The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 06/27/1995 gill CITY OF TIGARD 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. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7.15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business ggenda it~ns tin be heard in an►v order alter 7:30 D.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above. 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGE/VDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 27, 1995 PAGE 1 17 CITY COUNCIL MEETING,, JUNES 27, 19 95 AGENDA 6:30 p.m. • STUD MEETING • Executive S ion: 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 property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of t o9 news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. • Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of d,llegin r. 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 p.m. 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: May 30, 1995 c~ 3.2 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract (M. O'Brien) - Res. No. 95-i 1 3.3 Approve Agreement for Fiscal Year 1995/96 Extending the City of Tiigard's Contract for Television Production Services with Tualatin Valley Community Access 3.4 Authorize Reimbursement of $57,614.69 from the Parks Systems Development Charge Fund to Gramor Development for Design and Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Street 3.5 Authorize Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Washington County for Design of Street Improvements (Widening of Greenburg Road at the highway 217 Overpass) - Resolution No. 95- COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 2 6 4 • 3.6 Loctal Contract Review Board: Authorize the City_ administrator to Advertise 71 for Bids on Five Projects: • Speed Bump Program • Terrace Trails Pathway • Milton Court Sanitary Sewer Crossing Protection • Ash/Scoffins Storm Drain • 111th Place Storm Drain > - Marna Ramoved fhr ®iscussio~: Any Rams guested to be rmwjed ft m the Consent for sVarafe discussion will be considered iera ®a ► eftr fee Council has voftd on U ftem wtuch do nW need discussion. 7:55 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF TIME ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PROGRAM Times are estimated 7:55 p.m. a. Open Public hearing 7:57 p.m. b. Staff Report - Community Development Department 8:05 p.m. C. Public Testimony: • Opponents • Proponents 8:10 p.m. d. Council Questions 8:15 p.m. e. Staff Recommendation - f. Clore P;.'bl:^, 9-lear,ng 8:20 p.m. g. Council Consideration: • Ordinance No. 95LLo : Amending Tale 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code • Resolution No. 95- . Establishing Electrical Permit Fees ~ I 8:30 P.M. 5. PUBLIC BEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (Continued from the May 23, 1995 Council agenda) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 91-OW5/VARIANCE (VAR)91-0010 DOLAN/ ENDEZ To Consider the U.S. Supreme Court remand of conditions related to the dedication of property for floodplain management and a bikepath relating to the determination of the rough proportionality of those requirements. LOCATION: a . 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114,18.120, 18.134 and 18.164; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District). The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities, among other uses. COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 3 W, F, ~e Times are estiRtated. 8:30 p.m. a: Open Public Hearing 8:35 p.m. b. Declarations or Challenges R 8:40 p.m. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department; City Attorney 9:00 P.M. d. Public Testimony - Applicant } - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal 9:45 p.m. e. Staff Recommendation 9:50 p.m. f. Council Questions 10:15 p.m. g. Close Public Hearing 10:20 p.m. h. Council Consideration: -Or- ce . 9 10:40 p.m. 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:50 p.m. 7. 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 property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 11:00 P.M. 8. ADJOURNMENT CWOW7.95 COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 27, 1,995 - PAGE 4 a 71 " Council Agenda Item_ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 ® Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Nicoli. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Schec tla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Pam Beery, Frank Hammond, and Tim Rands, Legal Counsel; David Scott, Building Official; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer (arrived at 7:15 p.m.). STUDY SESSION' Agenda Review City Administrator Monahan discussed Agenda Item No. 3.4 - Authorize Reimbursement of $57.614.69 from the Parks Systems Development Charge Fund to Gramor Development for Design and Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Street. City Administrator Monahan clarified that on Page 2 of the staff report, it was stated that the bridge was constructed by Gramor and examined by the City's Engineering Department. He advised that such examination of the bridge was not the responsibility of the City, and the bridge was the responsibility of the developer. The Engineering Department reviewed documents to check for accuracy of costs. ® 130th Task Force - Council discussed membership of the 130th Task Force as proposed in a memorandum from Liz Newton to William A. Monahan. (Memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) The memorandum listed the individuals who were suggested to be appointed to the Task Force. Mr. Gene McAdams, also a proposed member of tl:e Task Force, was present and questioned whether the membership representation would be equal; i.e., with ' reference to those who had advocated the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection and those who dad not. j Lengthy discussion followed. Councilors Bunt and Scheckla noted their concerns with the Task Force formation, citing the need to go forward and make the bridge connection. There were concerns that this would be seen as a delaying tactic on the bridge project. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 1. Councilor Rohlf explained the Task Force would begin with the understanding that the bridge would be constructed. Their purpose would be to identify options to •a A_ri_c11C it_' 'LS LYE e..e=.._07,fL as~-'nV-----,.!1_a' Ift -.'-_is_~ .f lal'dlll(: dldl~liA6:l. aaa LaaG alclblll ItoU. L1111{;alU 1\Vlial alUVIJCU Eilty' la 11C had _ spoken to all of the members on the proposed Task Force and he believed that membership consisted of three people who advocated the bridge connection and three people who were opposed. After discussion, it was determined that Councilors Hunt and Scheckla remained concerned with formation of this Task Force; Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley and Rohlf supported the Task Force. ' L There was discussion between Council and Mr. McAdams with regard to Mr. Ed Halberg. Mr. Halberg is the President of the Summerlake Neighborhood Association. There were some concerns by Mr. McAdams that Mr. Halberg had been on record as being against the 130th/Winterlake connection; however, Councilor Rohlf advised it was his understanding, from his conversation with Mr. Halberg, that Mr. Halberg was neutral on the bridge connection. ® City Administrator Monahan and Mayor Nicoli advised Council of a communication from Jeannine L. Murrell, MPAC representative, asking for the City Council to review and send to her its vote on whether to endorse the North/South Light Rail Resolution. After discussion, Council consensus was to endorse the resolution as long as the funding would not come from dollars allocated for Oregon Department of Transportation projects already listed for this area. ® Agenda Item No. 4 - Council reviewed the agenda with regard to the public hearing on the Electrical Inspection Program. In response to a question from Councilor ' s Scheckla, City Administrator Monahan advised this would be considered to be a permanent action by the City. The City would be taking over the electrical program and the County, expecting that the City would be doing this, is scaling down their electrical inspection program.. Councilor Scheckla said he had understood, based on an earlier proposal by staff, that the electrical program would be temporary. Councilor Hunt added that he fit: • understood that when the construction activity slowed down, this program would not be needed any longer. City Administrator Monahan advised that the changes occurring at the County would mean that if ther° ;vas a slow down, Tigard could take over more electrical inspection responsibilities by assisting in the nearby unincorporated areas and smaller cities to "weather a downturn in the economy." There was discussion on fees. The fee structure is set up to build a reserve that is capped at a maximum amount. The purpose of the reserve would be to survive a fluctuation in construction activity. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 2 4_ r. rw r 0 Review of Agenda Item No. 5 - Mayor Nicoli advised he would announce at the beginning of the Dolan (A-Boy) hearing that Council would not be deliberating at bus meeting. 1L was nULru LHl'd!. r very - aa..lL1.a:C ! Il+'l CLUE way asa written __.ay Gr4` rlnn.........~n4.nn hnA - - aava.aaaaawaraa av.. ..a..~ 7, been received from the applicant; therefore, Council will need time to review the information presented at the meeting. Mayor Nicoli advised he would ask that a transcript of the meeting proceed-nags be prepared and returned to Council within a week. After a brief discussion on process and the fact that most Council questions, other than clarification questions on the part of Council, will be held until later on in the hearing process. ® The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:20 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. The Executive Session adjourned at 7:35 p.m. The Business Meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Nicoli. BUSINESS MEETING ® Council Communications - There were none. ® Non-Agenda Items - City Administrator Monahan advised the following topics would be discussed during the Non-Agenda portion of this meeting: > Establishing the 130th/Winterlake Task Force. > Scheduling a date for the City Council groundrules which had been set for July 6; however, it appears that there are conflicts for that date. ® It was announced that the Community Development Block Grant Committee meeting will be held at the Tigard Water Building on July 13 at 7 p.m. -r 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: o Judy Fessler, 11180 SW Fonner, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with regard to the Tigard Feed Store. The City has been involved with the Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association (TAMPA), the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Merchant's Association with regard to possible purchase of property owned by Burlington Northern Railroad. On this property is the Tigard Feed Store, which the TAMPA organization was in line to receive as a donation from the owner, Mr. Johnson. The building, however, is located on railroad property. TAHPA was in the process of attempting to negotiate a donation of the land when the City became involved with a potential land purchase. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 3 r 71 Ms. Fessler advised TAMPA and the Chamber had begun negotiations with regard to usage of the building. However, TAMPA had not heard back from -g.....,. cnt hnnn fnrward?d to the z We `.aaaaatuCa' 5iaaac a pav~,a,~e.a had Chamber by TAHPA. Ms. Fessler requested the City make an offer on the property no later than July 11. If it was determined after that date, that the City would not purchase the property, then the TAMPA organization would resume their efforts to negotiate a donation of the land from the Railroad. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: May 30, 1995 3.2 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract (M. O'Brien) - Res. No. 95-29 3.3 Approve Agreement for Fiscal Year 1995/96 Extending the City of Tigard's Contract for Television Production Services with Tualatin Valley Community Access 3.4 Authorize Reimbursement of $57,614.69 from the Parks Systems Development Charge Fund to Gramor Development for Design and Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Street 3.5 Authorize Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Washington County for Design of Street Improvements (Widening of Greenburg Road at the Highway 217 Overpass) - Resolution No. 95-30 3.6 Local Contract Review Board: Authorize the City Administrator to Advertise for Bids on Five Projects: ® Speed Bump Program ® Terrace Trails Pathway a Milton Court Sanitary Sewer Crossing Protection ® Ash/Scofffins Storm Drain ® 111th Place Storm Drain Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PROGRAM a. Public Hearing was opened. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 4 t• r- 17 b. Staff Report: Mr. David Scott, Building Official, summarized the staff report. The ordinance would amend Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code to adopt the City electrical codes, standards, and administrative rules, and to provide for the administration of the electrical program. This represents the final step in Tigard's assumption of the electrical program. Program implementation would be July 1, 1995. C. Public Testimony Proponents: Ron Anderson, Independent Electrical Contractors of Oregon, 12256 SW Garden Place, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised he represented 140 electrical contractors in the area and was testifying in support of the ordinance. He advised it appeared to be a good ordinance and complimented Mr. Scott and Michael Rudd (City of Tigard Electrical Inspector) with their presentation of information to his organization. Mr. Anderson noted some concern with the fee schedule and asked that this schedule be reviewed over time to make sure the fees were accurate. He noted the fees were higher than those charged in Yamhill County. (Noted during discussion: Fees will be reviewed on an annual basis when the City's budget is considered.) d. Public Hearing was closed. e. Council Consideration ORDINANCE NO. 95-16 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE STATE ELECTRICAL. CODE, STANDARDS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ELECTRICAL PROGRAM (Amended by Council Motion to to declare this to an emergency to enact this ordinance immediate. See Agenda Item No. 6 - Non Agenda.) f. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-16. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 5 fl R . (Staff reported, during Non-Agenda, that Ordinance No. 95-16 should be declared an emergency in order to take affect on duly 1, 1995. See Non- Agenda for action taken to amend the ordinance to inciude an emergency clause). g. RESOLUTION NO. 95-31 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ELETRICAL PERMIT FEES h. Mot?on by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, .0 adopt Resolution No. 95-31. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. RMLIC. HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (Continued from the May 23, 1995 Council agenda) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 91-MONARIANCE (VAR) 91-0010 1IDOLAN EZ To Consider the U.S. Supreme Court remand of conditions related to the dedication of property for floodplain management and a bikepath relating to the determination of the rough proportionality of those requirements. LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134 and 18.164; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District). The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities, among other uses. a. Public hearing was opened. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. He announced that the Council would not deliberate to a decision this evening. All public input received at this meeting will be transcribed and made available to Council in approximately one week. The purpose of the transcript would to provide an opportunity for the Council to review all verbal testimony. Those wishing copies of the transcript were instructed to contact the City Administrator. Mayor Nicoli asked all those who testified to speak into the microphone and that not more than one person talk at a time. In addition, City Administrator Monahan suggested that when the City Recorder changes the tapes for the recording equipment, the speaker stop speaking until the tape has been restarted to avoid missing any of the testimony. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 6 Villin 3 r OWN I Mayor Nicoli also advised that, at the end of the public testimony, the Council would then set the next date for discussion of the issue. b. Declarations or Challenges. F Mayor Nicoli asked the following: ® Do any members of the Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? (None were reported.) 61 Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? (Council members indicated that they were familiar with the application.) ® Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter, or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? (There were no challenges.) C. Staff Report _ 0 Community Development Director presented slides to familiarize the Council with the site. The slides that were shown were taken on the previous Sunday. Mr. Hendryx noted that the traffic was light and that it was fairly early in morning. (The slides are on file with the Council packet material.) The slides were of viewpoints > from the east, west, from the west bank of Fanno Creek showing the site in the distance ns > from Main Street looking directly south r > showing the site from the east side of Fanno Creek > a slide taken directly south of the site where there are existing bikepaths w Mr. IlIendryx introduced information for the record of exhibits, including the site plan. He advised the Council has a reduced-in-size copy of this information in the staff report. Included in this material were the land use plans and additional, typical information submitted CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1915 - PAGE 7 °3'L with an application. This information was entered into the record as E xh_!_? 1'7. Mr. Hendryx introduced into the record as Exhibit iS an enlargement of the site plan with the proposed building of 17,600 square feet. Mr. Hendryx described the site, the square footage of the building, and the size of the site. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the applicant's request and conditions in effect. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City requires the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenways adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted Pedestrian Hike Plan with regard to this development. The development site is within the 100-year floodplain. Staff is recommending an easement to meet the requirements; he advised the City Attorney will address this issue further. Mr. Hendryx referred to the Comprehensive Plan where it is referenced in the staff report. The staff report states the floodplain areas need to be dedicated, not only for the construction of pathways, but also for the public maintenance of the storm water drainage system. He referred to Code sections which implement the Comprehensive Plan policies referenced in the staff report which require dedication of all unueveiopeu land mithi n the Inn-y a-ar floodplain. The objective is to regulate development within and adjacent to the floodplain area to avoid hazards to the public and downstream properties. ® Legal Counsel Itamis continued with the staff report presentation. Mr. Iaamis advised that cases like this are fundameniaiiy about one issue: Who pays for the cost of growth? Elected officials have the responsibility to make the determination about the impacts, whether improvements will be paid for by the taxpayers or the property owner, and how to apportion those costs. For example, additional traffic means additional road crews; additional runoff means additional care for the drainage system. A judgement about the fair apportionment of those costs is required. Mr. Itamis reviewed the background of the case. In order to obtain development approval in the City of Tigard, the Code requires an applicant to submit information on the extent of the traffic and the runoff impact. In this particular case, the applicant did not do that. r In order to substitute for that lack of information, the City granted approval conditionAd upon the requirement that traffic impact be CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 8 f - W mitigated by dedication of land for a pedestrian bikepath. In addit.Yu11, 1u Vide U, deal wiili luiivii 111-5154211 LARK; 61p~11MMAL C►an7 Raw so required to dedicate land in the floodplain for runoff. The Supreme Court reviewed this case, indicating it did not have an existing rule to apply to this kind of situation. Therefore, the Supreme Court developed a rule and sent the case back to the City with instructions to apply its new legal standard to the question of the dedication. Mr. Ramis advised this was fundamentally the task before the City Council. This new rule requires: Before a local government can impose such a condition, the local government bears the burden of proof to demonstrate there is proportionality between the impact of the condition (on the property owner or developer) in relationship to the impact on the public relating to the cost to fix the harms caused to the public infrastructure by the proposed project. To address the issue, Mr. Ramis advised Council had before them appraisals and engineering reports. Fundamentally, these reports reduce the question to one of cost. The appraisal value of the land that is being asked to be burdened by an easement that quantification of the cost illustrates a comparison. The comparison is what it would cost the public if the public had to handle all of the transportation impacts of the development, and all the drainage and runoff impacts of the development. These reports are intended to provide raw data so the Council can make the comparison. Mr. Ramis advised it would be likely that Council would hear testimony about methodology. He advised the City's analysis has been made available; however, the applicant has not yet offered a methodology. Where methodology is disputed, Mr. Ramis advised Council that they were the ultimate judge of what methodology is the correct one. He. advised that "your choice will be deferred to by reviewing bodies if it is found on the facts in the case." Mr. Ramis advised Council was not bound to any particular methodology by either the Washington County Code or the City drainage plan. Those documents do not impose upon the Council any specific required methodologies. He advised Council may choose parts of those methodologies, analogies to them, or Council may employ a different methodology. The choice is up to the Council and Council is not bound by those documents to choose any particular approach. CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 9 r' N- 01 r a Mr. Ramis advised that the rule of rough proportionality does not require mathematical exactitude. Rather, it requires a judgment as to ,vhether er net the hatrrlone "]need !?Pon A nronerty owner are out of proportion to the impacts they cause on the public's infrastructure. Mr. Ramis pointed out that as Council reviewed the Exhibit showing the easement, they would see there were some adjustments on the original decisions made by the City earlier. He advised the bike/pedestrian easement has been reduced in size in those locations where it would encroach upon the building being proposed by this application. The reason for doing this was because a as originally approved, the conditions said the applicant has to identify on the east side of the building where the Unified Sewerage Agency easement was. The applicant had not done that at the time of the application. The applicant has since indicated they have located this easement and because of its location, they would be squeezed between the easement for the bike/pedestrian path and the USA easement, and not be able to place their full desired building within the area. Staff has decided to reduce in certain areas the size of the required pedestrian bikepath easement B order to accommodate the building that has been proposed. Mr. Ramis then reviewed the Supreme Court decision. He referred to a computerized overhead projector presentation. (Copies of the material presented are on file with the public record material for the meeting.) M`L . 'Ran-is advised the first thing the Court did was to confirm two basic powers of local government in a land use context. The first was the ability of a local government to deny an application. If an application does not address all the criteria, and does not handle all the impacts to public infrastructure, the application can be denied. Second, the Court affirmed the ability of local governments to impose conditions. Council is permitted to condition a project in order to satisfy the criteria for approval. If Council undertakes to impose conditions, however, the Court said the local government bears the burden of proving the condition is a valid one. This is a switch from the process that "we were used to." He advised, "...We were used to a situation where the applicant always bears the burden." If the City decides to satisfy a particular criteria by using the condition that involves the dedication or exaction of some kind for land, then the 4 City bears the burden of proof. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 10 d • l If the City decides to go ahead and impose a condition, then there are two fundamental requirements: 1. The condition must demonstrate an essential nexis. This means that whatever the condition is that Council chooses, it must address and solve a real problem created by the project. In other words, the impacts of the project have to match up with 6---- the condition that the Council has chosen. Mr. Ramis then cited examples of "essential nexis." 2. The second requirement is rough proportionality. Mr. Ramis described and gave examples of rough proportionality with regard to requirements for making improvement to local streets. He again mentioned. that exact calculation was not required in determining rough proportionality. Mr. Ramis advised that proportionality is the only open issue left in the case. The Supreme Court, in its decision, said that the City could legally deny this application. The Court found that the conditions on the floodplain and the path meet the essential nexis test. The Supreme Court contrasted Tigard's actions with the actions of a California Coastal Commission which referred to their requirements as extortion and essentially a "gimmick." The Supreme Court said this about Tigard: "No such gimmicks are associated with the permit conditions imposed by the City in this case. Undoubtedly, the prevention of flooding along Fanno Creek and the reduction in traffic congestion in the Central Business District qualify as the type of legitimate public purposes we have upheld. It seems equally obvious that a nexis exists between preventing flooding along Fanno Creek and limiting development within the creek's 100- year floodplain. The petitioner proposes to double the size of a retail store, to pave their now-graveled parking lot, thereby expanding the impervious surface on the property and + increasing the amount of stormwater runoff into the Fanno _ Creek. The same may be said for the City's attempt to reduce traffic congestion by providing for alternative means of transportation. In theory, the pedestrian- bicycle pathway provides a useful alternative means of transportation for workers and shoppers. Pedestrians and bicyclists occupying the dedicated spaces for walking or bicycling remove potential vehicles from streets, resulting in an overall improvement in total transportation system flow." CITY CGUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE, 27, 1995 - PAGE 11 Mom ft I rw Mr. Ramis again advised the question of essential nexis was not one the City Council would have to worry about in this case. The problem Gu nn is rlcnielino rn11V~1 proportionality. In 4 1i6i11~;81 i"a~a iiss~v to ~.~.-.*.°.v v..... _ doing that, the task is to compare the cost of the project impact to the value of the easement. Mr. Ramis advised that Council has a great deal of data so far in the record on this value of the easement. If the value of the land that is being exacted exceeds the cost to the public of curing the impacts from the project, then one could not say it has a proportional relationship. On the other hand, if the cost to the property owner were far less than the impacts to the public in curing the problems caused by the project, then you could say it was a proportional relationship. Mr. Ramis then testified with regard to the facts of this case based upon the evidence Council has in the record at this point. He advised he would first review drainage and then review the traffic analysis. Mr. Rams advised that "bur engineer" has indicated the project will have at least a 30% increase in runoff. He advised this was a conservative estimate. If areas outside the immediate vicinity of the proposed building are paved, then the runoff could actually triple. Mr. Ramis referred to a graph bar chart illustrating this point. Mr. Ramis advised that an appraiser looped at the value of the easement that was being dedicated for runoff purposes. The dedication easement value was $1,300. For comparison, the engineers also calculated what it would cost the public to cure the runoff problem on the site by constructing facilities to do that. One type of structure would retain all the water until it percolated out. This is called a retention structure and would cost either the applicant or the public $6,800. The detention alternative would cost either the applicant or public $8,500 to cure it. Mr. Ramis advised it was illustrated that in comparing these figures, there was no lack of proportionality here. He referred to the chart and advised that it was not out of proportion to the impact of the project to ask for an easement of roughly $1,300 in value. Mr. Ramis testified with regard to creating capacity in the creek. The applicant, by making a contribution of an easement worth about $1,300, would be paying 34% of the cost. The public, the taxpayers of the City, would implement that drainage plan and pay about 66% of the cost of solving the problem. This 66% represent the cost of doing excavation and creating more capacity in the stream channel. CITY COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 12 EMIR: 7 Mr. Ramis then testified with regard to traffic issues. He advised that "our traffic engineer" has determined that the project would generate 404 new trips on the mart ner clay, H advised that one could then determine what the cost is for each trip. This would represent how much additional burden on the public infrastructure is created by each trip. He advised.that once you have that number, you can calculate the total dollar impact on the City system, if the taxpayers were left with the problem themselves of handling the traffic impacts. That number is $33,000: This dollar figure credits the applicant with paying the traffic impact fee (TIF). Mr. Ramis advised the County charges a fee for transportation infrastructure. Staff has taken into account that the applicant will pay the TIF and reduce the unmitigated impact. After paying the fee to the County, there still is an amount of $33,000 of impact that needs to be dealt with. J Mr. Rands then compared this figure to the appraised value of the pathway that was being asked to meet conditions to be granted to the City. The value of the pathway is $4,100. Compared to the unmitigated impact of $33,000, Mr. Ramis advised that one could see the property owner is not being asked to contribute a disproportionate share to solve any of the problems. Mr. Ramis then advised if one would review the total problem and where the dollars would come from to fix the impact on public infrastructure, the picture looks this way: 32% of the cost of dealing with the impact would come from payment of the TIF fee by the applicant. 