street near Fanno Creek. The attached ordinance would amend the TMC to prohibit all parking between 83rd Court and Fanno Creek in accordance with the current improvements. Adoption of the ordinance at this time will allow the "no parking" signs to be installed immediately upon completion of the current construction. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinance. 2. Allow parking on some portion of the new street. FISCAL NOTES Approximately $750.00 for sign installation. dj/H:\engdoc\counci1\sa-nD-B.zw r 7 tjt 2 r i '_'/sbf5 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 7•3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Greenbur Road PREVIOUS ACTION: Parkin Restrictions PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: IS UE E ORE THE COUNCIL Shall parking be prohibited on Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Shady Lane? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently, improvements are being constructed on Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Highway 217. The improvements were designed on the assumption that there would be no parking on the street. This is the standard design for major collector streets in Tigard. Currently, adopted parking ordinances only apply to a portion of the street near Pacific Highway. The attached ordinance would amend the TMC to prohibit all parking between Pacific Highway and Shady Lane in accordance with the current improvements. Adoption of the ordinance at this time will allow the "no parking" signs to be installed immediately upon completion of the current construction. NOTE: North of Shady Lane, Greenburg Road is a County road. Parking is controlled by existing County and State regulations. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinance. 2. Allow parking on some portion of the new street. FISCAL NOTES Approximately $1,500.00 for sign installation. dj/H:\enodoc\counci1\as-np-C.rw i 1 f 3 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM T CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Aucrust 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: McDonald Street PREVIOUS ACTION: Parkin Restrictions PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSt3 RE THE COUNCIL Shall parking be prohibited on McDonald~Street between Hall Boulevard and SW 93rd Avenue? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently, improvements are being constructed on McDonald Street between Hall Boulevard and 93rd Avenue. The improvements were designed on the assumption that there would be no parking on the street. New shoulders along this street are designed as a path for pedestrians and bicycles but are not wide enough to safely accommodate parked vehicles. Currently, no adopted parking ordinances apply to the portion of the street between Hall and 93rd. The attached ordinance would amend the TMC to prohibit all parking between Hall and 93rd in accordance with the current improvements. Adoption of the ordinance at this time will allow the "no parking" signs to be installed immediately upon completion of the current construction. - PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinancz. 2. Allow parking on some portion of the new street. FISCAL NOTES i Approximately $750.00 for sign installation. i i dj/H:\engdoc\council\es-np-= .nr ~or ~ho~oS WNW- Igloo COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 13, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: August 6, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Residential Par i.ng PREVIOUS ACTION: one (ordinance an resolution PREPARED BY; on o paster DEPT HEAD OR IZV CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: on a paster ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Does the Council approve of establishing a residential parking zone around the Tigard H. S. that would regulate parking and prohibit non-permitted vehicles from parking on certain streets during prohibited times. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council accept and pass the ordinance and resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY Over the past year, the Police Department has been working with the School District and the neighborhoods adjacent to the high school to restrict student parking in the residential area. The student parking is causing a variety of problems for the neighborhood and other methods, letter writing, directed police patrols, walking beat by SRO's and school district newsletters, have not been effective. The proposed program is designed after City of Portland and Salem programs and will eliminate student parking in the residential areas. An informal vote was held of the 243 affected residents and over 50% of the vote was returned and over 60% were in favor of creating this zone. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept proposed ordinance. 2. Reject proposed ordinance. FISCAL NOTES Cost to establish is approximately $8,000. Revenues will be received from fines and permits to help off-set costs. k [ y { 4.