9% of the problem would be dealt with by the contribution of the easement by the applicant, and 59% of the problem would be left to be dealt with by the taxpayers. (Copy of the slides that were used for the computerized overhead presentation are on file with the public record material and are numbered as Exhibit No. 28). Mr. Ramis referred to the question as to whether it would matter if customers of this particular store did not use a pedestrian easement. He advised his answer was "no," it doesn't matter. The path was designed to mitigate the traffic impact. In other words, people coming to the store in their cars create additional trips. To the extent the path reduces the use of the streets gets people out of their cars and onto the path creates more capacity on the street: Therefore, the pathway mitigates the impact on the new traffic trips generated by the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 13 E 1,11 10 MIR development. Therefore, the question is whether or not the path mitigates traffic impact, not how many people actually use it to access a particular type of store. With regard to drainage, Mr. Ramis referred to a claim contained in a letter submitted today that the analysis was flawed because no credit had been given for the water quality charge that was paid to Unified Sewerage Agency. Mr. Ramis advised the problem with that argument is that USA's charge was for water quality. The issues that were being talked about at this time are about water quantity (capacity in the drainage system), not water quality measures. Mr. Ramis advised that there was an expert witness present from the firm of McKenzie Saito, Mr. Rave Larson who did the analysis that was in the record. Mr. Ramis advised that Council indicated they would not be reaching a decision at the hearing tonight; therefore, Council may want to continue the process, depending on what was heard at the hearing, because staff has not yet had the opportunity to see or hear any information from the applicant. For the record, Mr. Rainis noted there were additional exhibits contained in a box (indicating which box he was referring to). The exhibits were numbered and the City Attorney had possession of them. These exhibits relate predominately to the past history of the case and transcription records of prior proceedings. Ms. Pamela Beery, City Attorney, advised she numbered those P exhibits 19 through 33. d. Public Testimony: Mayor Nicola read the following: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issues will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria the staff will describe or other criteria in the plan, or land use regulation which you believe applies to this decision. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 14 ® Mr. John Shonkwiler, Attorney for the applicant, testified. Mr. Shonkwiler presented several volumes of information with regard to traffic study background material. Mayor Nicoll called for a recess while the information was being entered into the record as exhibits. Council meeting recessed at 8:46 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 8:57 p.m. City Attorney Beery clarified that a letter dated June 27, 1995 from David B. Smith, Attorney at Law, directed to the Mayor and City Council will be Exhibit No. 36, In addition, Inds. Beery advised there was a memorandum from Ty Wyman of the City Attorney's office regarding revisions to the staff report which was assigned Exhibit No. 37. a Mr. John Shonkwiler, 15425 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, testified. Mr. Shonkwiler advised he was present on behalf of the Dolans. He also advised that Mr. David Woelk was present from ATEP. Mr. Shonkwiler said that the traffic report was submitted as Exhibit 34 in the record. Mr. Shonkwiler submitted, for the record, a memorandum which was assigned Exhibit No. 35. Mr. Shonkwiler advised he wanted to talk about the fundamentals of what hopefully could be accomplished to seek a solution to the matter. He advised this has been a legal dispute for over four years and the question is: After this length of time, have we progressed to a point where -we can actually find a solution? Mr. Shonkwiler said he believed the choices are before the City to allow that to be accomplished. Mr. Shonkwiler asked how the City could lower the harm to the Dolans that has occurred, while at the same time accomplish the things the City had in mind when it first imposed the conditions. Mr. Shonkwiler referred to Exhibit No. 18 advising that this was a very good direction for the City in attempting to review the adverse effect that all these processes had on the Dolans for their business. He advised that undeniably, taking away a portion of the building was taking away a portion of their income. He advised that "it has always been felt by myself that it is so easy to move the pathway, and why it required to move ...the building was always hard for me to grasp. So I applaud you for taking this approach." J v -4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 15 Mr. Shon kwiler advised that if the pathway, as shown ire Exhl''rit io, ultimately ends up as one of the Council's conditions of approval, then he thought the City was taking a good step. Potential dedication to the public of an easement or outright i'loodpi'mAit va' g eeii aS was a separate issue and secondary to the building. The key aspect remaining is the transportation aspect. Mr. Shonkwiler continued his testimony with the following issues presented: Referred to his memorandum submitted to the Council as "...my lawyer's approach picking apart the City's case." - If the building is no longer required to be moved, then next deal with the transportation issue. - Referred to difference in the City's transportation analysis and Mr. Woelk's analysis. - City's traffic analysis involved stores larger in size and different in type. - The Dolan's traffic study was an actual on-site analysis. - I.Dolans not only have this store, but other stores "exactly, or near exactly" the same size that they want to expand to. - Their traffic analysis "comes out not at 404 trips per week, but 206 trips per week." - If the City accepts the transportation study and the resulting TIP ($5,034), then Mr. Shonkwiler believes steps toward resolving had been made. Referred to the pathway requirement and the City's assumption for reduced vehicular traffic. "Does it fit within a category that could reasonable collect 90% of your traffic allocation?" Comprehensive Plan category defines the Fanno Creek pathway as "primarily used for _recre attiOn~latrip'$,11 ' uvaaa - When making a recreational trip, not saving a vehicle trip. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PACE 16 IS: Fanno Creels pathway does not provide "hardly any connections to surrounding areas that might become sources for dcaaYO.anaWi ucannnc. ua.mn.f, The City's report fails to assess the allocation of the pedestrian/bikepath traffic that would be assignable to Main r Street, right in front of the property. The Dolans' traffic study identifies approximately 5% of the pedestrian/bike activity uses on Main Street. Cost calculations are "over half off throughout the entire analysis." Differing viewpoint on Supreme Court decision regarding Dolan's use of property for bulk sales and the City taking the step of reducing the size of parking to recognize that which is inconsistent with the bikepath and pedestrian activity. Emphasized City's requirement for construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway "within the floodplain.11 Noted the City is requiring the bikepath to be outside the floodplain. Violation also of ORS 227.175(3) in effect at the time - 1991. City traffic analysis in error. City shows 404 trips per day; applicant's traffic figures indicate 206. If the pathway no longer cuts through portion of building, then there are no longer any damages. Contested City's method of figuring the traffic impacts relating to County Traffic Impact Fees and Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. Referred to Exhibit I (Shonkwiler's written submittal and identified in the public record as Exhibit 35) with regard to other development. Dolan appears to be unique for figuring of TIF assessment. Additionally, Mr. Shonkwiler referred to F other developments and their requirements which appeared to differ from what was imposed on the Dolans. Pointed to differing conditions imposed for other developments with regard to storm drainage and other conditions. (Transcript, pp 22-23). r _ CITY C®UNCEL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE. 17 sr 11,111 !1! 111 11, !1 1 1 Asked, regarding floodplain, whether City could "accomplish public purpose without ownership?" Mr. Shonkwiler clarified, in response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, that a warehouse building on 72nd Avenue was approved in 1991 with no conditions for drainage. There were also 12-13 other similar development approvals around that time. Mr. Shonkwiler, in answer to a question from Mayor Nicoli, said he believed he could return in 'a week or two to another Council meeting. ® Dick Woelk, Associated Transportation Engineering and Planning, 4040 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, testified. Mr. Woelk is a registered professional traffic engineer in the State of Oregon. He covered the following points: Referred to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Volume, called the Trip Generation Manual (1991, Fifth Edition). He cited the description of a hardware/paint store, saying the description is "very bland" and information is based upon three studies done between 1960 and 1970. "There's no correlation between the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Section 18 Hardware/Paint Store and A-Boy Plumbing." Mr. Woelk said he was commissioned by Mr. Dolan to prepare a statistical analysis for A-Boy Plumbing comparable to what the ITE produces. Mr. Woelk related the findings of a professional traffic counting firm. Data was gathered from all of the Dolan's stores. (Data is part of record on file - 4 volumes). Described methodology used for his report and related it to the traffic impact fees (TIE). TIF should be $8,000, not $15,000. 5% of the total number of trips to the Tigard store were generated by pedestrians and bicycles. Based on their methodology, the value is considerably less than what the City presented. No analysis has been done to substantiate City's staff report that roadway capacity problems would be exacerbated by this expansion. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Ml-4UTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 18 4+ Described how "impacts" are usually determined. Caul ritv'c mpthadglnov wac condie Pnt with what ig do e. in. the traffic engineering field, but "...they used the wrong base information to establish what the impact is." Explained differences in comparing a plumbing store to a paint/hardware store and how it affects a statistical analysis. Mr. Shonkwiler advised: Hopefully costs can be mitigated for both sides. The key in 1991 was that the building was being interfered with and that cut into the livelihood of the Dolans. The City's proposal to leave the building alone is a major step. "...our traffic study is an appropriate one it is what the actual traffic generation will do for the site." TIF fees should be lowered to $8,034. I think I speak favorably on behalf of the Dolans to say we could then live with the floodplain issue in this..." Responded to question from Councilor Scheckla: Traffic survey was done seven days at Beaverton, Tigard, and Vancouver at the same time. ® David Smith testified and identified himself as "of the attorneys for the applicant, the Dolans." Testimony include the following: Agreed that Council is the final arbiters of any ambiguities in "your own Code and Plan" unless those interpretations are clearly wrong. "You're entitled to great deference in making those interpretations." - "You're entitled to no deference whatsoever" in interpreting the Washington County Code." Explained his issue with the transportation data and advised the Washington County Code requires the Council to consider the data provided by the applicant and his engineer. 7. a CITY C®UNCEL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 19 l City should make a fihiding if does not feel it is bound by the Washington County Code. Explained the difference of opinion with regard to the methodology for calculating the proportionate share of cost for stori:: drainage improvements. Said, "If I'm not mistaken that Washington County Traffic Impact Fee comes right back to the City's pockets." Outlined his issue with "the fee in lieu of water quality." Advised that the Supreme Court said the City has the burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicle and bicycle trips generated by the petitioner's proposed development reasonably relate to the City's requirement for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. Clarified, in response to a question from Mayor Nicoli that the City was allowed to interpret ordinances adopted by Washington County, but "...You're entitled to no deference in your interpretations of it..." Mr. Shonkwiler said "The problem is you adopted assumptions of the Washington County Plan, and all of those assumptions still revert back to the adoption by Washington County ...Where you made assumptions based on Washington County planning, you won't get any deference to that." Mayor Nicoli then questioned figures and interpretations of the County's ordinance made by both the City and Dolan's representatives. Mr. Smith responded, "You can interpret anything you want to...the only question is what is the standard for your interpretation." Mr. Smith also advised, "You have an obligation to interpret the... legislative enactments of higher levels of government in the process of making your land use decisions... You have a duty to apply the Washington County ordinance and to apply it properly." Mr. Smith reported that the A-Boy store was identified as retail sales r use. The City staff analyzed it on the basis of a hardware/plumbing store; they picked the wrong entry. The trip generation basis is not available for a general retail sales use. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 20 9 a s a s ® Dorothy Cofield, testifying as Legal Counsel for Oregonians in Action, 5255 SW Hunziker, Tigard, Oregon, advised, "...this case is about xaerueaa and aaiY'ay ag pulIll Aas~ W11V pay'a. asac 0 bsaac `.teus'a was saying that the impacts of development and the mitigation has to be directly proportionate. The underlying numbers presented by City staff (traffic numbers) are wrong. "We have a study that supports 200 or so cars a day." The City "had a year to come up with the traffic impact study that was the individualized determination of what the expansion of the A- Boy Plumbing Store would generate. They never dad that." She urged the City to look carefully at the evidence in a common-sense approach. She said the City should make the T1F the appropriate amount, move the bikepath so that the store could be built as originally planned, and "then we'll work on the rest of the legal matters as they come up." ® John LeCavalier, President of Fans of Fanno Creek, a non-profit volunteer organization. The Fans of Fanno Creek is a group dedicated to the preservation and protection of the Fanno Creek watershed. Mr. LeCavalier advised he just received the material a short while ago; therefore, he was not speaking on behalf of the Fans of Fanno Creek Board. He advised his sense was that the Board would probably support the staff recommendation; however, he would have to forward a letter to Council at a later time. Mr. LeCavalier advised he thought Mr. Itamis articulated the issues and how the City responded to the Court remand. He said he thought the rough proportionality had been met. Mr. LeCavalier noted non-monetary types of values associated with this matter: aesthetic, habitat, and biodiversity values. He referred to the tremendous support for greenspaces approved by voter in Measure 26-26. This measure will provide funds to continue to build trails and pathways to provide opportunities that people do not currently have. H He agreed this bikepath is now isolated, but as the network of trails and pathways develop, he said that he believed there will be more Y' ridership and pedestrian traffic on those paths. Mr. LeCavalier advised he was amazed that there was no bus ridership visits to any of the A-Boy stores. He urged Council to think about the future and CI'T'Y COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 21 f - the ways in which our transportation direction is going to change. He advised he did not believe the Fans of Fanno Creek was in existence at the time that the Dolan situation first came forward io "$a C ty. Eau= He noted the Fans of Fanno Creek work to protect watershed and their work with developers. He referred to his understanding as the way things are regulated at the present time and referred to restrictions in a "riparian area." Mr. LeCavalier was concerned that the data would overwhelm the overall issues and asked that it be remembered that there was a watershed here; what happens here affects downstream. In response to a question from Mr. LeCavalier, Mr. Hendryx advised that the staff report, as shown, did not move the bikepath any further to the west. Mr. LeCavalier noted the building appears to encroach upon the pathway. Mr. LeCavalier distributed a handout to the City Council which was an abstract: Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21st Century." (See Exhibit 39). Mr. LeCavalier read the following: "Over the last 30 years, the nation has learned that a technical floodplain management can reduce vulnerability to damages and create a balance among natural and human uses of floodplains and their related watersheds to meet both social and environmental goals. The nation, however, has not taken full advantage of this knowledge. The United States simply has lacked the focus and the intent to engage itself seriously in floodplain management. The 1993 flood has managed to focus attention on the floodplain and has provided the incentive for action. The Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee proposes a better way to manage the floodplains. It begins by establishing that all levels of government, all businesses, and all citizens have a stake in properly managing the floodplain. All of those who support risky behavior, either directly or indirectly, must share in floodplain management and the costs of reducing that risk." In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla regarding the use of the bikepath as it correlates to the A-Boy business and the proportionality issue, Mr. LeCavalier advised it was difficult to ride a bicycle around here because of the numbers of cars. Given the fact that bikepaths will eventually be more connected and more accessible, he advised it was his personal expectation that more people would find CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 22 'M 0 W it an easier and perhaps a little bit more appropriate way to do shopping. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla regarding concerning how many more people would be going to A-Boy, Mr. LeCavalier advised he believed there was an implied correlation; that is, as there is more access for bicycles, there will be more opportunities, instead of just recreational. Bicycle riding would be used for the purpose of purchasing food, clothing, and plumbing parts. In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli regarding the number of jurisdictions over which the Fanno Creek flows, Mr. LeCavalier advised the following jurisdictions were involved with lianno Creek: Unified Sewerage Agency, City of Portland, City of Beaverton, City of Tigard, Multnomah County, Washington County, and Tualatin Bills Park and Recreation District. In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli with regard to whether it was the intent of some or all of the above-mentioned organizations to develop a bikepath or a pedestrian path around the full extent of the creek from start to finish, Mr. LeCavalier advised he dad not think this would be the intent of those jurisdictional goals directly. He advised he thought it would be safe to say that all jurisdictions would be happy to see that occurring in jurisdictions. He also added that the Metro government level probably has the most direct charge for looking at those long-range and larger- scale kinds of transportation issues. In response to an additional question from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. LeCavalier advised with regard to long-range planning (including comprehensive plan citations), the City of Portland is actively ar, developing greenspaces from monies available. He referred to a full, ...r , direct connection from the greenway park that currently exists in the City of Tigard, all the way into downtown, which would include some Multnomah County sites. In response to some questions from Councilor Scheckla with regard to identified bikepaths that are within the flood zone, Mr. LeCavalier acknowledged there may be times when the bikepath would be flooded over. He also noted issues with regard to problems putting a structure in the floodpWn. , l CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 23 f; 15 AEON 11 .4 In response to questions from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. LeCavalier responded that, no, bikepaths do not just belong in residential areas, but could also be in commercial and industrial areas. He advised that bikes are an appropriate way to get around. He said there should be complete bicycle access. 0 J. M. Kerr, 3917 SW Fairway, West Linn, Oregon, advised he agreed with testimony given by Ms. Cofield. He said this was a question of fairness and, beyond that, it was a question of amorality. Mr. Kerr advised he was wearing a Presidential Citation metal that was given to the men of the First Marine Division by President Roosevelt. On the metal it says "Freedom from Fear." He said he has construed that to also include freedom to own property, freedom from oppression. The idea that anybody should have to give up private property without compensation, "...as .described in our Fifth Amendment, is totally against my grain. That's not what I fought for over there." He reminded everyone of their oath of office and the pledge of allegiance to the flag, °'...freedom for all." 0 John Hilley, advised anything he had to say, had been said. o Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, Oregon, 97224, testified with regard to concerns for the amount that this matter would eventually cost the City of Tigard. He referred to the Supreme Court case, and noted what he believed was the outcome of that case. Mr. Polans cited terminology used with regard to "exaction" and "rough proportional." Mr. Polans then read the definition of the word exaction. He advised that it appeared to him that exaction was being imposed by the City and the projected impacts of the proposed development appeared to him be a tax. He asked for a response as to whether or not that was true. Mayor Nicoli advised the Council did not intend to respond to questions this evening and asked for Mr. Polans to present his points in his testimony. 0 Richard Ereakiron, J. C. Reeves Corporation, 4550 SW Scholls Ferry Road, Portland, Oregon, advised that the problem appeared to him was that someone wanted to build an expanded store four years ago, and four years later they still haven't been able to do it. He questioned the issues of ownership, control, and fairness. He noted - this was affecting people's livelihood. It appeared that in order to take care of yourself now and to have a business you needed engineers and lawyers. fc. Y CITY COUNCII. MEETING P U17L TES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 24 UZI ii- He advised that "I think every City Council that I've gone to and talked to are made up of real people ...if this was your property, you would be incensed it had come to this." He advised he did not think government was in the business of cutting deals with people. He noted that it appeared to him there were inconsistencies, noting there were concerns for the floodplain in that the environmentalist group in favor of the bikepath promotes putting in a bikepath which would have an impervious service which would affect the floodplain. He outlined several conflicts over the environmental concerns. Mr. Breakiron reported that his overriding issue was that of fairness. Mr. Breakiron advised that "in the old days, bikepaths and sidewalks got designed by where people walked and where they rode common sense approach. Mr. Breakiron posed "an interesting question,: If there was no creek here, would you want a bikepath here? He said he did not think the bikepath was associated with the business or with A-Boy. "I don't see people going in and taking their tubs out on a ten-speed on their back and beating it home. It just doesn't make sense." Mr. Breakiron advised that bikepaths, as referred to in the Master flan, are for recreation to bring people to the creek. l He questioned whether the Dolans were trying to take advantage of the City or were they just trying to provide a service by making their store a little bit better. He noted that the Dolans were "somehow being portrayed" as people trying to take advantage of the system. Mayor Nicoli proposed a plan of action to the Council members. He noted he had a list of things he would like to have brought to the next hearing to be addressed by staff and applicant. He proposed that Council take an. opportunity to individually let the applicant and City staff know of anything Council would like to be brought back or have clarified. He said it was his understanding that the record would be left open so new information could be submitted. Legal Counsel Beery clarified that continuance would mean that the hearing would be left open. Council would still be able to accept testimony at the - next meeting. Continuing the meeting to a date certain would not require } new notice; it would put the persons present on notice that the City would be accepting; new testimony. Legal Counsel Beery advised that if Council was going to be asking questions and asking for additional information, a fRr CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 25 contia.uance of the hearing and leaving it open would be the most appropriate way to handle this matter. Mayor Nicoli clarified it was not his intent to go through rebuttal information at this meeting. Rather, after Council had heard all the information, then rebuttal testimony would be heard. Ms. Beery advised that she thought that was implicit in continuing the hearing. That would allow those steps to occur later following the additional evidence. Mayor Nicoli requested Mr. Shonkwiler and Mr. Rands to come up to the microphone at the testimony desk. A question and answer period followed: Question by Mayor Nicoli: "With respect to Fanno Creek, what is the current capacity of that creek at flood stage?" (clarified as cubic feet per second, at build-out). Mr. Shonkwiler responded: "Mr. Mayor, I can't tell you in terms of cubic feet per second. That may be in the record now. I can tell you in terms of floodplain elevation. At this particular location, currently the floodplain elevation is 150 feet." Mr. Shonkwiler continued that, "the level projected in the drainage study at full build-out is five feet higher than that. 2.5 to 5 feet higher than that." Mayor Nicoli asked whether Mr. Shonkwiler could present information as to where he was getting that information from. Mr. Shonkwiler responded, "Sure." Mayor Nicoli also requested of Mr. Shonkwiler some more flow data - - cubic feet per second numbers; projecting at build-out of the flood stage. Mr. Shonkwiler responded with additional comments as follows: I think we need to relate this somewhat to the ordinance which is a 25- year event ...my understanding of existing database... predates the Tualatin River requirements which I think, a base of it is correct, in the sense, that you are not going to build two retention ponds on a piece of property that serves the same piece of water. There is some activity that is being imposed that was never contemplated by the base data. That irrevocably affects what the total storm flow's going to be build-out ...somehow that has to be factored in."; Mayor Nicoli advised, "OA ...when either one of you, or both of you...bring that information back." Mayor Nicoli asked another question: "In looking at the photographs that were presented earlier this evening, in fact at the very beginning CITY COUNCIL MEETING MWUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 26 of the hearing the existing Fanno Creek at that location... adjacent to the Dolan site ...the banks on both sides of the creek do not appear to be natural banks ...with respect to the Dolan side. I am interested in knowing if at any time, there are records or knowledge of when that side was filled or if it was filled and to what extent it was filled." Another question asked by Mayor Nicoli referencing the word "standard." Mayor Nicoli advised the studies that were presented this evening relating to a "plumbing and electrical store" and the traffic generated. He advised it was his understanding that the application was for General Commercial. Mayor Nicoli referred to the application contained in the record which listed "general retail sales facility." Mayor Nicoli advised that he was concerned about the standard that has been used in the City. How does the City deal with actual use versus general retail sales? For example, if that store were in existence for two years and the Dolans decided to sell the store, and another user came in that zone, would we change the number of parking stalls they would be required to provide if it was still a general sales use? Or, would we change certain conditions under our zoning ordinance? Mayor Nicoli referred to uses on Main Street. A certain number of uses appear to change every year. He asked, "Do we go in each time and make them go through an entire approval process. Or, if they a are still under general retail sales, can they go ahead and change the use?" Mayor Nicoli noted that was the reason why he was concerned about the emphasis on an electrical plumbing outlet and not enough emphasis put on what their application actually said they were going to do on the site. Knowing a little more about past practices in the City and how enforcement has been done, it would help better define the standard that the City uses. Mayor Nicoli advised that earlier in Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony, lie indicated he felt there was a resolution to the dilemma on this matter. He advised it was not clear to him exactly what that resolution was. r ' y Mayor Nicoli asked for Mr. Shonkwiler to paraphrase it. Mr. Shonkwiler advised he would paraphrase this right now. He said, "...I think that we had a tremendous amount of issues that arose out of the first case that fed into the City's attempt to adjust to the requirements from the Supreme Court. All of us, and that was my fear, and has been my fear ali along, all of us can be so wrapped up C®UNCEL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 27. CITY r in all of the elements, that it's just a lawyer's case and it doesn't ever get back to what this aU was to begin with. An application for land i use. Should be practical review rather than have the lavayers pick it to death." Mr. Shonkwiler further advised that "...going back to the concept of what is attempting to be accomplished here by both sides, I think the Dolans would be willing to feel comfortable with this land use decision... allowing the building be undisturbed as far as the location of the bikepath goes." Mr. Shonkwiler further advised "No. 2, they would then live with the floodplain easement request that the City has made. Even though, like I said, I had...as a lawyer, I have a lot of fundamental questions about it. But, from a practical aspect, I think the applicant is willing to live with that, if the traffic evaluation shows what the real figures _ are for the uses at the site and it brings the TIF fee down to around $5,034. The combination of three things, I think, is the whole heart of this matter before you. I think the rest of it pretty well stands on its own." Councilor Hawley advised that, "I'm sorry, but I still don't understand." She asked Mr. Shonkwiler whether this meant the Dolans would be willing to accept both dedications as the staff presented in the conditions. Mr. Shonkwiler responded, "Yes." Councilor Hunt asked for more specific information from Mr. Shonkwiler. For example, was Mr. Shonkwiler willing to allow the easement for the bicycle path or not? Mr. Shonkwiler advised this afternoon he had received a FAX'd map, as was being portrayed at this meeting. He advised, "...the way I read the staff report, it has several provisions that say we have to move the building if it encroaches upon the pathway. So we still have some... inconsistencies in the language in the staff report. If you're going to base your findings on that, you're going to have to alter that to match this map now." ~Y Mr. Shonkwiler advised that according to the map being presented, instead of the Dolans moving the building to orient it to the pathway, the pathway is forming along the backside of the building, and that is acceptable to the Dolans. With regard to what has been proposed for the floodplain easement, Mr Shonkwiler said, "...originally you asked for ownership of it, and now you have downgraded to merely an easement." He said "...and then you've also downgraded the easement CITY C®UNC1L MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 28 6 MEN 10 Him, to no public access to the floodplain. Given this change and given the change on the traffic impact, we'd be willing to accept the floodplain ac the staff has nortraved it. - The last major item is the traffic evaluation. Then, if the City is willing to accept that traffic evaluation, which we think is fully supportable and valid at 206 cars per day, then our TIF"fees equated to that would be $8,034...and I think ...will be acceptable and Council would not see an appeal to LUBA from us on that basis." Mr. Shonkwiler responded to a question from Councilor Lunt that "Yes" the traffic impact as it relates to the TIF fee was the main thing. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Ramis if he would be prepared to tell, at the next meeting what the process is for the adjustment of the TIF traffic count. Is that done by City staff or is done by the County staff, or could it be done by either? Mr. Ramis advised he would be prepared to respond to this question at the next meeting. Mr. Shonkwiler questioned what was meant when the Mayor was referring to adjusting the TIE' fees. Mayor Nicolii responded that Mr. Shonkwiler indicated that the traffic count was much lower based on the actual use. Mayor Nicoli advised his understanding of the TIF ordinance was that it was an actual use ordinance, whereas, the Tigard zoning ordinance was applied on the general use of the business. Mayor Nicoli advised his understanding was the applicant would like to be charged a TIF fee on actual use; he said he believed there was a mechanism for reducing TIF fees. Based on traffic studies, he advised he thought the applicant had proven their point, "at least on the TIF fees," as far as a reduction. Mayor Nicoli advised he was not sure whether the reduction could be adjusted at the City _ level or the County level. If it was at the County level, then the City cannot make any assurances. Mr. Ramis advised he understood the Mayor was asking two related questions: One was whether the process by which we would accomplish the shift in the basis for measuring the TIF fee. The second question was how do we as a City deal with the fact that we _ have now approved a very limited use; that is, a very single purpose use, and how do we deal with that in the future? CITY C®UNCEL MEETING MENUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 29 Mayor Nicoli questioned whether the City dad approve a single use. Mr. Ramis responded that the question may be. if "we make a ,g . . v 1%11* # mn fnr.rec 111[~g1Y1PgtII neW harad an a l imr4PA }1CP, Iva . 01 000 4h;~ Pnl.~--~ - of "bur ability" in the future? Mr. Shonkwiler advised he hoped "...we don't lose track ...this is a two-phase process. The first... a building designed for a specific use, being a plumbing store. The second building would be general retail ...in a process of categorizing let's not lose sight of the fact that the site itself would be mixed use...we need to deal with it from a realistic standpoint. Mayor Nicoli noted that there was some confusion with regard to the numbers being offered in the traffic studies. He noted he would be going through the report to review this information and would probably have more questions. Mayor Nicoli advised it was the intent to have testimony typed within a week and available for review. There was discussion about when to schedule the next Council meeting. After discussion, it was determined the hearing would be continued to July 18, 1995. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing to the date certain of July 18, 1995. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Comicil present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 0 Mayor Nicoli appointed the following individuals to the 130th/Winterlake Task Force: Nick Caris, Rose Cicero, Ed Ilalberg, Kathleen McDonald, Gene McAdams, and Bob Pavlukovich. Councilor Rohlf will also serve on the Task Force. Mayor Nicoli advised the Task Force was formed for a five-week period to determine whether any additional items could be incorporated into the 130th/Winteriake bridge connection to mitigate traffic impacts to the neighborhood. 0 Council Groundrules Setting Session was rescheduled from July 6 to August 1, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. 0 It was noted that the ordinance approved by Council earlier in the meeting during the public hearing for the administration of the electrical inspection program should have included an emergency clause in order to make the ordinance effective on July CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 30 1111 ma jure-g1l'i 3 1, 1995. In response to concerns by Councilor Rohlf, Legal Counsel Beery advised that adequate support was presented in the body of the ordinance for declaring an emergency. After brief discussion, Councii considered a modo a do aaciaCild iiac ordinance. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to amend Ordinance No. 95-16 to declare an emergency and to make the ordinance effective July 1, 1995. During discussion on the motion, it was noted that Washington County is anticipating that Tigard will assume the responsibilities for this program and have downsized their program accordingly. ORDINANCE NO 95-16 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNCIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE STATE ELECTRICAL CODE, STANDARDS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ELECTRICAL PROGRAM, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:44 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (la) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT: 12:40 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ity of igard Date: ~~a ~i l Cl5 ccm0627.95 o- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 31 m z r COMMUNITY NE PAPE 9 INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notlce TT 8241 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 'Legal Notice Advertising R E C E I V E b ' ®City of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice JUN 2 b 1995 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ® Tigard , Oregon 97223-8199 a ❑ Duplicate Affidavit (A),( OF f IGARD ®Accounts Payable-Terry AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theai4ard-T 3a1 at-; n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard -in the afores0id county and state; that the Notice-Proposed Ordinance-Electrical a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue o3 said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: June 22,1995 s_ Subscribed and sworn too a me this22nd day of June, 19 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary blic for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 MY My Commission Expires: COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 ~ . AFFIDAVIT - 1 aim= Idta°1'1L~ ~1: LOP T1EiAR13 1NG 3loticals hereby given ilia[ the Tigard City.Councii will hold a public =on O June 27;4995, at 7:30 P.MNI., a tineTo e, To n. wn Hall Rt TegardCiwYc 13125 S .W. Hall Boulevard, { The purpose of the:Coiancil Public Hearing is to take public testimony rea,ardins a proposed: ordinance antending'Title 14 of the Tigard b usricipa Code'to provide for the administration of the electrical inSpec- Von program, e~cctive July1, 1995, and a proposed resolution establish ing electrical perynit fees to cover the cost of administering the electrical inspection paograan. 1°8241- Publish Jsine v, 1995. COMMUNiTY NEWSPAPERS, INC. L.egal ~ P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 2 4 0 BEAVERTON, OREGON 970,75 Legal Notice Advertising ®City of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. s Tigard , Oregon 97223-8199 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable-Terry a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' Kathy Snyder _ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tua latin Times a newspaper of general circulatiop as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council Business Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: June 22,1995 _ Subscribed and sworn 4o fore me this 22nd day of June,11PI, , OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS r ` Not ry blic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 024562 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16.1997 AFFIDAVIT _ 4 tt CIrTOFTIGARD. .1. 0, kedN, The following sneetatig highlights are published,for your information: Full; agendas may be obtained from the: CSty Recorder, 13125 S:W. Hall Boulevard, Tigards~~gon 97223, or.by.callsng 639-4171. Y CTTY,C®UNCIL BUSIIvESS.MEETIIV'O . •IUNE 27, •1995 ~ ~ `I*dGr~'n.1Zl~L"13gC HALL= 7Y3Wf~I &1~4I.L , . t~ 13125 S.w HA1;.I.13$~ TlSar 13, OIiFCOIN., a Study *eeting (Red Rock Creek Conference ltnaxn) (6 3®p.m.) , . + Executive Session The igard City Council may go into Execu='i Y " tive Session under theprovisiors of ORS, 192.660,(1) (d), (e),,dc )-to discOss Uvor relations, veal property transactions, current and pending Iitigatiom 2ssues. . a tRdi da Review Ru.°,u1CSS Meetan g`(Town'I~aII) (7 30 p.m) L + I?dbhr hi " (Continued fra~rs May 23, 1995, at the request of ..Dolan legal,counsel): D61An/Mendez-.To Consider, the, U:S. Supreme Court remand of conditions related to the dedicad of property'for floodplain management and a bike path`relating to the determination of the rough proportionality of those require- inents LOCATION: 12520 S.W. Main Street (WCTM 2SI 2AC, tax lot700): + -Public hearing: Consider ordinance, to amend Title 14 of the Municipal Code to adopt the State electrical codes, standards, and. administrative rules and to provide. for the administration of the, electrical program. _ Local Contract Review Board M240 -Publish June 22,199 'Nil CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) SS. City of Tigard ) I, u It begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance dumber (s) 9,5--/6 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated Jl fh copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of /Ul 19 9, S 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 3777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Q~sllilll 19 9 OFFICE ANN SEANotary P lic for Oregon \\i NOTARY PUBLIC•OY:44 COMMISSION NO.OM JO ANN HA~° C® f.SY COMMISSION EXPIRES MA99 My Commission Expires: M *A4 ! i Iogin\(o\affpost nsi 4 i p ♦ V AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: June 27. 1995 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council vOshes 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. STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED w S 7 C ~.C-N 0/ e v C;Y 111D ~ ~ z _ &3 ~'idx6 7`6 4.~ e i Y- o~ n o~vis~rs.~ 5 a r Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair lWa '~a....I L.. sL ....!1 May 1 s6JI u Ivl 1111116 ul 1.o 1o iivvtiQ, N Y. v.o laevl 1 %~111115 vl ILO a1 V u9~ajis af/Fdl GisK71 ou vy Ufa w i1681 16+11 LU supplement oral testimony- ACENDM.N4 DATE: June 27, 9995 PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF TIME ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PROGRAM PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS AGENDA ITEM, NO., 4 0, - PLEASE PRIM Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) opponent - (Speaking Against) Nome, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. C~ 66 csti/ ~5~3~.~~8-7'789 Name, Address and Phone NOo. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. W-ne, ress an Phone No. Name, Address an Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. e, Address and Phone No. Name, dress and Phone No. Name, Address an Phone . Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. s Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ,z a :N Depending on the member of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may Turther limit time ii necessary. written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. A SE ®Aj't'EM NO. D *E: -June 27, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (Continued from the May 23,1995 council agenda) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 91 5/VARIANCE (VAR) 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEt'"Z ► To Consider the U.S. Supreme Court remand of conditons related to the dedication of property for floodplain management and a bikepath relating to the determination of the rough proportionality of those requirements. LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRri"ERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.145, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134 and 18.164; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District). The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities, among other uses. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS L~ r ~~r A NOR y fl 1~jil~ S 9 r AGENDA r H . - PLEASE PRIM' F,l®Proponent - (Speaking In s=avor) opponent - (Speaking Against) Address a To, Address an one - ~ w .fcwlL,~2 t 3 y aS 15Kj -7Z.''r-rl r,-&4Ap(. CX 97;1- a 3 Nam , Address d Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Volt 0 T ~ Lore alp _ P Address and Phone Naaio, Address and Phone No. J-M. fr--esvz to%o c 3q f7u lu o~ -7 ° Co ~ re an one me, Add rod Ph es one No. f~ri. L.~CaUap l.~°r ~ 1S ~arwws Cnee ;Tl~Hf R1A.~ . o fax a-ss 3 IT. 17 FEMe, Tess and one Name, Address an one No. 4 7 F w V t~~~~~ v ~ 7 6 I coo S ~Wt 31k`~ ~ Name, Address an one No. ~e, re an o lol C-• f-ea K'toA7 ,ef8, D 5, W, 540/4s Q a,o~ R ll~R `t .7 2- 5-Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address an Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. yfs_ n -1 11,2613. 15RiR MEMORANDUM r.9rmv ~F m7~R~i9 r,1nx!C~N TO: William A. Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator (4 DATE: June 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 130th Task Force Below are the names of individuals contacted by Councilor Rohlf that are interested in serving on the 130th Task Force. Mick Caris Rose Cicerio Ed Halberg Kathleen McDonald Gene McAdams Bob Pavlukovich Councilor Rohlf would like the Mayor to appoint these individuals to the Task Force this evening. 5 Lf~ jFrp-4Aj;WAW' 4. q 1: y. l A~.76.IYV 6J/w~ ITIA VI IT For Agenda of June 27-1995 PITY ill TII--A WP1 l9GCl~l SKI 1 1\AI1Y %Y VI 6VV`✓I\ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Municipal Court Judge's Contract PREPARED BY: N. Robinson DEPT HEAD OK f CITY ADMIN OK 444" - 'S, ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Policy was set by Resolution 88-21 to appoint judicial staff after negotiating a personal services contract. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to approve resolution renewing Michael O'Brien's judicial services contract for 1995-96. __-INFORMATION SUMMARY Since 1988, the City has entered into a personal services contract for the municipal judge function. We City has contracted with Michael O'Brien for judicial services since October 1989. If the contract is approved, Judge O'Brien will be compensated $1800.00 per month to preside over hearings, review and update Municipal Court rules and procedures, and conduct research as needed. The monthly payment is based on an average of 30 hours of service per month 0 $60.00 per hour. If the average hours, over a three month period, fall below 27 hours per month or exceed 32 hours per month compensation may be renegotiated. The contract reflects a pay increase of $120.00 per month. The increase is not a per hour increase, but a reflection of this fiscal year's increase in court time - from an average of 28 hours per month to 30 hours per month. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve Michael O'Brien's judicial contract for the 1995-96 fiscal year. _ 2. Give staff further direction. FISCAL NOTES ufficient funds have been allotted in the 1995-96 budget for judicial staff. Y NFAMM1 r' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH MICHAEL O'BRIEN, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. , WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Tigard City Charter provides for the office of Municipal Judge; and WHEREAS, Michael O'Brien served as a Municipal Court pro-tem Judge from October 23, 1969 to July 1, 1992 and has served as Municipal Court Judge since July 1, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has found the Judge's performance to be satisfactory since that time; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to continue the understood reporting procedure between the City and the Municipal Judge; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Personal Servlces Contract is entered into by mutual agreement of the parties as set forth in the attached Exhibit °A'. This Contract will take effect July 1, 1995 and upon taking effect shall repeal and replace all prior verbal and written agreements. PASSED: This day of , 1995. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard y RESOLUTION NO. 95- "if ;.4 r k 11:1, J: 1 R 1!1,111 11 121 !!l EXHIBIT 'A' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TITLE: MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE This Contract, made and entered into this 15th day of June, 1995, by and between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called °City° and Michael O'Brien, hereinafter called "Judge', duly authorized to perform such services in Oregon. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City requires the services of a Municipal Judge; and WHEREAS, Judge is able and prepared to provide such services as the City requires, under those terms and conditions set forth; and WHEREAS, City and Judge desire a written agreement creating a professional and businesslike relationship, serving as a basis for effective communications and to avoid misunderstanding. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of those mutual promises and the terms and conditions set forth hereafter, the parties agree as follows: 1. Service Description: Judge shall perform the following personal services: A. Oversee the Municipal Court judicial function; B. Preside over civil infraction, criminal, traffic, and parking case arraignments, trials, and hearings; C. Work with the Court Manager to continue to streamline the court process; D. Update court orders and rules as needed; and E. Research and additional projects as agreed to by the Judge and Court Manager. 2. Compensation: A. City agrees to pay Judge for performance of those services outlined in this contract at a rate of $1800.00 per month. The City and Judge agree the terms of compensation may be renegotiated if the average hours of service, over a consecutive three month period, are below 27 Exhibit 'A', Page l of 4 1111111 1 SRI! r hours per month or exceed 32 hoursrs per 1 1lonth. Pay^ ;ent v:i!! b® made monthly no later than the 20th of the month following service. F1 B. Payment by the l.lly sI 1G lit ►clcuae 1, Ic v11 y' frvri i arZy f%jrthar ty ant, for payment to Judge 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 defect therein. C. The City encourages continued professional development of Judge and encourages participation in the Oregon Municipal Judge's Association including attendance at that annual conference which expenses will be included in City's budget. D. The City certifies sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract. E. All work performed by Judge under this contract shall be the property of the City. 3. Term Of Agreement: Pursuant to Section 10 of the City Charter and Section 2.16.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code, the term of this agreement shall be indefinite and at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, but shall be renewed annually on a fiscal year basis. Compensation and special projects shall be reviewed annually. 4. Cites Representative: While it is recognized that the Judge works at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, for purposes of the services outlined in Section 1 of this Contract, the City's authorized representative will be the Court Manager, (13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, (503) 639-4171), pursuant to Section 10 of the City Charter which shall exclude from supervision the exercise of judicial authority functions. 5. City's Obligation: In order to facilitate the work of Judge as outlined above, City shall furnish to Judge access to all existing information which is in the City's possession concerning the Municipal Court caseload. 6. Judge Is Independent Contractor: A. Judge shall be an independent contractor for all purposes and shall be entitled to no compensation other than the compensation provided for under Section 2 of this Contract. Exhibit 'A', Page 2 of 4 Judge is Indef. endent Contractor cont'd: B. Judge acknowledges that for all purposes related to this Contract, he 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. Not withstanding Judge's status as independent contractor, City shall provide liability insurance covering Judge while he is acting within the scope of Judge duties for the City, as provided in Section 1 herein. C. In the event that Judge 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 Judge under the terms of this Contract, to the full extent of any benefits or other remuneration Judge receives (from City or third party) as a result of said finding and to the full extent of any payments that City is required to make (to Judge or to a third party) as a result of said finding. 7. Termination: A. This Contract may be terminated by either City or Judge for any reason whatsoever upon the giving of 30 days written notice to either party. B. Termination under any provision of this Section shall not affect any right, obligation, or liability of Judge or City which accrued prior to such termination. 8. Indemnification: Judge 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, Judge, or others, resulting from, arising out of, or in any way connected with Judge's activities hereunder, excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely by the fault or negligence of the City, its Officers, Employees, and/or Agents. 9. 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 a Court may adjudge reasonable attorney's fees and court costs including attorney's fees ' and court costs on appeal to appellate courts. ;j Exhibit `A', Page 3 of 4 q Iii. AggalIcaf0Jle i.aw: This Contract will be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon and the C y of Tiyaru. 11. Complete Agreement: This Contract constitutes the complete agreement between City and Judge and supersedes all prior written or oral discussions or agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Contract to be executed by its duly authorized undersigned officers, acting pursuant to resolution of the City Council, duly passed at the regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 1995, and the Judge has executed this Contract on the date hereinabove first written. CITY OF TIGARD By Mayor By City Recorder 5 JUDGE By Michael O'Brien (1 ~a f. yi Exhibit W, Page 4 of 4 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS DATA: City of Tigard Oregon ' NAME OF PERSON LETTING CONTRACT 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Address Michael O'Brien NAME OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR P.O. Box 235 Forest Grove, Oregon 97005 Address Time or Project(s) covered by the Declaration: The undersigned hereby declare that all services performed under the Contract dated _ shall be rendered by the independent contractor in his status as an independent contractor. In consideration of the letting of this Contract, the independent contractor agrees to indemnify the person letting the contract for any damages, expenses, costs and disbursements, and attorney's fees incurred by said person as a result of the independent contractor's failure to adhere to the terms of this declaration. The parties to this declaration understand that a person who files a declaration a of status as an independent contractor is not eligible to receive workers' r compensation benefits in the event of injury or disease, unless said person has obtained coverage for such benefits pursuant to ORS 656.128. Dated this ~-date of 1995. Independent 0ontractor Person Letting Contract t I AGENDA ITEM # ~ J For Agenda of June 27. 1995 /v CITY OF nvs. TT 4T COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUM UtRY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorize City Administrator to Sign TVCA Contract for Cable Coverage of Council Meetings PREPARED BY: C. Whgatlev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council continue to contract with the Tualatin Valley Community Access for live/videotaped, gavel-to-gavel coverage of Council business meetings for Fiscal Year 95/96? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Administrator to sign the Agreement for Government Access Productions Services. INFORMATION SUMMARY 4% rate adjustment is proposed in the attached agreement for increases in osts as follows: Description Last Year This Year Coverage for meeting 0 to 1-1/2 hours $ 225.00 $ 234.00 Each additional hour (billed in 1/4 hour increments) 73.00 76.00 All other terms of the Agreement remain the same, including one live broadcast and two playbacks of two Council meetings per month. F FISCAL NOTES An estimate of $7,150 was included in this fiscal year's City Administration Professional Services Account for this expenditure. h:\login\cathy\tvca.95 1 Banks v 7 Tualatin Val) Beaverton Cornelius M n71./ n itv J.~ ~i~ , i y• a s- yr a r• iv S /4 CJ-p Durham w s est Grove an Your Center .for Community Cvmmunirnt:a( Hillsboro King City Lake Oswego North Plains Rivergrove June 2, 1995 Sherwood 1995 Tigard William Monahan, City Manager JUN j Tualatin City of Tigard Washington Counh 13125 SW Hall Blvd. L' % Wilsonville ILI Tigard, OR 97223-8199 TVCA CHANNELS Dear Mr. Monahan: On Columbia Cable of Orr-on Attached is an agreement for fiscal year 1995 / 1996 extending the ® City of Tigard's contract for television production services. This Commurut. Billboard Agreement for Government Access Production Services details Challenge Channel the arrangements and costs for coverage of city council meetings. (Heanng impaired Access) You will note that the agreement includes our annual 4% rate am adjustment; there will be no additional rate increase or changes Public Access in coverage. in Access Nehwork This agreement serves as a good yearly reminder of what can be . 0 expected from both sides in our coverage of Tigard City Council Government Access meetings. We hope its provisions are acceptable to the City and 00 if so, would request that you return one of the enclosed copies Education Access with the appropriate signature at your convenience. Please feel ED free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the Access Channel Guide contents. (Program listings) Sincerely, Marc Tvanish Government/Education Programming Coordinator Enclosure cc Paula Manley, Executive Director Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder 405 NW 169th Place, '-6020 L . erton, Oregon 97006-4886 (503) 629-85+1 Voice (503) 645-8561 Fax ¢k C.•, t , z-z..s,ws~:iroAl41V a sow tj'c MIRYMEN w ACUSS Y'RQUI.lC ION SERVICES nffrYAV ATR1r V7 OT T-/ iAr w ter- If ZC.-- 1 UAL-A & U-4 vrsLLE X l OIIII lVdUl Y AC- ESQ 1815 NW. 169th Place, Suite 6020 Beaverton, Oregon 97006 AGREEMENT between the Tualatin Valley Community Access (hereinafter "TVCA"), located in Beaverton, Oregon, and the City of Tigard (hereinafter "City"), a municipal government located in Washington County, in the State of Oregon. 1. Provision of Services TVCA shall provide the following services: a. TVCA shall supply simultaneous live and videotaped coverage of regular sessions of the Tigard City Council (hereinafter "Council Meetings") "gavel-to-gavel", twice each month, on the second (2nd) and fourth (4th) ' Tuesdays of each month. b. The live/videotaped coverage of the Council Meetings shall be "gavel-to- gavel", except during executive sessions, and shall employ industrial grade, three-camera color video equipment, adequate audio pickups, character generation, and VHS or SVHS format recording decks and tapes. C. Coverage of Council Meetings shall be cablecast live on Government Access Channel 27 -n he Columb; Cable of Or°,r.~r, f'n1+lo Tolev:sik ...bva• ~..uvac acncv A,Vn System in Washington. County (hereinafter "the System"). The recording of each Council Meeting shall be cablecast, in full, on channel 21 a total of at least two times in the interval before the next regular session. 2. The City's Responsibilities The City shall: a. Provide the TVCA Government/Education Programming Coordinator with a copy of the agenda for each Council Meeting as far in advance of the meetings as is practicable. b. Provide one individual to act as a liaison in matters of confirmation of Council Meeting dates and communication of any other information or concerns relating to video coverage or System cableca_sts. a . y. _ t 11 Page 2 Agreement continued. c. Provide TVC A and its representatives with adequate access to the rooms and buildings where the Council Meetings will take place, and access to AC power for lights and other equipment. 3. Warranty TVCA warrants its video productions to be of reasonable quality, taking into consideration the nature of the Council Meeting, the space in which it is conducted, and other recording situations beyond the control of TVCA. TVCA further warrants that its coverage of Council Meetings shall be as objective as is possible. Recordings of the Council Meetings shall not be edited except for: 1) alphanumeric (text) information inserted into the video picture to provide the viewer with meeting dates and speaker identification, and 2) brief suspensions (approximately 20 seconds each) in coverage every two hours to allow for videotape changes. 4. Retention of Recordines TVCA shall retain the videotaped recordings of each Council Meeting, for a period of fourteen (14) days following production, after which time the videotapes will be erased and recycled. During those fourteen days, the City may purchase a copy or copies of the recording, or purchase the original recording, in accordance with the prices listed in Section #6. 5. Cost In consideration for the services described above, the City shall pay, or cause to be = paid, to TVCA financial compensation in the following amounts according to rT; TVCA's established rate sheet: 234.00 for each Meeting covered up to 1-1/2 hours in duration 76.00 for each additional hour, billed in quarter-hour increments. S 'T'here will be no additional charges for playbacks (cablecasts) of the recordings of the Council Meetings. R f - Page 3 Agreement continued Each month TVCA will calculate the amount due for services provided to the City, according to the above formula, and shall invoice the City for that amount. 6. C If the City desires a copy or copies of an individual Council Meeting, the City shall pay, or cause to be paid, to TVCA financial compensation in the following amounts according to TVCA's established rate sheet. 4.50 for each 120-minute, 1/2" VHS tape used $ 10.00 duplication fee for each copy up to 30-minutes in duration $ 7.00 duplication fee for each additional 30-minutes The City may purchase the original VHS recording tapes at $4.50 for each tape without additional duplication fees. The parties (TVCA and the City) acknowledge that they have read this Agreement, `t understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms. They further agree that this Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 1996, at which time a new agreement would be " necessary to continue the services detailed herein. The parties agree that any decision b- Ada-1,eY ~,~.a.. to t°r~~nafe Chic Aorppmpnf hefnrP Tl a 30, 1996, shall be accompanied y c.~... r,...~y -r,----°-°-- by 30 days written notice to the other party prior to the date termination would take effect. The parties further agree that this Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties, which supersedes all proposals, oral and written, and all other communications between the parties relating to the subject matter of the Agreement. DATE• ,19 ~ SIGNED ~'Ut • _ Paula Manley, TVCA Executive Directo DATE: (,p 2 191S SIGNED CITY OF TIGARD AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 1AJi1hAM A. MONA HAW 1 Ca?y Fikmints4Tx6r (PRINT NAME AND TITLE) T "XiM A t w `-I AGENDA ITEM # 3A For Agenda of June a`73 i qq 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Gramor Parks SDC Reimbursement PREPARED BY: J. Acker DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ~i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City reimburse Gramor Development from Parks SDC funds for a pedestrian bridge built in Fanno Creek Park connecting ? pathway on the west side of Fanno Creek to the path system east of Fanno Creek? STAFF RECOMMENDATION _ Authorize reimbursement of $57,614.69 from the Parks System Development Charge fund to Gramor Development for design and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Street. 'a INFORMATIONSUMMARY Ohe Developer of the Main Street Apartments has requested SDC credit in the form of reimbursement for design and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. In 1993, Gramor asked for and received assurance that this bridge was eligible for SDC credit and that the City intended to reimburse them for the cost of this bridge when it was completed. At that time it was determined that this bridge was eligible for SDC credit as is allowed in the 1993 SDC Ordinance. The bridge has been constructed and all necessary documentation has been completed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Authorize reimbursement of a lesser amount. FISCAL NOTE% Gramor Development originally paid $70,600 in parks SDC fees for their Main street Apartment project. 4 F -16:3 101111111MM :10 ii, S 11112111 11 11 3591. di; ' f MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan FROM: John Acker DATE: June 15, 1995 SUBJECT: Gramor SDC Credit In 1993, Gramor Development company built the Main Street Apartments in Tigard. While developing the apartment project, Gramor approached the City with the idea of constructing a bridge over Fanno Creek to be paid for from their parks SDC fees. The proposed bridge was to connect a short, dead-end path that they were required to build on the west side of the creek to the City's Fanno Creek Park path system on the east side of the creek. ' At that time it was determined that the bridge project would be beneficial to the City and was eligible for SDC credit. Since even a small pedestrian bridge, takes a long time to be reviewed and built-, Gramor asked that the City reimburse them upon completion rather than credit their SDC fees. The City's Community Development Director required that Gramor pay their entire parks SDC fees ($70,600) and sent them a letter stating that the City would reimburse the developer from the parks SDC fund the cost of the bridge up to the amount of SDCs already paid. This was determined to be consistent with the 1993 SDC Ordinance which allows for credits to be given for eligible projects. The bridge has been constructed by Gramor and examined by the City's Engineering Department. I believe all necessary work has been completed and documentation has been submitted by Gramor. Gramor is now requesting reimbursement of $57,614.69 which is their cost for designing and building the bridge. 'k S' Y J i'E, DEVELOPMENT ARM February 3, 1995 Mr. John Acker, Property Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: SDC Credit for pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek/Main Street Project Dear John: f Enclosed for your review and approval is invoice 6418 for our cost to complete the bridge construction over Fanno Creek at Ash Avenue. Pursuant to Mr. Murphy's August 27, 1993 letter, we are to be reimbursed for the cost of the bridge as it is less than the amount of the parks SDC's paid by Gramor to the city for this project. Please call and advise me as to how soon we can expect payment Gramor Development would like to thank the City of Tigard for allowing us to have a role in completion of a major park amenity. We hope the citizens of Tigard enjoy the new extension of their pathway system. Sincerely, Gramor Development NW, Inc. x Dean Sorensen Construction Manager DS:ls Enclosures 1 T 9895 S.E. SUNNYSIDE ROAD/ SUITE P/ CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 / (503) 245.1976 FAX(503)654-9188 SEATTLE / PORTLAND / SAN DIEGO ~.4w cow+ \A Law C A 10j DEVELOPMENT INVOICE 2/3/9 6 NAME: City of Tigard INVOICE NOD 6416 ADDRESS: 13125 SW! Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Park SDC credit for Fanno Pedestrian Bridge See Attached Summary $57,614.69 TOTAL. DUE: $57,614.69 n t, PAYMENT IS DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. 9895 S.E. SUNNYSIOE ROAD/ SUITE P/ CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 / (503) 245-7976 FAX(503)654-9i88 SEATTLE / PORTLAND / SAN DIEGO . cw<, e• s•.swro c.4.. tiu• r Construction Costs for bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Avenue February 3, 1995 There are three m jo: campoac,~ts iv OTAK s design costs. The original change orders were #11 which had a Time and Material Oiling for Design and Approval process, $6,500 for Hydraulic Ar..alysis, and $3,300 for Survey. This is billed as follows: For e and Material the invoices are coded #L4275.G05, and the quoted total of $9,800 it is coded as a part of 41A275.E05. The rd d part is the wetland delineation per CO #17 and was invoiced with the fixed fee portion of CO#17 coded as #L4275.E05 Vendor Description of work Date of Invoice Invoice Category Invoice Number Total Total Design OTAK Fixed Fee #16 & #17 : Water resources 2/18/94 402682 $455.00 Fixed Fee 916& 917 : 32.03%complete 3/10/94 403206 $3,115.00 Reimburseables 3/10194 403206 $11.00 Fixed Fee #16 & #17 : 83.69% complete 4/14/94 404255 $5,757.50 Reimburseables 4/14/94 404255 $39.82 Fixed Fee #16&#17: 85.31%complete 5/12194 405212 J180.00 Reimburseables 5/12/94 405212 $0.55 Fixed Fee #16 & # 17 : 91.9% complete 6/9/94 406167 $735.00 Reimburseables 6/9/94 406167 $5.50 Fixed Fee #16 & #17 : 100% complete 8/11/94 408264 $902.50 Total fixed fee $11,145.00 Total reimburseable on CO # 16 & # 17 $56.87 OTAK T&M 416 2/18/94 402682 $90.00 3/10/94 403207 $228.30 4/14/94 404256 $315.00 5/12/94 405213 $2,596.50 6/9/94 406168 $2,705.20 7/13/94 407234 $1,264.85 y. 8/11/94 408265 $903.35 9/7/94 409235 $691.61 (const, staking listed below) 10/12/94 410206 $90.00 Total T&M design costs $8,884.81 Inspections Dames & Moore Response letter re: city plan check comments. 8/19/94 016-05590 $346.77 Dames & Moore Construction monitoring & testing 10/21/94 016-05649 $389.67 Carlson Concrete / steel inspections 9/24/94 36907 $90.00 Carlson Concrete/rebar/steeVasphalt testing 10/22/94 37256 $299.00 Carlson Concrete testing 12124/94 37964 $69.00 Total testing costs $1,194.44 Permit City of Tigard Building Permit 9/15/94 94-256802 $194.26 $194.26 Construction Costs O Construction staking 10/12/94 410206 $757.50 $757.50 Western Wood Bridge superstructure 11114/94 944043 $14,750.00 $14.750.00 Keyway Work on foundation/path 11/1/94 letter $15,425.45 Keyway Concrete!cleanup/supervision/OH&P 12/8/94 letter $2,990.41 $18,415.86 Gramor Construction Management Fee 4% $2,215.95 Total project costs to be reimbursed $57,614.69 :Y b NEW August 27, 1993 CITY OF TTIGARD AAWIR ➢j OREGON Gramor Development, Inc. . David Copenhaver, Project Manager 9895 S.E. Sunnyside Road Clackamas, OR 97015 RE: SDC credit for pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek/Main Street Project Dear Mr. Copenhaver: This letter is to verify that the City intends to reimburse system development charges (SDC) for the cost of extending the pedestrian path beyond your project boundaries, over Fanno Creek and connecting to the park pathway system. The amount to be reimbursed is limited to the lesser of the total amount of Park SDC's paid to the City by Gramor for this project or the total cost of constructing the path. The portion of the path eligible for SDC credit is the section beyond your property boundary at the Ash Street right-of-way, over Fanno Creek to the point that the path connects to the planned park path on Ash Street east of Fanno Creek. The path required as a condition of development is not eligible for credit. Gramor can apply for SDC credit after the path has been constructed and accepted by the City. Construction costs for the SDC eligible path should be documented. Snof Dunity Development JA/G ramor.SDC August 27, 1993 i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 . MENEM L Fees paid by Gramor Permit Number Bldg Desc. Maplewood Dr. Bate Paid Park Fees Address BUP93-0200 Bldg 1 9491 9/17/94 $1,900.00 BUP93-0220 Bldg 2 9479 9/17/94 $4,500.00 BUP93-0221 Bldg 3 9451 9/17/93 $4,500.00 BUP93-0201 Bldg 4 9492 9/17/93 $2,400.00 BUP93-0202 Bldg 5 9480 9/17/93 $2,400.00 BUP93-0212 Bldg 6 9452 9/17/94 $3,600.00 BUP93-0213 Bldg 7 9426 9/17/94 $3,600.00 BU'P93-0214 Bldg 8 9384 10/13/94 $3,600.00 BUP93-0215 Bldg 9 9398 10/13/94 $3,600.00 BUP93-0222 Bldg 10 9356 10/13/94 $4,500.00 BUP93-0203 Bldg 11 9367 10/13/94 $2,400.00 BUP93-0216 Bldg 12 9425 10/13/94 $3,600.00 BUP93-0217 Bldg 13 9407 10/13/94 $3,600.00 BUP93-0218 Bldg 14 9399 10/13/94 $3,600.00 BU'P93-0219 Bldg 15 9385 10/13/94 $3,600.00 BUP93-0204 Bldg 16 9339 10/13/94 $2,400.00 BUP93-0205 Bldg 17 9323 10/13/94 $2,400.00 BUP93-0206 Bldg 18 9305 10/13/94 $2,400.00 BUP93-0207 Bldg 19 9271 10/13/94 $2,400.00 BTJP93-0208 Bldg 20 9270 9/17/94 $2,400.00 BUP93-0209 Bldg 21 9338 10/1.3/94 $2,400.00 BIJP93-0210 Bldg 22 9322 10/13/94 $2,400.00 BUP93-0211 Bldg 23 9304 10/13/94 $2,400.00 Total Park Fees Paid $70,600.00 'rP :r ] a s AGENDA ITEM # 3-rJ For Agenda of June 27, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of ODOT agreement for design of Greenburgr Rd. improvements at Highway 217 PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Agreement with ODOT and County for design of street improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution authorizing the proposed agreement with •ODOT and Washington County. INFORMATION SUMMARY Funding is available for widening of Greenburg Road at the Highway 217 overpass. The funding is from the County MSTIP-2 levy. Because the overpass s within the state highway jurisdiction-, the state (ODOT) will be in charge the design and construction. Under ODOT procedures, an intergovernmental agreement is required to authorize the design activities. The attached resolution approves the required agreement. The only City obligation is to allow ODOT to use the City rights of way as necessary for the surveying and design activities. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES All project costs will be paid by the County from MSTIP funds. /green. sum IRRII F CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY RECORDER TO SIGN A COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF !-MPROVFF-~F-NT5 TO GREENBURG ROAD AT HIGHWAY 217. WHEREAS, County funding is available for improvements to Greenburg Road at the crossing of. Highway 217; and, WHEREAS, County proposes that design of the improvements be performed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); and, WHEREAS, a Cooperative Improvement Agreement is required in order for ODOT to proceed with the design work; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed project will be a benefit to the motoring public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Mayor and City Recorder are hereby authorized to sign, on behalf of the City of Tigard, the Cooperative Improvement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A". PASSED: This day of 1995. s. l Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard 11_ rw/green.res RESOLUTION NO. 95- Page 1 11--i III III IN F-1 110 106 Misc. Contracts and Agreements EXHIBIT "A" No. 13489 COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "ODOT'; WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"; and the CITY OF TIGARD, also a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "CITY". WITNESSETH RECITALS 1. The Beaverton -Tigard Highway (Oregon 217), is a part of the state highway system under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission. SW Greenburg Road north of SW Oak Street is a COUNTY road under jurisdiction and control of Washington County. SW Oak Street, SW Shady Lane, and SW Greenburg Road south of Beaverton - Tigard Hwy. are City of Tigard facilities. 2. By the authority granted in ORS 366.770, and 366.775, ODOT may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties and cities for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 3. Under such authority and for the purpose of providing acceptable traffic patterns on public highways, COUNTY and CITY have requested ODOT to widen Greenburg Road where it crosses Beaverton - Tigard Hwy. to two through lanes in each direction plus other associated improvements necessary for the smooth flow of traffic, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". The location of the PROJECT is approximately as shown on the map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A", and by this reference made a part hereof. This agreement covers only the preliminary engineering and design portion of the project. 4. The PROJECT preliminary engineering and design will be financed with a maximum of $215,000 in MSTIP (Major Street Transportation Improvement Program) funds provided by COUNTY and at no cost to ODOT or CITY. 5. By the authority granted in ORS 366.425, ODOT may accept deposits of money, or an irrevocable letter of credit, from any county, city, person, firm or corporation for - r INNS= M. C. & A. NO. 13489 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD the performance of work on any public highway within ODOT. When said money or a letter of credit is deposited, ODOT shall proceed with the PROJECT. Money so deposited shall be disbursed for the purpose for which it was deposited. 6. By the authority granted in ORS 810.210, ODOT is authorized to determine the character or type of traffic control devices to be used, and to place or erect them upon State highways at places where ODOT deems necessary for the safe and expeditious control of traffic. No traffic control devices shall be erected, maintained, or operated upon any State highway by any authority other than ODOT, except with its written approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: ODOT OBLIGATIONS 1. ODOT shall, at PROJECT expense, conduct the necessary field surveys and traffic investigations; and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce plans, specifications and estimates. 2. ODOT shall, upon execution of this agreement, request COUNTY to forward an advance deposit for the full estimated cost ($216,000) to design this PROJECT. 3. ODOT shall compile accurate cost accounting records and furnish COUNTY with monthly itemized statements of said preliminary engineering and design costs. 4. ODOT shall, upon execution of this agreement, provide a schedule for preliminary engineering and design work. The schedule will be reviewed and approved by County and CITY prior to commencing work on the PROJECT. The $215,000 cost s4c for PROJECT preliminary engineering and design work is fixed. Any changes to the schedule or cost estimate identified by any party to this agreement must be reviewed and approved by the other parties to this agreement. A new schedule and cost estimate, as needed, will be provided by ODOT. A supplement to this agreement will be required for any PROJECT cost increase above $215,000. 2 givIg :n 1 ARIA M. C. & A. NO. 13489 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD COUNTY OBLIGATIONS 1. The COUNT`! hereby grants ODOT the exclusive right to enter onto and occupy COUNTY right-of-way for the performance of the preliminary engineering and surveying, associated with the PROJECT. 2. The COUNTY shall, upon execution of this agreement and notification from ODOT, forward to ODOT a maximum of $215,000 for the estimated costs of preliminary engineering and design of the PROJECT. Additional advance deposit requests will not be made without a supplement to this agreement. 3. County shall identify and obtain all project required permits at its own expense. 4. The COUNTY shall authorize execution of this agreement during a regularly or specially convened session of its Board of Commissioners. CITY OBLIGATIONS 1. CITY hereby grants ODOT the exclusive right to enter onto and occupy its city right- of-way for the performance of the preliminary engineering and surveying associated with the PROJECT. 2. CITY shall authorize execution of this agreement during a regularly or specially convened public session of its City Council. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. ODOT standards shall be used when designing and constructing any portion of the PROJECT within ODOT right-of-way. 2. The contractor, its subcontractors, if any, and all employers working under this Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Worker's Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. t ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seal's as of the day and year hereinafter written. F 3 i T M. C. & A. NO. 13469 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD The Oregon Transportation Commission by Delegation Order No. 35C paragraph 66, authorized the State Highway Engineer to approve and sign this agreement for and on behalf of the Commission. Said authority is set forth in the Minutes of the Oregon Transportation Commission. STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: By: By: Region Manager State Highway Engineer By: Date: State Traffic Engineer WASHINGTON COUNTY, by and APPROVED AS TO through its Board of County LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Commissioners By: By: Asst. Attorney General Chairman Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO CITY OF TIGARD, by and through its LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Elected Officials k.; By: By County Counsel Mayor By - - - BY City Counsel Recorder Date 4 I AGENDA ITEM # 3• lA For Agenda of June 27, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON _ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) h: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorize City Engineer to advertise for bids on certain -oroiects. PREPARED BY: _ R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ~VPi_ t ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Authorization to advertise for bids. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids on the five pro-',acts listed below. INFORMATION SUMMARY The capital improvement program adopted on June 13th includes some projects hat can potentially be constructed during the current construction season. ese are projects for which the plans are already completed or can be completed quickly. In accordance with the purchasing rules, staff is asking for authorization to advertise for bids on the following five projects: 1. Speed bump program. 2. Terrace Trails pathway. 3. Milton Court sanitary sewer crossing protection. 4. Ash/Scoffins storm drain. 5. 111th Place storm drain. After bids are opened, separate Council approval will be required for award of the construction contract. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES Funding for all five projects is included in the Capital Improvement Program adopted on June 13, 1995. QW/auth , AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of June 27. 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of Ordinance and Resolution for the Administration of the Electrical Inspection / Program PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT HEAD OK ~ 4; CITY ADMIN OK - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Adoption of Ordinance No. 95- amending Title 14 of the Municipal Code to adopt the State electrical codes, standards, and administrative rules and to - provide for the administration of the electrical program. ` STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 95- INFORMATION SUMMARY During FY 1993/94 the City Administrator approved the Building Division's recommendation that Tigard assume the electrical program. This proposal was then put before the City Council during the budget process for the FY 1994/95 udget. The Council approved the addition of an inspection position and funds o cover start-up costs for a program implementation of July 1, 1995. Application for delegation of the electrical program was made to the Administrator of the State Building Codes Division on December 23, 1994, as required by OAR. Pursuant to OAR 918-300-130 (1) (a) , that application included Resolution No. 94-48 (attached) authorizing application for delegation of the electrical program effective July 1, 1995. Also included with the application was a draft ordinance for the administration of the electrical program. On April 13, 1995, staff of the Building Codes Division sent a letter (see attached) regarding Tigard's application indicating that with minor adjustments to the ordinance and other parts of the application Division staff would mane a favorable recommendation to the State Electrical/Elevator Board at its meeting of April 27, 1995. Tigard made the required revisions and the Board concurred with Division staff and recommended approval of Tigard's application for delegation to the Building Codes Administrator. Subsequently, the Administrator notified Tigard that the electrical program delegation was approved along with a renewal of the remainder of our program F (see attached). Therefore, effective July 1, 1995, Tigard will be responsible for the administration of a full building program. The ordinance amends Title 14 of the Municipal Code to adopt the appropriate codes, standards, and rules and establishes the provisions necessary for the administration of the electrical program. The specific provisions of the ordinance have been extracted from the administrative provisions of 00 ationally recognized model codes currently in use in Oregon, such as the Uniform Mechanical Code and the Uniform Building Code. The National Electrical Code does not contain administrative provisions sufficient for the omplete administration of an electrical program, which requires a -municipality to adopt its own provisions. The fee schedule established by the resolution is identical to the fee schedule currently in use in Washington County. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL NOTES OAR requires that all revenues from the electrical program be dedicated solely to support of the electrical program, with the allowance for reasonable administrative over-head. Accordingly, the Electrical Inspection Fund was established in FY 1994/95. Projected revenue for the Electrical Inspection Fund for FY 3.995/96 is $172,250. Subtracting $29,250 to account for start up costs from FY, 1994/95 results in a net revenue of $143,000. There will be a transfer of funds to Tigard from Washington County for in-process electrical permits during the transition. This amount is currently being calculated. Projected expenses to ' be charged to the Electrical Inspection Fund are $136,239. The projected 'Y surplus of $6,761 will be carried over as the fund balance. This projected surplus will increase to reflect some revenue we are receiving during the month of June 1995 and the funds transferred from Washington County. :\login\david\etcord.sLun -1111iie! 111 1 A11111115011 e ~ . Sv w,a axr?m CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95- AN ORDINANCE A14ENDIiVG TITLE 14 OF HE TILGA D is i~i~Ir^iu, C.01DE,a TO ADOPT iia STATE ELECTRICAL CODE, STANDARDS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ELECTRICAL PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Title 14, "Buildings and Construction," provides regulations for building and construction, including structural, mechanical, plumbing, and one and two family dwelling codes; and Whereas, Tigard will begin enforcement and administration of the electrical program effective July 1, 1995; and Whereas, the appropriate and current state codes, standards, and rules must be adopted to effect the enforcement and administration of the electrical program; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Title 14, Section 14.040.030 paragraph (a) subparagraph (7) is amended to read as follows: (7) State of Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code, 1993 edition, adopted by the State of Oregon, effective May 1, 1993, including all structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical provisions and separately bound Administrative Rules and Standards. 4i SECTION 2. Title 14, Section 14.04.030 paragraph (a) is amended to add paragraph (8): (8) State of Oregon Electrical Specialty Code with its separately bound Administrative Rules and Standards, 4,- adopted by the State of Oregon Building Codes Division, effective July 1, 1993, as authorized by ORS 479.730 and OAR 918-290°010, based on the 1993 edition of the _ National Electrical Code (NFPA 70-1993) and the 1993 edition of the National Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2- 1993). SECTION 3. Title 14, Section 14.04.040 paragraph (a) is amended to read as follows: 1+x'04.040 Administration. (a). The city shall provide a program of : building: code' administration, including plan review,. permit issuing. and inspection for structural, electrical;-mechanical and" plumbng work. The program shall be administered by the ]building official, under the supervision of the community development director. The ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 1 1 11 ISO' FM i~l Y program shall operate pursuant to the state specialty codes listed in Section 14.04.030 and the remainder of this chapter. SECTION 4. Title 14 is amended to add Section 14.04.065, Electrical Program all dminist-ration: Section 14.04.OC5 Electrical Program Administration. (a) Permit Required - Except as permitted by OAR 918- 260-190(3) - electrical work exempt from permit, subsection (o) of this section for minor installations, subsection (p) of this section for temporary electrical permits and subsection (q) of this section for industrial plant electrical permits, no electrical work shall be performed unless a separate electrical permit for each separate building or structure has first been obtained from the building official. (b) Expiration of Permits - Permits shall expire pursuant to OAR 918-260-270(9). (c) Validity of Permit - The issuance of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not by construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based upon plans, specifications, computations and other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans, specifications, and other data or from preventing building operations being carried on thereunder when in violation of this code or of other ordinances of this jurisdiction. (d) Revocation of Permits - The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this chapter whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied or in violation of other ordinances or regulation of the jurisdiction. (e) Plan Review Requirements - Electrical plan reviews shall be required. Plan review requirements and procedures shall be as stipulated in OAR 918-320-300 through 340. (f) Expiration of Plan Review - Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and A _ other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building ORDINANCE No. 95 Page 2 official. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended more than o-ce4 In order to renew act;- nn F1 an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. (g) Permit Fees - Fees for electrical permits shall be established by resolution of the City Council. (h) Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit. x 1. Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. 2. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee that would be required by this code if a permit were to be issued. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions.of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. (i) Fee Refunds. 1. The building official may authorized the refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. 2. The building official may authorize refunding of not more that 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. 3. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than GO percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan review effort has been expended. The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except upon written application filed by the original permittee not later than 180 days after the date a of fee payment. (j) Right of Entry. When it is necessary to make an } inspection to enforce the provisions of this section or when the building official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a building or upon a premises a condition which is contrary to or in violation of this section which makes the building or premises ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 3 a G t la.. i`1. unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the building official may entry the building or premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perfo the dut es imposed by this section provided that if such building or premises be occupied that credentials be presented to the occupant and entry reTiested. If such building or premises be unoccupied, thi: building official shall first make a teasonablc effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the building or premises and request entry. If entry.is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry. (tir) Corrections and Stop orders. When any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this section, the building official may order the work corrected or stopped by notice in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing such work to be done, and such persons shall forthwith make the necessary corrections or stop work until authorized by the building official to proceed with the work. (1) Authority to Disconnect Utilities in Emergencies. The building official. or the building official's authorized representative shall have the authority to disconnect electrical service to a building, structure, premises or equipment regulated by this section in case' of emergency where necessary to eliminate an immediate hazard to life or property. The building official shall, whenever possible, notify the serving utility, the owner and occupant of the building, structure or premises of the decision to disconnect prior to taking such action, and shall notify such serving utility, owner and occupant of the building, structure or premises in writing of such disconnection immediately thereafter. (m) Authority to Condemn Equipment. When the building official ascertains that any equipment, or portion thereof, regulated by this section has become hazardous to life, health or property, the building official shall order in writing that the equipment either be removed or _ restored to a safe or sanitary condition, as appropriate. The written notice shall contain a fixed time limit for compliance with such order. Persons shall not use or maintain defective equipment after receiving a notice. When equipment or an installation is to be disconnected, written notice of the disconnection and causes therefor shall be given within 24 hours to the serving utility, r„ the owner and occupant of the building, structure or premises. When any equipment is maintained in violation of this section, and in violation of a notice issued pursuant to the provisions of this section, the building official stall institute an appropriate action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation. 9RDINANCE No. 95- Page 4 fit 1 Mi 1111111211M 1111 (n) Connection after Order to Disconnect. Persons shall not make connections from an electrical service nor supply electrical power to any equipment regulated by this section which has been disconnected or ordered to be disconnected by the building official or the use of which has been ordered to be discontinued by the building o f f -i "i a 7 1-3nti , the Dx'oper `e rmi tc hoc» ohta; nne1 inspections approved, and the building , official authorizes the reconnection and use of such equipment. (o) Minor Installation Labels - Rules for the use, issuance, and inspection of minor installation labels shall be as stipulated in OAR 918-310-010 through 080. (p) Temporary Electrical Permits - Rules for the use of temporary electrical permits shall be as stipulated in OAR 918-260-265. (q) Industrial Plant 'Electrical Permits and Inspection - Rules for the use of industrial plant electrical permits and inspections shall be as stipulated in OAR 918-260- 350. SECTION 5. Title 14, Section 14.04.090 paragraphs (d) - (g) are renamed to Section 14.04.090 paragraphs (e) - (h), and Section 14.04.090 paragraph (d) is added to read as follows: (d) No person shall install, alter, replace, improve, convert, equip or maintain any electrical equipment or system in the city, or cause the same to be done contrary to or in violation of this chapter. SECTION 6. Title 14, Section 14.040.090(f) (Note: renamed in Section 3 above) is amended to read as follows: (f) Notwithstanding the other remedies in this chapter, if the building official determines that any building under construction, mechanical work, electrical work, or plumbing work on any building or any structure poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare, he may order the work halted and the building or structure vacated pending further action by the city and its legal counsel. SECTION 7. Inasmuch as it is necessary to amend the Municipal Code to adopt the codes and provide the provisions necessary to administer the electrical program effective July 1, 1995, and to ensure that proper authority exists for enforcement, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective- immediately upon passage and approval by the Council. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its _ passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 5 PASSED: By vote of all Council members present ,Y after uci.Tiy read vy n'uiui7er and ti ale only, t h aa unY of 1995. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard city council this day of , 1995. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 95 Page 6 ,S CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOWTiON NO. 95- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ELECTRICAL, PERMIT FEES WBEREAS, Tigard will begin administration of the electrical inspection . program beginning July 1, 1995; and WSEREAS, proposed subsection (g) of Section 14.04.065 of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code indicates that fees for electrical permits shall be established by resolution of the City Council; and WEXREAS, Tigard must assess those fees necessary to recover costs associated with the administration of the electrical inspection program; NOW, THEREF'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Fees for electrical permits shall be as follows: 1) Few residential, single or multi-family per dwelling unit: service included: A) 1000 square fee or less - $110.00 B) Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof $25.00 C) Limited energy - $25.00 D) Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder - $68.00 2) Services or feeders; installation, alterations or relocation: ' A) 200 amps or less - $60.00 B) 201 amps to 400 amps - $$0.00 C) 401 amps to 600 amps - $120.00 -'r D) 601 amps to 1000 amps - $180.00 E) Over 1000 amps or volts - $340.00 F) Reconnect only - $50.00 3) Temporary services or feeders; installation, alteration or relocation: A) 200 amps or less - $50.00 B) 201 amps to 400 amps - $75.00 C) 401 amps to 600 amps - $100.00 D) Over 600 amps to 100 volts (see 2 above) 4) Branch circuits; new, alteration or extension per . panel: . A)=--lath purchase of service or feeder - each _ branch circuit - $5.00 B) Without purchase of service or feeder First branch circuit - $35.00 Each additional branch circuit - $5.00 RESOLUTION NO. 95- Page 1 5) Miscellaneous (Service or feeder not included): A) Each pump or irrigation circuit - $40.00 B% E:~ct, sian or outline lighting - $40.00 C) Signal circuit(s) or a limited energy panel, alteration or extension - $40.00 D) Each additional inspection over the allowable In any O= the uv~ - ~,uiaay.n.uT. n-_-p_.,.. ) of i) Per inspection - $35.00 ii) Per hour - $55.00 E) Industrial Plant Inspection - $55.00 per hour including travel and office time with a minimum charge of one-hour. F.) Electrical permit plan review fee: Plan review fees shall be 25 percent of the R5 electrical permit fee as set forth in subsection (g) of this section. G) Minor Labels - $100.00 for ten labels. Classification. The City Council has determined that the fees = imposed by this resolution are not taxes subject to the property tax limitations of Article XI, section il(b) of the Oregon Constitution. PASSED: This - day of , 1995. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: 5. City Recorder - City of Tigard h:\login\cathy\elec.res µ P RESOLUTION NO. 95 Page 2 RON IWAS aim Building Codes Division 1511, Edgewater NW Salem, OR 97314 ~ A NT one (503) 378-4133 F ) 378-2322 TD (503) 378-1358 DEPARTMENT OF APRIL 13, 1995 CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES John A. Kitzhaber CITY OF TIGARD Govemor 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223-8199 ATTN DAVE SCOTT - 0 RE: ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PROGRAM DELEGATION The Building Codes Division has reviewed the delegation materials submitted for compliance with established rules. Listed below are items which have not been submitted or are not in conformity. 1) Provide copy of notice served to Washington County showing you requested delegation of the program. 2) Section 1 of ordinance needs to adopt the one and Two Family Electrical Dwelling Code. 3) If open permits will be completed by Washington County a contract will be needed and a copy provided to BCD_ 4) Under operating plan iteic, (2) (c) add appeals procedure as per 479.853. - If these items arc satisfactory completed and submitted prior to the State Electrical/ Elevator Board meeting, scheduled for April 27, 1995, BCD staff will make an approval recommendation to the board. If you should have questions concerning the items please contact me at (503) 373-7509. Owings ATunior Chief Electrical Inspector a:tigard. _ 21! 1! , b^ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94-147 A. RESOLUTION AU'rAORIZING APPLICATION 'TO THE STATE BUILDING CODES u1 VISIO FOR bELECTATION OF THE ELECTRICAL PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO OAR CHAPTER.915, DIVISION 300. MEREAS, the City of Tigard ("Tigard") is engaged in the enforcement of all aspects of the State Building Code except the Electrical Program, as adopted in Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Tigard desires to centralize and improve its service to the building community by providing complete plan review, inspection, and related cervices in the administration of the State Building Code; NOW,,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: Application to the State Building Codes Division for delegation of the Electrical Program effective July 1, 1995, is hereby authorized, and if such application is granted, Tigard and all persons under Tigard will comply with and be bound by OAR Chapter 918, Divisions 300, 302, 303, and 304. PASSED: This ~5r day of , 1994. „w ✓ or - City of Tigar_yp G ATTEST: I City Recorder - City Cot Tigard r F-i RESOLUTION NO. 94--~/S- Page 1 ' Building Codes Division 1535 Edgewater NW ".Lm nR g731n Telephone (503) 378-4133 v v a *503) 03) 378-2322 378-1358 T r UE- M A EMIT OF APRIL 15, 1995 CONSUMER AND " BUSINESS SERVICES CITY OF TIGARD DAME SCOTT 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223-8199 RE: BUILDING PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT 1995-96 The Building Codes Division has processed your municipality's Program Administration Request. Delegation or assumption of the programs marked below is accepted or approved as applicable. Plan Review: ~ A-Level a /B-Level 1/1&2 Family Dwelling Fal Fire & Life S ty Structural: t~ A-Level /B-Level 1&2 Family Dwelling Mechanical: t~ A-Level B-Level 1 1&2 Family Dwelling Plumbing: ~A-Level 1&2 Family Dwelling Eie rical: ~A-Level Master Permit Program anufactured dwelling alterations anufactured dwelling & cabana installations anufactured dwelling park plans/construction ecreation park & organizational camp plans/construction $ (Please refer to the following paragraphs for applicable information if these categories are marked.) The assumption/delegation for program administration is effective July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. Approval of your request for one or more programs including manufactured structures or parks programs is confirmed by the following program conditions. Please read the conditions carefully; they identify your responsibilities and authority for the programs requested. OAR 918-20-010 through 915-20-020 establishes standards for a procedure of cooperation between local municipalities and Fire Officials. With assumption of any portion of the plan t review program, a procedure for cooperation must be in place and include consideration of the uniform fire code in the plan review process. The procedure shall establish a reasonable time limit for comment by the Fire Marshal/designee. Receipt of this letter confirms acceptance of the procedure submitted by your municipality. u:~r ro?~rt~@sr~nkr•~c:uc~'rrtnr~r~c~ura.r•_a Mill BUILDING PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT 1995-96 PAGE 2 CONDITIONS OF ASSUMPTION/DELEGATION FOR ALL PROGRAMS This acceptance of assumption and/or delegation of authority is based upon your request for authority and representations that your municipality is qualified and willing and has the capability, having met all requirements, to carry out the functions of the Division relative to the requested program(s). You have undertaken to administer and enforce the provisions, as published, in the Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules, Oregon Specialty Codes, formal and informal interpretations as issued by the Division and any other applicable rules. Failure to act consistently in the public interest, to enforce the rules established by the Building Codes Division Administrator appropriately, effectively carry out the duties assumed under this delegation or assumption or to otherwise comply with the provisions of law relating to these programs may result in suspension or revocation of this acceptance or approval. CONDITIONS OF DELEGATION FOR PARIS AND MANUFACTURED STRUCTURES As authorized by Oregon Revised Statutes the Building Codes Division delegates the authority and responsibility to administer the functions of the Division relating to manufactured dwelling alterations; manufactured dwelling and cabana installations; manufactured dwelling park plans/construction; and/or recreation park, organizational camp and picnic park plans/construction within your jurisdiction as indicated above. Statute specifically defines delegation to include the authority to collect fees, review plans, inspect alterations and issue/revoke permits for the manufactured dwellings and/or parks as necessary. Except for the recreation park, organizational camp and picnic park programs, your municipality may establish its own fee schedule. However, fees collected shall not exceed the cost of administration- of the program(s). If a fee structure is not established, the fees collected shall be those established in Oregon Administrative Rule. Fees collected for the recreation park, organizational camp and picnic park programs shall be those established in Oregon Administrative Rule. Remittance of fees and surcharges shall be submitted with the enclosed remittance form to the Division no later than the 15th day of the month following collection. u:\r-uovuu~C~sruf.rzu ~crx~•ruznurvun~c;~uu a.r.a y -x BUILDING PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT 1995-96 PAGE 3 Assumption of the manufactured structures permit and inspection program includes full responsibility for permit issuance and inspections for all related electrical, plumbing, structural and mechanical installations for manufactured dwellings, accessory structures and buildings. The Division may waive responsibility based upon one or more of the following conditions: 1. Budget limitations of the municipality; 2. Inadequate staffing of the municipality; 3. Inability to contract services with another municipality; or 4. Where the public is inconvenienced by the cost of travel distance or time loss. This letter summarizes all program assumptions, delegations, and agreements with your municipality for 1995-96. Any manufactured structures/park delegations previously issued are superseded by these conditions. If you have questions regarding program administration, please contact Micky Narkon at (503) 378-3102 or Tom Higashi at (503) 373-1227. OSEPH A. BREWER, III Administrator t N U:\HOME\QSHARE\CDC\ l-RAINING\DELG.2 Kamm I I Sim, AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of W ! a-71 Q5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITE14 SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Hearing - Remand of Conditions related Dolan Abo Site eveloRment Review SDR 91-0005/Var 91-0010 PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council require that conditions related to floodplain management and traffic congestion be imposed on the above development? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve application with modified condition to require easements for floodplain management and a pathway based on findings included in the attached staff report and exhibits. INFORMATION SUMMARY The United States Supreme Court remanded conditions of approval placed by the City of Tigard on the construction the Dolan-Ahoy Hardware store proposed on ain Street. The Court remanded conditions related to the dedication of roperty for a bikepath and the floodplain. The Court did not overturn the City's conditions but said the City must show that the conditions related to dedication are roughly proportional to the impact of the development. The public hearing on this issue was originally scheduled for April 25, 1995 but was continued from April 25, 1995 and May 23, 1995 at the request of the applicant. The hearing is only to consider condition number one of the City's approval of SDR 91-0005. A report and exhibits from the City Attorney's office explaining the remand, the issues and the impacts on the drainage and traffic systems is attached. The City Council's decision passed September 10, 1991 is also attached for reference purposes. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED x' 1. Determine that the application should be denied. 2. Determine that the same or a similar condition addressing the project's impacts on public drainage and transportation facilities may constitutionally be imposed. ' 3. Determine that the same or a similar condition addressing the project's impacts on public drainage and transportation facilities may not constitutionally be imposed and some alternative condition requiring that those impacts be addressed must be imposed. FISCAL NOTES The issue is under litigation. ry 1 014 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NoTic-F OF FTNALL S1RnRR - BY CITY MC-UNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 91-000SL AR 91-0010 (Appeal) 2. Name of Owner: John T. & Florence Dolan game of Applicant: X-napTpenberger & Mendez 3. Address 1318 SW 12th Avenue City Portland State OR Zip 97201 4. Address of Property: 12520 SW Main Street Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700 5. Request: An appeal by John Dolan of a Planning Commission decision to deny a requested variance subject to conditions requiring the applicant to: (1) dedicate to the City as greenwav all property within the 100 year flood plain; (21 dedicate property 15 feet above the 150 foot floodplain boundary for a pathway; 131 survey the boundaries of the dedication; and (4) remove a roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. ZONE: CBD..pa (Central Business D's-ri Ca. zviiea with the Action Area .overlyzoneA 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial X Approved in,part, denied in part 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: R The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies a. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 9/17/91 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 9/17/91 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. bkm/SDR91-05.BKM F. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION 91= / 1(" ' } IN THE MATTER OF THE, ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO "PROW A Slims . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW :i:D VARIANCE APPLICATION (SDR 91-0005, VAR91-00100) PROPOSED BY JOHN DOLAiN. WHEREAS, a Director's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant for further consideration; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the case at its meeting of July 8, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's decision with ,todifi.cation to the original conditions of approval (Final Order No. 91-09 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of September_ 10, 1991,-upon the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the requested appeal is allowed in part and denied in part, and the Planning Commission decision is upheld as modified based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09 PC (Exhibit "All as modified) 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 10th day of September, 1991. APPROVED: This day of September, 1 ~,7 r-e,-a_ Ldp' ards. Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: Tigard City Recorder 'l h:\logi\dick\dolapp.res RESOLUTION NO. 91- ~Cr Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC A FiNAL ORDER xNCLU1;S1gG F N%-ilivGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH UPHOLDS A DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DESIGNEEE (SDR- 0005) AND VARIANCE (VAR 91-0010) REQUESTED BY JOSEPH MENDEZ (JOHN AND FRANCES DOLAN, PROPERTY OWNERS). The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application, on appeal, at a public hearing on July 8, 1991.. The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 'REQUEST: a) Site Development Review approval is requested to allow construction of a 17,600 square foot retail sales building on a 1.67 acre site; b) Variances are requested to the following Community Development Code requirements: i. Code Section 18.120_180.A:.8 (Site Development Review approval standards) which requires dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain where development is allowed adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. In addition, this section requires that the dedication include area at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The requirement of area for a pathway as well as construction of the pathway is also made by Code Section 18.86.040.A.1_b (Action Area overlay zone interim requirements). The applicant requests that floodplain and pathway areas not be required to be dedicated and also that pathway construction not be required as a condition of approval of the Site Development Review request.. ii. Section 18.106.030.0.20 (minimum off-street parking requirements) which requires provision of one off-street parking space for every 400 square feet of general retail sales area. The applicant requests approval of a site plan that would provide a 39 parking space parking lot whereas 44 spaces would be required for the size of the proposed building to be used - for general retail sales. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 1 g / I iii. Section 18.114.070.H (certain signs prohibited) which prohibits roof signs of any kind. The applicant requests. that the city not reauire removal of a si.an alcove the roof line of an existing building on the site as a condition of approval of the current development application. The applicant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a wall parapet APPLICANT: Joseph R. Mendez, Attorney at Law 1318 SW 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 Ov1ER: John and Florence Dolan 1919 NW 19th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area overlay zone) PRIOR BACKGROUND The property's owners previously applied for Site Development Review approval for plans that are largely the same as the plans that are presently under review. The applicant also, requested a variance to the parking standard for general retail sales to allow 39 parking spaces to serve development on the site whereas 44 spaces would normally be required. The Site Development Review and the Variance requests were approved on July 10, 1989 by the Planning Director subject to 14 conditions. The applicant appealed the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. The applicant raised concerns with five conditions of approval that were imposed by the Director's decision, including conditions requiring floodplain and greenway area dedication, construction of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the greenway to be accomplished by the applicant, and removal of a non-conforming roof sign from an existing building prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision, except that the condition requiring removal of the roof sign was modified to require removal to occur within 45 days of the issuance of the occupancy permit (Final Order PC 89-25 dated December 15, 1989). !r FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 2 rK:ir - The applicant oxen appealed the Planning Commiss'Lora's decision to the City Council challenging the same five conditions. The City Covmcil upheld the Planning Commission's decision, with one modification, The Council reassigned'the responsibility for surveying and marking the floodplain area from the applicant to the City's engineering/surveying department (Council Resolution 90-07 dated Februax-I 5, 1990). Q The applicant appealed the Council's decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA); On January 24, 1991, LUBA denied the appeal thereby upholding the City's decision on this matter (LUBA Final Order and Opinion No. 90-029). Prior to the above-described Site Development Review and variance request, the only other City of Tigard land use or development actions directly related to this parcel are a series of notices regarding nonconforming signs on the property. Two freestanding billboard signs and one large roof - sign on the property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and property and business owners were notified of this prior to that time. A voluntary compliance agreement has been used to provide affected downtown properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement sent to the owners of the subject parcel has never been signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: w• A. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and B. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Properties surrounding the subject site are also zoned CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area) and contain a variety of commercial uses- Property immediately to the west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and is designated in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to be included as part of the City's greenway/open space system. The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. The site includes a 9,700 square foot building and a partially paved F parking lot which have been in their present locations since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the ' property. Two large billboards stand on or near the property's northeastern boundary. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 3 1. ~-i The prvper a.y S ' l.... a~avitci~ p : o raze the eY; st i ng structure, currently used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply - a general retail sales use, and to embark on a multi-phase redevelopment of the site. The building will be razed in sections corresponding to progress on the construction of he first phase of redevelopment of the site. The current proposal includes development of a 17 , 600 square foot, single- story structure on the southwestern side of the site for relocation of the A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply operations. The plans also show an outline of a phase two building on the northeastern side of the site. No details have been provided for the building'in phase two. A parking lot containing 39 parking spaces intended to serve the phase one building is proposed between the two phases. One designated handicapped parking space and a 3 bicycle rack are also proposed. The'site plan also indicates an area for additional parking for phase two. The applicant requested variances to community Development Code standards requiring dedication of area of the subject parcel that is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek and dedication of additional area adjacent to the 100 year floodplain for a bicycle/pedestrian path, as well as the requirement for construction of the pathway in this area. In addition, the applicant requested a variance to the Code prohibition against roof signs. Through this request, the applicant is requesting reconsideration of the earlier City determination that an existing sign on the present building on the site is a roof sign. The applicant also requested reconsideration of an earlier Council directive that would require the sign on the existing building to be removed within 45 days of occupancy of the proposed new building. In addition, staff also considered a variance request previously made by the property's owners in 1989 for a reduction in parking spaces, even though the applicant neglected to raise this issue with the current application. The parking variance considered would allow 39 parking spaces to suffice for the proposed phase one development whereas Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.0.20 requires one parking space for every 500"square feet of building area for general retail sales, or in this- case 44 spaces. The City is under no obligation to reconsider this variance since the applicant failed to raise the issue with the current application; however the Commission believes there is a need to reconsider the variance for the City's own administrative purposes. The variance is reconsidered as part of the present application so that there will not be different approvals with different approval periods regarding this site and site plan. The previously approved variance related to parking was issued by the City Council on February 5, '1990. This approval is FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 4 <r i valid for eighteen months from the date of issuance. Therefore, that approval is likely to expire before development proposed by the current application can begin. E econsiderwt-ic o and realp-provcal ear the parking variance at this time would reset the clock for that variance so that the variance approval period would be concurrent with the approval period for the new Site Development Review application., On May 24, 1991, the Community Development Dir6ctor's designee approved the Site Development Review request and the variance related to parking. The approval was subject to 16 conditions. The other variance requests were denied. AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS The City Building Division notes that a canopy and an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence must be installed behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c). A demolition permit will be required for the removal of any or all of the existing building. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: A. Streets: The site fronts S.W. Main Street which is classified as a major collector street. Main Street along the site's frontage is fully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A 1986 engineering study of the condition of S.W. Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractical to perform the proposed reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal fashion on a lot-by-lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments ,N. beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of approval of this development proposal. This development should be required to replace any existing sidewalks and curbs which are damaged or in poor i repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge,over Fanno Creek. The bridge replacement FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 5 r 5 KIM IN NOME is scheduled to begin in June 1991. The bridge construction is expected to occur within 'the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site. B. Sanitary Sewer: There are two sanitary sewer truck lines that cross the site in existing easements. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches in diameter. The applicant has shown on the application plans the easement and location for the 24 inch line but not the easement and location for the 60 inch line. Additionally, after reviewing the sanitary sewer system plans on file in this office, it appears that there may be some mix-up as to where the sanitary sewer system is as shown on the applicants submitted plans. Basically, it appears that the 24 inch line is within a 10 foot easement and goes along the front of the proposed new building and diverges to the east as you go south. The 60 inch line is within a 30 foot easement and again is in front of the proposed new building but does not diverge as fast to the east as you go south. Based on the plan submitted by the applicant and the "as-built" plans for both the sanitary sewer systems, it appears that the new building would be located over the easement for the 60 inch line by approximately 6 to 8 feet at the approximate middle of the building. Therefore, the applicant should be required to submit evidence as to the actual location of the sanitary sewer lines and easements, and their relationship to the proposed building. If it is determined that the submitted proposal for the building does encroach upon the easement, the applicant should be required to change the location of the building or the design so that it does not encroach upon the easement or to provide evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to the encroachment. C. Storm Sewer: The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street. The proposed channel improvements would include widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. Therefore, an adjustment of the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. In addition, dedication of the land area on FINAL ORllER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 6 V4 A this property below the elevation of the 100-year flood should be required. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (resolution No. 90-43) Surface Beater Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in lieu of their construction. Requiring surface water quality facilities on small sites could result it numerous facilities that could become a maintenance burden to the f City. Furthermore, the applicant has not proposed any, such facilities and there are no natural depressions or other areas of this site that are particularly suitable for water quality facilities. Regional facilities, funded by fees in lieu of construction of smaller isolated facilities, would provide the required treatment with improved reliability and less maintenance. Consequently a fee-in-lieu of the construction of on-site water quality facilities should be assessed. D. Traffic Impact Fee Washington County has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution No. 90-65) Traffic Impact Fees. The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development contributes to extra-capacity transportation improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by such development. The applicant will be required to pay the fee. Based on the following information, the ESTIMATED TIF for this development would be: 1) Use: Retail Sales 2) Land Use Category: Business & Commercial 3) Rate per trip: $34.00 4) ITE Category: 816 5) Weekday average trip rate: 53.21 per T.G.S.F. 6) Existing Square Footage: 9,720 approximately 7) Proposed Square Footage: 17,600 8) TIF = 53.21 X (17.6 - 9.720) X $34.00 = $14,256.02 NOTE: THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE OF THE APPLICABLE TIF FEE. THE ACTUAL FEE WILL BE CALCULATED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. The actual TIF will be based on the total square ,r FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 7 d F. Y footage shown in the building plans, the trip rate in effect at the time of building permit application, and the fee rate in effect at that time. The City of Tigard Parks Department recommends that area adjacent to the floodplain should be required to be dedicated for pathway construction. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District notes that automatic sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be required. In addition, a fire hydrant must be provided within 500 feet of all exterior portions of the proposed structures, but not greater than 70 feet from a fire department connection. Portland General Electric and the Tigard Water District, have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. No other comments were received. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the approval authority is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a request for Site Development Review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.66, Central Business District, the following sections of the Tigard Community Development Code are also applicable: Chapter 18.86, Action Areas; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; Chapter 18.106, Off-street Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress and Circulation; Chapter 18.114, Signs; Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances. In addition to all of the above approval criteria, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park. Chapter 18 66- Central Business District Zone The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for general retail sales use. Such a use is permitted outright in the CBD (Central Business District) zone. Therefore, the intended use is acceptable for this site. The CBD zoning district does not require any minimum building setbacks except that a 30 foot setback is required if any side of the property abuts a residential zoning district. Since none of the four sides of. the subject property abut a residential zoning district, no other building setbacks are required. The proposed 16.5 building height is consistent FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 8 110, t. 'emu t2.. _ e ~ with the maximum 80 foot building height permitted in the zone. in the CBD zoning district, 5a aaiiauuai si to coverage al"lowed -Ls 85 percent. Site coverage includes all structures and impervious surfaces such as Parking, loading areas, sidewalks and pathway areas. A minimum of 15 percent of the site must be landscaped. These standards will be reviewed during the discussion of landscaping and screening below. Chanter 18.86: Action Area Overlay Zone The "AA" portion of the subject site's zoning designation indicates that an additional "layer" of zoning regulations has been imposed on this property. The purpose of the Action Area Overlay designation is to implement the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action areas which include provisions for a mixture of intensive land use. Since permitted uses in the Action Area overlay zone must be those specified in the underlying zoning district; in this case, the CBD zone; this requirement has been met_ Code Section 18.86.040 contains interim standards which are to be addressed for new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements are intended to provide for projected transportation and public facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct pedestrian access into the buildings with limited crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas. If pedestrian access crosses automobile circulation/parking areas, paths shall be marked for pedestrians; iii. Encouraging transit-supportive users by limiting automobile support services to collector and E' arterial streets; and FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 9 MIN W! Y, iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by allowing adjacent development to use F1 5hased max ace parking, parking structures or under-structure parking; b. The development shall facilitate pedestrian/bicycle circulation if the site is located on a street with designated bike paths or adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linking developments by requiring dedication and construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified in the comprehensive plan. If direct yonnecti_ns canes of be made, require that funds in the amount of the construction cost be deposited into an account for the purpose of constructing paths; ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways a,-id street level windows along all sides with public access into the building; iv. Provision of bicycle parking as required under Subsection 18.106.020.P; and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. C. Coordination of development within the action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvements. Allow required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; E ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding land use, or an adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial,.and industrial.use from single- family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 10 i. 5, _ The submitted development proposal satisfies the above requirements for transit usage. The subject site is within 'aw one quarter mile of several t' --Net bus stops Pain Street and Pacific Highway. The site plan provides an on-site sidewalk providing a direct connection between the public sidewalk on Main Street with the entrance to the proposed building. The proposed parking lot's relatively narrow width will minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts because of the relatively short distance pedestrians must travel between their cars and the sidewalk and entrance to the building. The proposed development plan is reasonably coordinated with other development within the action area. The site improvements will be required to satisfy Code landscaping requirements as described below. Screening of the truck loading area on the southern portion of the building can be accomplished with either a fence or tall vegetation. Outdoor lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as to how it might be provided. These modifications or clarifications can be accomplished as minor amendments to the site plan prior to building permit issuance. The proposal is consistent with only some of the Action Area overlay zone requirements related to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as described below. Pedestrian areas are adequately separated from vehicle circulation areas by curbs and landscaped areas. The northeastern side of the building will include a pedestrian walkway and windows along the side of the building that will provide pedestrian access. Adequate lighting of the public and private sidewalks and the parking lot will be provided by parking area lights and building mounted lights. The proposed development would be provided with adequate bicycle parking as required by Code Section 18.106.020.P which requires one bicycle rack parking space for every 15 auto spaces, or portion thereof. The site plan proposes a three-bicycle bike rack at the northeastern corner of the building, adjacent to the public sidewalk. Variance requested. The application includes a request for a variance from the requirement of dedication of adequate area for and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path along the _ site's western side adjacent to Fanno Creek as well as dedication of the floodplain area on the site itself. Because the requirement for pathway area and construction is raised by Code Section 18.86.040 separate from the requirement for floodplain dedication and dedication of sufficient area for a pathway, the Commission will consider the re;vuirenent for floodplain dedication separately later in this report. A bicycle/pedestrian path is called for in this general location in the City of Tigard's Parks Master Plans (Murase and Associates, 1988) and the Tigard Area Comprehensive a 1 FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 11 Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan 1974). in addition, Como m-uns ty Development Code Section 18.120.180.A..8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the !00 yea floo,dplaii., the C t-y sh~Fkl.l require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The proposed development site includes lane: within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby the decision-making authority can approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to any o LldCJ. Q laJ.L _ "I a pol a.c c as and s Carl.-la .aa , C:.j14 to V CIL-Le properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topogrcaphy or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Applicant's Variance Justification. The applicant has provided the following as a statement of justification that is intended to cover all of the requested variances: The variance requested by the applicant should be allowed as the conditions and dedications required by the City of Tigard violate the applicant's rights under the Oregon and United States Constitutions. Specifically, the City's demand for dedication constitute an unlawful taking and violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 12 1, Section 18 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed variance will not materially be detrimental to the purposes of the title nor conflict with the policy of the comprehensive plan as no park exists at this time nor does the City have sufficient fu daing in iahiC$5 -1-0 create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian path is theoretically going to be used to access. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot in that the building which the applicant proposes to construct cannot be erected without invading the City's proposed bicycle/pedestrian path if the land is dedicated. The hardship is not self-iwposed A-jut rather -Lnposed by the City's dedication and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship to a the applicant. Analysis of Variance Reouest. The Commission does not find that the requirements for dedication of the area adjacent to the floodplain for greenway purposes and for construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway constitute a taking of the applicant's property. Instead, the Commission finds that the dedication and pathway construction are reasonably related to the applicant's request to intensify the development of this site with a general retail sales use, at first, and other uses to be added later. It is reasonable to assume that customers and employees of the future uses of this site could utilize a pedestrian/bicycle pathway adjacent to this development for their transportation and recreational needs. In fact, the site plan has provided for bicycle parking in a rack in front of the proposed building to provide for the needs of the facility's customers and employees. It is resonable to expect that some of the users of the bicycle parking provided for by the site plan will use the pathway adjacent to Fanno Creek if it is constructed. In addition, the proposed expanded use of this site is anticipated to generate additional vehicular traffic thereby increasing congestion on nearby collector and arterial streets. Creation of a convenient, safe pedestrian/bicycle patway system as an alternative means of transportation could offset some of the traffic demand on these nearby streets and lessen the increase in traffic congestion. The Commission finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes. As already noted, the Code at Section 18.120.080.A.8 and many other related sections (e.g.,, Section 18.84.040.A.7) require dedication of sufficient area adjacent to floodplain areas for construction FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 13 pig wpt t. 'yr i n. } :1_: r''N MEN r of pedestrian/bicycle pathways. Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan at pages 256 through 258 provides a discussion of the reasons for development of a City-wide pathway system as part -y a raul tg--raodai transportation system serving the varied needs of the City's citizens and businesses. This section essentially summarizes the findings of the adopted Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan. Comprehensive Plan Volume 2 at Policy 8.4.1 calls for the City to require the dedication of area for and construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathways as a condition of development approval for areas identified by the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The Plan notes that as the city grows, more people may rely on the pathways for utilitarian as well as recreational purposes and that there is a need to develop a safe and convenient pathway system. The pathway system along Fanno Creek near the subject site is already partly constructed in both directions. The City is actively pursuing land acquisition and park improvement planning for Fanno Creek Park to the south. Contrary to the applicant's statement that n... no park exists at this time nor does the City have sufficient funding in which to create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian pathway is theoretically going to be used to access," the City has established Fanno Creek park, constructed a pathway and other improvements in area to the south, recently purchased 3.19 additional acres for park expansion, and has set aside funds for a partial extension of the pathway in the summer or fall of 1991. It is imperative that a continuous pathway be developed in order for the paths to function as an efficient, convenient, and safe system. Omitting a planned for section of the pathway system, as the variance would result in if approved, would conflict with Plan purposes and result in an incomplete system that would not be efficient, convenient, or safe. The requested variance therefore would conflict with the City's adopted policy of providing a continuous pathway system intended to serve the general public good and therefore fails to satisfy the first variance approval criterion. The Commission fails to find special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to this site for which the applicant has no control and therefore the second criterion for approval of a variance is not satisfied. The applicant states that the inability to develop the proposed building without invading the City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating the need for a variance. The design of the building is completely under the control of the applicant. The applicant's engineer was apprised of the need to provide area for the pathway at the pre-application conference with City staff prior to the submittal of the site plan. The applicant's engineer could have designed the building with respect to the need for dedication for the pathway. The FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 14 k y 116 3 mom] applicaray -as sav% ist-wt its-aii cmy zecasuSl5 5uppo"Ing why one same amount of building square footage could not be provided on multiple levels or why the proposed square footage is needed. If the building must be developed on a single level and at the same square footage, other options may exist for varying Code standards that would not have such a detrimental effect on public purposes as the requested variance. The Commission finds that the applicant has not met the burden of proof regarding special circumstances affecting this site related to the requested variance. The requested variance would not affect uses of the site permitted by the Code. The applicants has not addressed how City standards (i.e., the connection of the various pathway segments) will be accomplished if the variance request is approved. Therefore, the third variance approval criterion is only partially satisfied. As noted above, approval of the variance request would have an adverse effect on the existing partially completed pathway system because a system cannot fully function with missing pieces. If this planned for section is omitted from the pathway system, the system in this area will be much less convenient and efficient. If the pedestrian a_nd bicycle traffic is forced onto City streets at this point in the pathway system because of this missing section, pedestrian and bicycle safety will be lessened. The fourth variance approval criterion is therefore not satisfied. A.s noted above, the applicant has not provided reasons why the building must be constructed with the proposed footprint, square footage, or on a single level. Without such evidence, the commission finds no evidence of hardship that would result if strict compliance with the Code dedication and pathway construction standards are required. Again, the Commission finds that the applicant has not satisfied the burden of proof related to the variance request. Without evidence of a hardship, the fifth variance approval criterion is not met. The criteria for approval of a variance to the Community Development Code requirement of dedication of sufficient area for and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in conformance with various adopted City plans calling for the pathway are therefore not satisfied. The applicant has failed to provide adequate evidence or reasons addressing the criteria. The request is 'therefore denied. The applicant will be required to dedicate area 15 feet in depth from the east bank of Fanno Creek and will be required to construct an 8 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle pathway in this area. The footprint and possibly the design of the proposed building will need to be revised to comply with this requirement. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 15 Chanter 18.102: Landscaping and Screenincr Although not noted in the submittal for the current application, the applicant previously has requested that in return for dedication of property along Fanno Creek, other landscaping standards should be waived. The commission will consider an exception from the minimum landscaped site area on the net site after required dedications because this decision rejects the applicant's variance requests from floodplain and pathway dedication requirements. The Planning Commission finds that the City has previously allowed the inclusion of dedicated floodplain/park land for the purpose of calculating required landscaped area for other projects. Such an allowance is also appropriate in this instance. The site plan does not note the amount of landscaped area that would be py ovided on tiae net site after floodplain and pathway area dedications, but the plan notes that 21 percent of the gross site would be landscaped area or natural area. This percentage is consistent with the 15 percent minimum landscaped area standard of the CBD zoning district as well as with Section 18.120.170.E which allows the director to grant an exception to the minimum landscaped area requirements upon a finding that the overall landscaped plan provides for at least 20 percent of the gross site to be landscaped. The City Council decided, with regard to the earlier Site Development Review request for this site, that the City would be responsible for landscaping and screening the area between the required pedestrian/bicycle path and the proposed building. The Commision will hold with the Council's earlier decision regarding this area and therefore will not review the applicant's landscaping plans for this area adjacent to the future pathway and Fanno Creek. The provision of a landscaped buffer by the City along the east edge of area required to be dedicated for pathway purposes is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility and the future storm drainage and pathway improvements will cause the destruction or removal of existing vegetation. Code Section 18.100.030.A requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street provide street trees spaced between 20 and 40 feet, depending on the mature size of the trees. The site plan pgoposes only one flowering pear tree along the site's Main Street. frontage. The proposed flowering pear tree would be located in a planter on the west side of the entrance driveway to the parking lot. Because the proposed building would abut the public sidewalk further west from the driveway, no additional trees can be located west of the driveway. The City will be responsible for landscaping west of the proposed building. This area should include a= FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 16 _Y G d ~ ~r 1.7 street tree or two. Approximately 85 feet to the east of the proposed driveway is not shown to include any landscaping, building, or paving. The landscaping plan will need to be revised to include additional street trees consistent with the size and spacing standards of Section 18.100.035. Chanter 3.8.1.02: Vision Clearance Section 18.102.020 requires that clear vision be maintained between 3 and 8 feet above grade at the intersections of all streets and driveways. The flowering pear tree intended to be planted immediately to the west of the proposed driveway need not be relocated out of this area as long as branches below eight feet in height are kept trimmed. In addition, bushes planted adjacent to the tree must be kept trimmed to below three feet in height. Chapter 18.106: Off-street Parking and Loading variance to Minimum Parking Standard.. The applicant proposes to construct 39 standard 90-degree parking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.0.20 requires that 1 parking space be provide for every 400 square feet of building area. Therefore, 44 parking spaces would be required for the proposed 17,600 square foot general retail sales building. As previously noted, the applicant neglected to request a variance to this parking standard with the current request. However, the director and the Planning Commission had previously approved such a request for the earlier application utilizing the same site plan. The Commission will consider a variance to the minimum parking standard with the current application in order to affirm the earlier variance approval and to make its period of approval concurrent with the approval period for the current Site Development Review application. The following findings relative to the variance approval criteria (Code Section 18.134.050) are essentially r; the same as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to the earlier application affecting this site. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this site and proposal. The applicant proposes to construct this project in two phases: the first phase consists of construction of the new building on the southwestern portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished. The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern portion of the lot as part of Phase 2. Should additional parking be found to be necessary in the future, the applicant suggests that a shared parking arrangement could be worked out with the adjacent structure. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 17 tea". Wom r + r` The applicant points out that the A-Boy store does not attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the attraction of customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is needed and who travel to a specific destination to obtain that product. The applicant has stated that the existing store raxely has more than six or eight vehicles at any one time. The Commission notes that employees of the business will also n' require parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need to park and unload on the property; however, it is clear that the existing store use should not need 44 parking spaces. The City agrees that the present use is similar to a "general retail sales, bulky merchandise" use. If the City were to employ the parking standard used for retail sales businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but not less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed 39 spaces are well within City parking requirements. Although the use of the building may later change, aiteaiarati:'°-~s are availably in C`3's3juiactioA3 with the future phase of construction on this property. If a new use, which has a higher parking demand, occupies the building, a new site development review and evaluation of parking would be required. The issue of parking space numbers will also be evaluated as part of the site development review for phase two of this development. The use will be the same as permitted by City regulations and existing physical and natural systems will not be affected by this proposal. Therefore, the Commission finds that the variance related to parking is justified. other Harking standards. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 required automobile spaces. In this case a minimum of three bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site plan indicates a proposed location for a 3 space bike rack. This standard is therefore satisfied. 2 The site plan does not provide for an appropriate number of designated handicapped parking spaces as required by the Oregon Revised Statutes (2 required; 1 proposed), although the 1 space proposed would satisfy City of Tigard Community Development Code standards as currently written. The site plan will therefore need to be revised to add one additional designated handicapped parking space. The Community Development Code will need to be revised to reflect this more stringent standard that took effect on September 1, 1990. Code Section 18.106.020.M requires parking lot landscaping in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.100. That chapter requires the provision of trees in the area of a FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 18 Ull vc:.r ig, MOM 4.'~ - - V.. "ki. _ R _ _ parking lot at a minimum ratio of 1 tree per 7 parking spaces. The site plan proposes 7 trees in landscaped islands within and adjacent to the 39 space parking lot. This standard is t.hererore satisfied. Code Section 18.106.080.1 requires at least one off-street loading space for commercial uses having more than 10,000 square feet of floor area. The site plan proposes a loading - area on the south side of the proposed building. This standard is therefore satisfied. However, the loading space will need to be provided with adequate screening from views from neighboring parcels as has previously bee described. Chapter 18.108: Access. Egress and Circulation Code Section 18.108.40.C requires that vehicular access be provided to commercial and industrial uses within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances to the building. The proposed parking lot is immediately adjacent to the proposed building entrance. Code Section 18.108.50.A requires walkways connecting ground floor entrances of commercial buildings with adjacent public streets. The site plan proposes a sidewalk along the front of the building connecting to the public sidewalk along Main Street. Code Section 18.108.80.A requires a minimum, of one 24-foot wide access driveway to a parking lot of this size serving a commercial use. One 36-foot wide driveway would connect the proposed parking lot with Main Street. The proposed access and circulation pattern should provide adequate and safe access for the proposed use. Therefore, the Code's requirements for access and circulation have been satisfied. Chapter 18.114: Signs The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this application. The existing freestanding sign will apparently be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to their erection for conformity with the City Sign Code. The two billboard signs and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code Section 18.120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply with all other applicable provisions of the code, including sign regulations of Chapter 18.114. Code Section 18.114.070.H prohibits roof signs of all types. Code Section 18.114.090.A.l.a.i.1 permits billboards in certain zoning districts only; the CBD zone is not one of the listed zones. The prior Commission and City Council reviews affecting this site have determined that the billboards and p the sign atop the existing A-Boy building are nonconforming signs that have gone beyond the 10-year amortization period FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 19 r: r 111 1 11 J adopted by the City Council in 1978 and thus were required to be removed. Consideration cif _siSM variance. The applicant has requested a variance to the roof sign prohibition of Section 18.114.070.H. The applicant requests that the City not require removal of a sign above the roof line of an existing building on the site as a condition of approval of the current development application. The applicant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a parapet wall. The City Council and Planning Commission previously considered the sign and determined that the sign was a roof sign. The applicant has not submitted a variance justification statement specifically addressing the sign situation, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence related to why the sign on the existing. building is not a roof sign. The previously quoted justification statement sudih- ; teed by the applicant [page 12 of this report) is all that was submitted in response to the staff notifying the applicant that the application was incomplete without a statement of reasons supporting the variance requests. Since the applicant's Statement of Justification is clearly addressing the pathway dedication and construction issues only, and since the Commission is unaware of any other reasons in support of the requested variance to the prohibition on roof signs, the Commission has no alternative but to concur with the Commission and Council's earlier determination that the sign on the existing building is a roof sign and that it must be removed within 45 days of the occupancy of the new building. No variance request has been received with regard to the billboard signs needing to be removed as was required by the earlier development application decisions affecting this site. The applicant apparently does not contest removal of the billboard signs as a condition of development approval. Compliance with all requirements of the Community Development Code as required by Section 18.120.180 would entail complete removal of these signs prior to occupancy of the building proposed as phase one of the redevelopment of the site. Chapter 18.120: Site Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. This order has already dealt with the question of dedication of area outside the floodplain for pathway construction and the construction of the pathway as it a ? relates to the provisions of the Action Area overlay zone. At this point, the report will consider the applicant's request FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PACE 20 111131 flillil 11 r. F7 from the requirement to dedicate portions of the site within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water management purposes. The applicant's Statement of Justification for Variance (page 14 of this report) does not directly address storm water drainage concerns but instead provides the general statements listed above as comments intended to apply to all of the variance requests. The commission does not find that the requirements for dedication of the area within the floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water management and greenway purposes constitutes a taking of the applicant's property. Instead, the Commission finds that the required dedication would be reasonably related to the applicant's request to intensify the usage of this site thereby increasing the site's impervious area. The increased impervious surface would be expected to increase the amount of storm water runoff from the site to Fanno Creek. The Fanno Creek drainage basin has experienced rapid urbanization over the past 30 years causing a significant increase in stream flows after periods of precipitation. The anticipated increased storm water flow from the subject property to an already strained creek and drainage basin can only add to the public need to manage the stream channel and floodplain for drainage purposes. Because the proposed development's storm drainage would add to the need for public management of the Fanno Creek floodplain, the commission finds that the requirement of dedication of the floodplain area on the site is related to the applicant's plan to intensify development on the site. r; The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes and policies and therefore is not with the first of the variance approval criteria. As already noted, the Code at Section 18.120.080.A.8 and many other related sections (e.g., Section 18.84.040.A.7) require dedication of floodplain areas, not only for construction of pathways, but primarily to allow for public management of the storm water drainage system. These Code sections implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.2.4 which requires dedication of all undeveloped land within the 100- year f loodplain. Volume Two of the Plan at Section 3.2 discusses the City's objectives in regulating development within and adjacent to floodplain areas to avoid hazards to the public and to downstream properties. Volume One of the Comprehensive Plan at pages 192 and 193 provides a discussion of the reasons for development of a coordinated City-wide storm water management system. Volume One of the Plan also cites the Master Drainage Plan for the City produced by CH2M Hill Inc. in 1981 for a further discussion of the need for public management of the storm water drainage system and for measures intended to increase the flow efficiency of Fanno Creek and other drainage channels in the city. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 21 Slid My; In: ;:~j ` ~ r••::i.? ,'~x_6 .jib As noted by the Engineering Division, the Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from the Main Street bridge. Proposed channel improvements would include channel widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. In order to accomplish these public improvements related to increasing the flow efficiency of Fanno,Creek, dedication of the area of the subject site within the 100-year floodplain and also the adjacent five feet is imperative. Not requiring dedication of this area as a condition. of development approval, as the applicant's variance proposal requests, would clearly conflict with purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Code, and the City's Master Drainage Plan. The Commission fails to find special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to this site over which the applicant has no control that relate to the variance request. The applicant states that the inability to develop the proposed building without invading the City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating the need for a variance. The Commission does not see how this statement relates to any difficulties involved in the applicant's ability to dedicate area within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek_ The applicant's statement refers only to land outside of the 100- year floodplain. The request therefore fails to satisfy the second of the variance approval criteria. The requested variance to omit floodplain dedication would no Lt affect possible uses permitted by the Code for this property. Dedication of the portion of the property within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek would not be expected to diminish the usability or value of the property because the 100-year floodplain area is virtually unusable due to the year-round water flow of the Creek within a well defined narrow channel. The applicant has not addressed how City standards (i.e., management of the interconnected storm water drainage system) can be accomplished if the variance request is approved and an important piece of the Fanno Creek stream channel is not available for public improvements to expand the channel as called for by the City's Master Drainage Plan. Again, the applicant fails to meet the burden of proof relative to the variance criteria. The third variance approval criterion is not satisfied. If the area within the 100-year f loodplain is not dedicated as the variance application requests, the existing storm water drainage system ' would be affected because additional stormwater runoff resulting from additional development, both from the subject site and elsewhere within the Fanno Creek ~M1 "N- FINAL, ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 22 ,r; drainage basin, is expected to increase flow within the creek and a rise in the 100 year flood elevation without the ,~„r,' roc at,; li ty to make channel modifications in this area to a offset the increase in stream flow. If dedication is required as specified by the Code, the channel of Fanno Creek in this area could be improved by public agencies as called for by the Kast? Drainage Plan. These channel improvements; here and elsewhere along the creek, would be expected to improve the channel's ability to transmit stormwater flows thereby reducing the 100 year flood elevation and reducing the possibility of floodwater damages and threats to public safety. Because the requested variance would therefore have an adverse effect upon an important physical system, the request is not consistent with the fourth variance approval criterion. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has failed to state ghat hardship would exist related to the requirement for floodplain dedication since this floodplain area is not buildable land under the City's recjulations because the land in question within the floodplain is primarily the actual stream channel of Fanno Creek. Therefore, the Commission is unable to find that the applicant's request would be the minimum variance which would relieve an uncertain hardship. The fifth variance approval criterion is therefore not met. The applicant's request for a variance from the floodplain dedication requirement of Community Development Code Section 18.120.080.A.8 is not supported by adequate documentation addressing the variance approval criteria. The variance request is therefore denied. Additionally, the Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment of the proposed building's location will need to be made in order to accommodate the pathway and the future City- initiated relocation of the floodplain bank as well as to avoid conflicts with existing sewers passing through the site. This should be accomplished on a revised site plan that will need to be largely consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans that have been reviewed or else a new Site Development Review application will be necessary. The Commission calls to the applicant's attention the provisions of Code Sections 18.120.070 and .080 which limit the degree of modification from an approved site plan that may be reviewed by the director without a new application becoming necessary. Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central Business District. The site lies within the 100-year floodplain and immediately abuts the subject property along FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 23 Y ~i r a z r~ 3- a. its southwestern property line. It is hoped that the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area within the 100-year floodplain. and the eventual construction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent with the City's park plans for the area. In the City's Easter Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park is intended to become the focal point for community, cultural, civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, an English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well as' preserved natural areas are all components t` foreseen for this area. The proposed development presently under review will abut this planned community park, and at its closest point, would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary of the 100-year A..LG0dpIaJL a. The .Engineering Division has stated that the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site will be necessary in order-to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOME NDATION The Planning commission concludes that the proposed development, with modifications, will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding land uses, provided development that occurs complies with applicable local state and federal laws. To that end, the commission unanimously upholds the May 24, 1991 decision of the Community Development Director's designee approving Site Development Review SDR 91-0005 and a Variance allowing 39 parking spaces to suffice whereas 44 parking spaces would normally be required for a general retail use. The Commission also unanimously upholds the denial of the remainder of Variance VAR 91-0010 upon finding that the applicant failed to show that the Variance request satisfied the variance approval criteria. The Commission's approval of SDR 91=0005 is subject to the following conditions of approval: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 0 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as Greenway all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100" FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 24 t year floodplain (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 850:0 foot floodplain boundary. The building shall be designed so as not t® intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. * ' 2. The applicant shall obtain written approval from Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County for connection to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior to issuance of aPpblic improvement permit. A copy of the permit shall be submitted to the City of Tigard Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division. 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing: 1) building plans which show the proposed de?sicn, and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the location and screening of the trash disposal area; 3) the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area and out of conflict with existing sanitary sewer easements; and 4) a minimum' of two appropriately located designated handicapped accessible parking spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; and 2) the installation of street trees along the Main Street frontage of the site to the east of the proposed driveway. For purposes of calculating the required landscaped area (155%), the dedicated land noted in Condition No. 1. above may be included. The City shall be responsible for landscaping the land dedicated to the public. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Bunch, Planning Division.. 5. The City Engineering Division shall locate and clearly mark the 100-year floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construction. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. N 6. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notity Northwest Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. *This condition has been amended per Council action on September 10, 1991. The following sentence was removed: "A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording." e FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC / PAGE 25 ~a 7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to 'a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. 8. As part of the improvement plans the applicant shall submit details and calculations that show the change in the amount of impervious surface area created by this development. In addition, the fee-in-lieu for water quality shall be paid. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 9. An erosion control playa small be providau as paw t of the improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989."• 10. The applicant shall submit evidence that the proposed building does not encroach upon the sanitary sewer easements that cross the parcel or, alternately, submit evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to any proposed encroachment. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PST: 11. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4 shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. ak"' 12. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to being erected. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. 13. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall submit any applicable legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. 14. As a condition of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main Street which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 26 ,r 71 are being abandoned. Prior to any work being started within the public Right-of-Way the applicant shall obtain a Street opening permit from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 15. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALJED FOR EIGHalXEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. The Planning Commission°s decision eliminates condition of approval #9 of the Director's designee's decision. That condition stated that a Traffic Impact Fee was required to be paid upon issuance of a building permit for the proposed building on the site. While the Commission does not find that this statement regarding the Traffic Impact Fee needs to be a condition of approval of the application, this action does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of compliance with Washington County Ordinance 379 related to the county-wide Traffic Impact Fee program. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry a of this order. PASSED: This 2, day of July, 1991, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. i Fire, e Tigard Plan co V_0~ 9 fission jo/Do'lan_ Fo FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 27 O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRXCH ATTORNFYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon, 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 PAX (503) 243-2944 DATE: June 20, 1995 TO: Tigard City Council and Bill Monahan, City Administrator ]FROM: Pamela. J. Beery, City Attorney's Office x; _.,l-n V, C;t of 'Ngard - p?,r,c=eedings on remand This memorandum is submitted to accompany the staff packet for the June 27, 1995 remand hearing. As explained in your materials, the nature of this proceeding is a public hearing to consider Condition #1 from the City's 1991 approval of the site development review and variance application for the A-Boy Plumbing store. Only that condition, which required dedication of the floodway and bikepath lands, is before you on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The two major elements of the direction from the Supreme Court are: 1. The condition we impose must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts generated by the proposed development. 2. The burden of proof now rests with the City to demonstrate the rough proportionality of the condition. This means that we need evidence in the record 'to support the condition, and that our findings must explain how the evidence meets the test. The question you will be presented with is whether the recommended easements for the bikepath and floodway improvements are roughly proportional to the impacts to the City's transportation and storm water systems. As noted in your packet, we will work with staff to return at a future meeting with findings which support your decision; but at the hearing, the evidentiary burden must be met. pub\nch\90036\council.mo1 t` u ath In h ti%: a rMsnD A T-MT TM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FRONT: planning Department DATE: June 20, 1995 SUBJECT: public Hearing - Remand of Conditions related to Dolan/A-Boy Site Development Review (SDR 91-X15/Var 91-W10) E14' M®fl)UMON Council Actions This application is presented to the Council on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court). The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion that the record before it failed to sufficiently support imposition of a condition of the approval. That condition required dedication of certain land for purposes of mitigating the project's impacts on public storm drainage and transportation facilities. All other aspects of the approval have been conclusively decided, and are not before the Council on remand. It is the position of staff that conditional approval is a decision that allows approval of an application could otherwise be denied. Therefore, the Council has the following options before it: 1) determine that, because the applicant has failed to, address and comply with various Code and Plan criteria for approval of this application, the application must be denied; 2) determine that, based upon the evidence before it, the same or a similar condition addressing the project's impacts on public drainage and transportation facilities may constitutionally be imposed; 3) determine that, based upon the evidence before it, the same or a similar condition addressing the project's impacts on public drainage and transportation facilities may not constitutionally be imposed, and therefore, some alternative condition requiring that those impacts be addressed must be imposed. Staff Report Page 1 4.. A MCI 4N 1 lailli MIN 1:5111111 11! 1 Recommend ion Staff ree3mmends that Council approve the project, but modify the condition number one to require easements for the bicycle and pedestrian pathway and for the drainage facility within Fanno Creek. The Application On March 12, 1991, an application for Site Development Review, SDR 91-05, and Variances, VAR 91-10, pertaining to 2S1 ZAC, Tax Lot 700 (12520 SW Main Street) was filed with the City of Tigard. Materials necessary to complete the application were filed with the City over the course of the next several weeks, and the application was considered complete on April 5, 1991.1 'll materWs of the application included the following: - e Site Development Review Application ® Applicant's Statement and "Attachment A" Requesting Variances ® Applicant's Statement of Justification for Variance Construction Cost Estimate ® Site Plan (15 copies) The application describes plans to tear down the existing 9,700 square foot building and to replace it with a "17,600 square foot building having a general retail sales facility." The applicant also plans to replace the partially graveled parking lot with a paved parking lot having 39 spaces.2 'The appl'icant's March 1991 application was not her first attempt to get the City's approval of her proposed commercial development. In 1989, she filed an application based on virtually the same plan. The City approved that first application, but made the approval subject to conditions. One condition was virtually identical to Condition One of the approval which was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court (the condition on remand). The applicant appealed the easement condition in the City's first approval to the state Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"). Petitioner argued that the flood plain dedication was a taking without compensation, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. LUBA refused to decide Petitioner's takings challenge because she had failed to seek a variance. `The materials in support of the application are contained in the records which were presented to LUBA on the 1989 application and the 1991 application (LUBA Nos. 90-029 and 91-161, respectively). Those records are presented to the Council herewith as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. 3 Staff Report Page 2 ~z . ,Y L 3 The Site The applicant's property is located on Main Street in Tigard, at the heart of the City's downtown central business district. It is a 1.67 acre site, containing a 9,700 square foot building and a partially graveled parking lot. The property abuts Fanno Creek on the east side. It is zoned Central Business District (CBD) under the Community Development Code.' The application is also subject to the regulations of the Action Area Overlay Zone (AA), which was in effect on the site at the time of application. Approval Criteria The intensity of the project controls the scope of the zoning review process. A change in use having major impacts on public facilities is classified as a "major modification" of an existing development and is subject to a discretionary approval process called "site development review." CDC § 18.120.020.A. A "minor modification" is not subject to site development review. CDC § 18.120.020.A.4. The applicant has not disputed the threshold classification of the application as a "major modification." The Action Area Overlay Zoning District, CDC C1.612pter 100.006, apiyluea ui areas of inte-nsive land uses. CDC § 18.86.010. Its requirements were meant to ensure that projected public facility needs, pursuant to CDC Chapter 18.164, were addressed during redevelopment and intensification of use in the area. CDC § 18.86.040.A. The applicable CDC sections when read together implement the comprehensive plan requirement that development address storm drainage and traffic impacts. With regard to drainage, the City's comprehensive plan provides in relevant part: "The City shall require as a precondition to development that: a. the site development study be submitted for development in areas subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding which shows that the development is safe and will not create adverse off-site impacts; b. natural drainage ways be maintained unless submitted studies show that alternative drainage solutions can solve on-site drainage problems and will ensure not adverse off-site impacts." (Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1 p. U-43.) 'All references to the Community Development Code refer to the code in effect at the time of the application. The standards and criteria in effect at the time the application is submitted govern consideration of the application. ORS 227.178(3). Staff Report Page 3 A• I m7l "Proper administration of the floodplain areas relies heavily upon the availability of adequate information upon which to assess the environmental impacts of a project. The development, which creates the need, should be responsible for providing the city with the necessary data for malting sound decisions. The burden is on the applicant to prove that a project will not adversely affect the environment or create undue future liabilities for the city." (Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.2 Floodplains, Findings, p. 11-14.) These policies are in turn implemented through the Sensitive Lands Chapter (CDC §18.84) and Utilities and Standards Requirements for Storm Drainage (CDC §18.164.100). Similarly, the comprehensive plan addresses transportation facilities by requiring that infrastructure be capable of serving the proposed development (Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.2(b)(1)). This provision implements Statewide Planning Goal 11, "Public Facilities and Services," which mandates that urban development must be supported by appropriate levels of public facilities and that cities must plan for key facilities. "Key facility" is defined to include transportation. To address this requirement, the CDC requires the applicant to submit a site plan detailing existing and proposed streets, ways and easement, including those on surrounding properties. (CDC §18.120.120.A.3.) The exact nature of the street, sidewalk and bikeway improvements required of each development depends on the facts of the specific application. (CDC §18.164.020.B) ("The City Engineer may recommend changes or supplements to the standard specifications consistent with the application of engineering principles. (CDC § 18.164.130, § 18.164.070, and § 18.164.110. ) The applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed project satisfies all of the Community Development Code's requirements. CDC § 18.32.250.A.1. The applicant's one-half page statement attempting to justify a variance does not contain the information that the City Code requires relating to storm drainage and traffic impacts, including an analysis of the impact of the development on the City's storm drainage and traffic systems. CDC 18.32.050, 18.84, 18.120.090, .100, 18.164.030 and 18.164.100. The applicant has likewise failed to prove facts related to applicable standards through the introduction of evidence of the "possible negative or positive attributes of the proposal" or to prove that there have been changes or mistakes in the comprehensive plan or the zoning map as it relates to the application. CDC § 18.32.250.B. The submission of an incomplete application does not "negate the applicant's burden of proof." CDC § 18.32.050.6. Based on the lack of information in the variance application on drainage and transportation impacts, the City could deny the application, CDC 18.32.250.A, E, 18.10.010, 18.16.010.B. Indeed, the applicant agrees with this conclusion. See Partial Transcript of Proceedings Before the United States Supreme Court, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. As set forth below, staff has instead undertaken to evaluate the application based on facts otherwise available, as allowed by CDC § 18.32.060. Staff Report Page 4 71 FROCEDURAL MS 1 OR Y On September 17, 1991 the Council approved this application subiect to 15 conditions. The applicant appealed that approval through the state's appellate system. At each step in this appeal process the City's decision was affn-med. See 22 Or LUBA 617, 832 P2d 853 (Or App 1992), 854 P2d 437 (Or 1993). The applicant then sought and received review of the state supreme, court's decision by the U.S.. Supreme Court. The challenge related solely to the validity of the Condition One of that approval (the original Condition One) under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On June 24, 1994, the Court reversed and remanded the Oregon Supreme Court's decision "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. " 129 LEd2d 304, 323. The Court's decision is attached to this report as Exhibit 4. On August 11, 1994, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the matter directly to the City. 877 P2d 1201 (Or 1994). At the request of counsel for the applicant, the City awaited applicant's decision whether to file a new application or p.rocwd to a remand hP.-*ng. The appliant chose to proceed to a remand hearing. The Council scheduled a public hearing for April 25, 1995 to consider new evidence and argument on the issue of compliance with the Supreme Court decision. The notice of remand hearing is attached to this report as Exhibit 5. This hearing was twice setover at the request of the applicant, and is now scheduled for June 27, 1995. The setover requests are attached to this report as Exhibit 6. Because the sole issue placed before the U.S. Supreme Court was the constitutionality of the dedication condition, that is the sole issue now before the Council. Issues of compliance with all remaining legal criteria, applicable under either the Comprehensive Plan, the Code, or state or federal statute or constitution, are resolved. Therefore, the record of this matter is reopened only for consideration of the validity of a dedication condition to addm-ss the project's impacts on storm drainage and transportation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and new evidence and argument are limited to that issue. ISSUE TO BE DECIDED r . Before proceeding with an analysis of the evidence regarding this application and any condition on its approval, it is critical to determine what specific questions the evidence must address. On remand the U.S. Supreme Court decided the required degree of connection between the development and the improvements to be conditioned. The Court also tools the opportunity to explain the specific evidentiary requirement which must support the essential nexus. We think the "reasonable relationship" test adopted by a majority of state courts is closer to the federal constitutional norm than either of those previously discussed. But we do not adopt it as such . . . . We think a term such as "rough proportionality" best encapsulates what we hold the to be the requirement of the Fifth Amendment. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of Staff Report Page 5 R xl k Y 71 individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. 129 LEd2d at 320. The Court further acknowledged that this rule places the burden on the City to prove facts in support of the condition. 129 LEd2d at 320 n. g. Therefore, staff believes that in order to impose a dedication condition on approval of this application, the City must: * show that denial of approval would serve legitimate government purposes and would not completely deprive the subject property of economic value; ® prove that the dedication requirement will serve the same legitimate government purposes as would denial of approval; and ® show that the dedication required is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impacts of the proposed expansion. Based on the evidence set forth below, staff believes that the following condition (the Proposed Condition) is justified on approval of this application: The applicant shall dedicate by easement to the City all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain of l~anno Creek (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) (the "Drainage Area") and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary (the "Bike/Pedestrian Path Area") (the Drainage Area and the Bike/Pedestrian Path Area shall be collectively referred to as the "Easement Area"). The easement required by this Condition shall allow the City to undertake only the following uses in the Easement Area: A. The easement will allow the City access to the Drainage Area only for the purpose of conducting or constructing flood and drainage controls, repairs and improvements for the purposes of reducing st ` or preventing flooding and erosion and for improving drainage within the City. The easement will not allow the general public to access the Drainage Area. B. The easement will allow the City access to the Bike/Pedestrian Path Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a bicycle and pedestrian path and to use as necessary for activities allowed in the Drainage Area. The easement will allow the general public access to the Bike/Pedestrian Area only for the t purpose of walking and using unmotorized forms of transportation such as bicycles. r Staff Report Page 6 'N R NEAR=: UNHIM !d y1TAf:r The applicant shall not construct or maintain any building or other structure in the Easement Area. E .ANATION OF EVIDENCE - DRAINAGE Denial of the App: cation Mould Serve Legitimate Government Pua!gm Legitimacy of the City's Purpose. As described by -the brief of the association of State Floodplain Managers to the Court, the state and federal governments have long provided relief from property damage incurred because of flooding. Because of this history, the interest in preventing both flooding and the damage it causes, is now well recognized at all levels of government. See Exhibit 7, Page 13 of the Floodplain Managers' brief. The Master Drainage Plan, at 2-5 to 2-8, 4-2 to 4-6, and Figure 4. 1, documents that flooding has occurred in several areas along Fanno Creek. As for the portion of the creep bordering the applicant's propevgr, the Pan ctatec- "gull Blvd, to Main St. Several major industrial and commercial structures mostly on the east side of the creek are just barely out of the 100-year flood plain. An increase in the 100-year flood flow caused by future urbanization of the basin could create severe flooding problems in this reach of the creek." Master Drainage Plan, at 4-5. The City's goal of preventing flooding and flood damage is implemented by the Comprehensive Plan, which states that its implementation is designed to prohibit any landform alterations or developments which result in any rise in the floodway elevation. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.2.2(a). The importance of the City's objectives in preventing flooding and flood damage was recognized by the Court. "Undoubtably, the prevention of flooding along Fanno Creek qualif[ies] as the type of legitimate public [purpose] we have upheld [under the Takings Clause]." 129 LEd2d at 318. We further note in this regard that the applicant has stated agreement with this, terming greenway preservation and storm drainage improvements as "valid, and even laudable, public goals." Brief before the Land Use Board of Appeals, LUBA No. 91-161, at 17. In summary, it is the position of staff that prevention of flooding along Fanno Creek is a legitimate government purpose. Denial of the Application Would Serve that Purpose. The faster Drainage Plan, at 1-2, identifies Fanno Creek as a major part of the City's system of facilitating storm drainage. The Drainage Plan also documents the relationship between storm drainage and flooding. The Plan recognizes that much rainfall in an urban setting will occur on impervious surfaces such as roofs, 7 sidewalks, and parking lots, and that such surfaces conduct the water quickly to the nearest available drainageway. Drainage Plan, at 4-29 et. seq. , and Chapter 5. The increased flow rate caused by the impervious surface tends to cause higher peak runoff rates, unless modifications Staff Report Page 7 L- I x 4. _ 3 are made to either slow the rate or facilitate the drainageway's ability to carry the water. Again, we note the words of the Court that "fi]t is axiomatic that increasing the amount of impervious surface will increase the quantity and rate of storm-water flow from [the applicant's] property." 129 LEd2d at 321 (citing the Drainage Plan at 4-29). The Drainage Plan also suggests improvements to the creek to facilitate a greater flow of water. In fact, improvements, in the form of significant channel excavation, are called for next to the applicant's property. Drainage Plan 7-4. The Comprehensive Plana incorporated the basic observations of the Drainage Plan, finding that "the major drainage problem in Tigard is the storm-water runoff throughout the area," and that "the primary water quantity problem is overbank flooding that occurs when storm-water quantity exceeds channel capacity." Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2 Storm Drainage, Findings, p. II-42. It goes on, with its implementing strategies, to fulfill the suggestions of the Drainage Plan. Specifically, it requires applicants seeking approval of development in areas subject to flooding to submit a site study which shows that the development "will not create adverse off-site impacts. " Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1(a). Furthermore, it states the following implementation strategy: "The City shall require as a pre-condition to development that all drainage can be handled on-site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off- site impact." Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1(c). This is the basic implementing standard pertaining to impacts of new development on the City's drainage system. Under this standard, without mitigation of the project's off-site impact on the drainage system, this application would have to by denied. CDC §18.32.250.A.1. Thus, denial of this application would serve the purpose of preventing flooding of Fanno Creek. The Easement Dedication Requirement of Proposed Condition One Will Serve the Same Legitimate Government Purpose Which Would Be Served by Denial Given that without mitigation of off-site drainage impacts the application could not be approved, the Council is faced with the choice of either denying it or approving it with conditions. The Code authorizes the conditioning of permit approval where it is "necessary to [c]arry out provisions of the Tigard comprehensive plan." CDC §18.32.250.E.1.a. That code section goes on to specify certain allowed forms of such conditioning, including dedication of easements. CDC §18.32.250.E.2. The easement dedication of the Proposed Condition One would provide access to the property's 100-year flood plain area for very limited purposes. Those purposes are directly in furtherance of the prevention of flooding of the creek by providing for its maintenance, to prevent obstruction of the drainageway, and for its improvement, to facilitate an increased flow of drainage. The original Condition One placed on the original approval called for an easement which would allow persons to go upon the greenway property for recreational purposes. This resulted from Staff Report Page 8 k ; r a ~C al...a ♦l,e.,s ' n n Pnt that the parka language m UiG Rams r'tan. It 1J UlG publuvu OIL SUM um, "101%, IS v ...i».........._ Plan be applied to this application. For this reason, the staff's recommended dedication condition has been narrowly drawn to allow access to the property only for the purposes of maintaining and improving the City's drainage system. - The Easement Dedication RM,uirement of Pmnosed Condition One is Roughly Proportional in -Nature and Extent to the bnt)Wa f Dev 1o men The Court did not hold that the dedication requirement before it lacked the requisite proportionality to the project's drainage impacts. Instead, the Court's rejection of the floodplain easement rested entirely on the fact that the easement as then drafted allowed public access to the area for recreational purposes. That infirmity now having been corrected, staff contends that the easement meets the Court's test. This notwithstanding, staff looked deeper into this issue on remand in order to quantify the drainage impact. Tire applicable standards relating to the site's duieity to handle stormwater flow are contained in USA regulations, which the City has adopted by reference. Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 12.02. Specifically, the site must be capable of handling the 25-year storm event. The City engaged study by Tim McGuire, an engineer at MacKenzie Engineering with recognized expertise in matters of storm drain engineering, to measure the characteristics of on- site facilities which would ensure no off-site drainage impact by this development. I1is report is attached hereto as Exhibit S. Three options for handling drainage were considered: detention, retention, and channel excavation. Detention involves the concept of metering. Upon development of the project, water is held in a facility on-site, with its outflow to the drainage system metered in such a way to ensure that it does not exceed the site's pre-development peak flow, caused by the 25-year storm event. McGuire's report details calculations of the peak flow coming from the site on occurrence of the 25-year storm event. This calculation was made for both the existing site and the developed site. Currently, the peak flow is approximately 1.32 cubic feet of water per second (cfs). Upon completion of this project, that rate will increase, at a minimum, to approximately 1.91 cfs.4 Therefore, this project will increase peak flow by at least .59 cubic feet per second. It is this increased flow which the on-site detention facility must handle in order to mitigate off-site impacts. 'Mr. McGuire' s testimony is very conservative as to the amount of this increase. For example, it assumes that the current building and impermeable parking area will be removed and replaced with permeable surface when the building called for in Phase I is built. If the old building remains or is replaced by an impermeable surface, then the run-off flow rate increases to three times the current mate. Staff Report Page 9 r. W~ NEW! McGuire shows that this flow leads to a necessary additional detention volume of 990 cubic feet. He then calculates the projected cost of providing on-site detention for such a volume to be $8,500. An alternative to handling the projected water volume through on-site detention is altering the creek itself, viz. increasing `the creek volume. McKenzie calculates that 220 square feet of area currently surrounding the creek would have to be excavated to provide this detention volume. The cost to pull the slope back in this manner is $2,500, plus additional costs for revegetatiun and erosion control measures. A third option is construction of a system which retains all additional drainage on site and facilitates its dissipation by percolation through the ground. Such a retention facility depends heavily on the nature of the soils on the site. Even assuming optimum soil conditions at the subject property based on the USGS Soil Conservation Study map, McGuire determined that "'.;`'►a„``:.a"'v..,L -7m " ....o ..:te °`..,..ld he ..=rly :u.~..:..,.:.... Le-asible 1+.'~, of up --l-nost all open site _ ~.s.. b rt. aa og:F.ace or, lWaar the property) and very costly (estimated at $6,800). Comparison of these cost figures, representing the cost impact that the project's storm drainage has on the City's drainage system, can then be made to the value of the property interest required to be dedicated. Appraisal of this latter figure was made by Rick Walker of the real estate appraisal firm of Palmer, Groth and Pietka, recognized experts in that field. Walker's conclusion, as set forth in the appraisal attached hereto as Exhibit 9, is that the value of this easement is $1,300. Clearly, this figure, valuing the applicant's required dedication, is well below the project's cost impact on the City's storm drainage system. Therefore, the requirement for dedication of an easement for flood control purposes is roughly proportional to this development's impact on flooding due to increased impervious surfaces. EXPLANATION OF EVIDENCE - TRANSPORTATION Legitimacy of the City's Pure. Problems associated with traffic congestion are well documented on a national scale. For example, the Federal Clean Air Act recognizes the importance of improving traffic flow in reducing traffic congestion. 42 USCS §7408(f)(A)(v)(xi). The findings in support of Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1 (at page II-54) document the congestion of the City's transportation system. The City's Comprehensive Plan recognizes local problems associated with traffic congestion. Specifically, the findings in support of Policy 7.6 recognize that such congestion slows the response time of emergency vehicles. Indeed, that policy details those transportation facilities which are particularly impacted in this manner. Main Street, on which the applicant's property is situated, is one of those facilities specified. Again, in its consideration of the record before it, the Court concluded that "[u]ndoubtably, the reduction of traffic congestion qualif[ies] as the type of legitimate public [purpose] we have Staff Report Page 10 H ROSE upheld [under the Takings Clause]." 129 L2d at 322. Again, the applicant has agreed that the City's goal hem is "laudable." See applicant's LUBA Brief, LUBA No. 91-161, at 17. Ihniul of the Application Would Serve this Purpose. As quantified below, if completed, the project would increase congestion of City streets. Specifically, it is the position of staff that 404 vehicle trips per day will be created by this project. Again, this simply bears out the conclusion reached by the Court, that "we have no doubt that the city was correct in finding that the larger retail sales facility proposed by [the applicant] will increase traffic on the streets of the Central Business District." 129 LEd2d at 322. Given this conclusion, it only stands to reason that denial of approval ~of the application would serve the purpose of reducing traffic congestion in the City. Condition Serves same T-°uMgse as Denial The Proposed Condition provides for a bicycle/pedestrian pathway to serve the property, as well as adjoining properties, as a portion of the City's planned comprehensive bicycle/pedestrian pathway. The evidence is compelling that such a pathway would reduce traffic congestion on City streets. In 1990, the United States Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Public Law 102-240. As suggested by the title of Lids legislation, it reflected a recognition by Congress that modes of transportation other than automobile, Wz. pedestrian and bicycle, were effective in facilitating travel for commercial purposes. Specifically, Congress found that "[i]t is in the national interest to encourage and promote the development of transportation systems embracing various modes of transportation . . . . To accomplish this objective, metropolitan planning organizations, in cooperation with the State . shall provide for the development of transportation facilities (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) 23 USCS § 134. Furthermore, as set forth in the work of Prof. Arthur C. Nelson, this conclusion is supported by studies involving the development of pedestrian/bicycle pathways in other cities. See A. Nelson, Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Ways: Public Policy Rationale and the Nature of Private Benefits, Center for Planning and Development, Georgia Institute of Technology, Working Paper Series (Jan. 1994), at 11-13, attached as Exhibit 10 hereto. The Court cited both of these sources in concluding that "in theory, a pedestrian/bicycle pathway provides a useful alternative means of transportation for workers and shoppers." 129 T .1MV)d at 318. The application states that the proposed building will be used as a general retail sales facility. While it may be argued that the current type of retail sales on the site are not amenable to bicycle traffic because of the size and bulk of the items sold, any such argument on this application is both irrelevant and incorrect. Staff Report Page 11 ' The relevant inquiry is whether the dedication of a portion of this property would reduce traffic congestion on the City's streets, not whether the dedication would facilitate shoppers coming to a store on the subject property. The public concern which is being addressed by the proposed condition, a concern which the Court fully endorsed, is traffic congestion. The City has shown that this problem would be exacerbated by the project, and therefore it may properly condition any approval on dedication of property which would be used to address that concern. Furthermore, significant evidence exists that the current use of the progeny involves sales to members of the public who will be inclined to use bicycles to get to the store. The items sold at the store include many which could be carried on a bicycle. For example, recent advertisements in the Oregonian have repeatedly listed items such as shower heads, faucet aerators, rolls of tape, and electrical outlets, in addition to sinks and other plumbing installations. Even the Court recognized that the applicant "wants to build a bigger store to attract members of the public to her property." 129 LEd2d at 322 (emphasis added). The Easement Dedication Requirement of Proposed Condition One is Roughly Proportional in Nature and Extent to the Impacts gf the ]Proposed Development Quantification of the project's impacts on the automobile traffic system was undertaken in the previous approval, and was endorsed by the Court. 129 LEd2d at 322. Now, the Court requires further evidence to relate this impact to the pathway dedication condition. To assist in making this comparison, staff commissioned a report by David Larson of McKenzie Engineering, a firm with recognized expertise in matters of traffic engineering. Larson submitted a report, attached as Exhibit 11 hereto, which makes this comparison. We will summarize that report and its conclusions here. ;f In order to compare this impact on transportation facilities to the dedication condition, it is necessary to scale the impact in terms of a dollar value. Larson relied on a cost methodology derived from the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, Washington County Code Chap. 3.17, as updated in Washington County Ordinance 379 § 3. This ordinance provides for 4 ° the assessment of traffic impact fees on new development. The express purpose of the ordinance is to "ensure that new development contributes to extra capacity transportation improvements ' needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by such development." Thus, the improvements provided for by the TIF are necessitated by the impact of new development. The TIF Ordinance measures each development's impact on transportation facilities, and does so in terms of dollar cost. The TIF Ordinance and related schedules and reports are submitted herewith as part of Exhibit 12. The TIF Ordinance made a determination of the funding necessary, to construct all infrastructure needed to support full build out through 2005. The amount of that funding totalled $465 million. This is the amount of funding necessary to accommodate the transportation impacts of new development, and therefore represents the County-wide dollar impact of all such development on transportation facilities. Staff Report Page 12 ,r y S 177 MEN The ordinance scales the system-wide impact of distinct types of development. For retail sales facilities, that scale is based on Average Daily Trip rates. ' Specifically, using ITE trip generation models, Larson concludes that the project will create 404 additional car trips per day. These are car trips added by this project, not those aggregate for the property once the new store is constructed. The ordinance also gauges the percentage of the system-wide impact of new development which its fee is designed to recover. The TIF is not designed to fully recover the cost of transportation system impact. County-wide, this figure is 21 That is, 21 % of the funds needed to meet the County's need for all highway improvements necessitated by new development through the year 2005 are recovered through the TIF. The ordinance also examined and specified the portion of each city's transportation needs which would be met by the TIF. For Tigard this recovery rate is 32%. This means that, according to the TIP ordinance, 32% of the project's impacts on the City's transportation system will be met by its TIF assessment. Since the TTF covers a defined percentage of the project's total impact of the City's transportation system, we can easily calculate the amount of that impact which is not mitigated by the TM assessment. It is the impact which is not mitigated by the TIF which is of concern to the City, and which the Code and Plan require to be addressed as discussed above. Larson calculates this figure at $33,496.22. Larson also considered whether other factors mitigate this system impact. He concludes that in contributing to the pathway system, the applicant will reduce its number of Average Daily Trips by automobile. With reference to the LUTRAQ study, Larson concluded that this property can expect a 9 % decrease in this figure by virtue of its proximately to the pathway. This is a further mitigation of the system-wide transportation facilities impact discussed above. Specifically, the 9 % decrease in Average Daily Vehicle Trips translates to a $4,433.06 decrease in that impact, reducing the unmitigated impact to $29,063.16. It is this dollar figure to which the value of the easement must be compared. Again, comparison of this system impact to the value of the easement dedication for the pathway illustrates adherence to the rough proportionality rule. The appraisal of this easement is $4,300, much less than the dollar cost of the impact that the project will have on the City's transportation system. See Exhibit 9, Appraisal. CONCLUSION This application can be approved as meeting all applicable criteria, subject to the condition appearing on page six. pjbinch%90036\ftffcptd(1(6l20196) Staff Report Page 13 F err 115T FOR STAFF REPORT Exhibit 1 LUBA Record, LUBA Case No. 90-029 (Retained by City due to bulls. The record is available for review at City Hall and will be available at the hearing.) Exhibit 2 LUBA Record, LUBA Case No. 91-161 (Retained by City due to bulk. The record is available for review at City Hall and will be available at the hearing.) Exhibit 3 Partial Transcript of Proceedings Before the United States Supreme Court, Dolan v. City of Tigard, Case No. 93-518, Page 4. Exhibit 4 Supreme Court's Opinion in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. , 1i4 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994). Exhibit 5 Notice of Public Hearing for April 25, 1995 remand hearing. Exhibit 6 Applicant's Requests for Continuance dated April 17, 1995 and May 10, 1995. Exhibit 7 Amicus Brief - Association of State Floodplain Managers, Pages 12-13. Exhibit 8 Drainage Impact Study by Tim McGuire, McKenzie Engineering dated June 20, 1995. Exhibit 9 Appraisal of Proposed Bike Path and Flood Control Easements by Rick Walker, Palmer, Groth & Pietka dated May 3, 1995. Exhibit 10 "Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Ways: Public Policy Rationale and the Nature of Private Benefits" by Prof. Arthur C. Nelson, Center for Planning and Development, Georgia Institute of `r r Technology, Working Paper Series (Jan. 1994), Pages 11-13. Exhibit 11 Transportation Impacts Study by David Larson, McKenzie Engineering dated June 16, 1995. s Exhibit 12 Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance and related schedules and reports. u y u 1': VCC11^I;,L .111%,*% N S) IRilPT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE 'URT THE SUPREME C( OF THE UNITED STATES CAPTION: FLORENCE DOLAN, Petitioner v. CITY OF TIGARD CASE NO: No. 93-51.8 PLACE: Wasliington, D.C. DATE: Wednesday, march 23, 1994 PAGES: 1-54 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY 1111 14TH STREET, N.W. . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-5650 202 289-2260 EXHIBIT .3 t.r r 1 QUESTION: Mr. Smith, are you going to comment 2 on the question of whether the City would have been within / 3 its rights to deny the building permit entirely? 4 MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. And we would agree 5 that the City would have been within its authority to deny 6 the permit outright. However, that that of course 7 might raise a different- takings question that's outside 8 the realm of dedications and municipal exactions, and not L2 only that, that no, Your Honor, we are not. 10 QUESTION: We we take the case on the 11 assumption that the City could have-denied-it?- 12 MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. 13 And one of the problems that we have is if if 14 all that is required in a threshold inquiry for dedication dY; 15 to meet constitutional muster is that the the 16 Government could have denied the permit outright, and 17 never reach the question of whether there is the essential 18 nexus or the requisite proportionality, then there is 19 really no textual meaning that I believe is given to this 20 Court's opinion in Nollan, and there is no fulfillment of 21 the the mandate in Armstrong v. United States, that 22 individual's should not be singled out to bear public 23 burdens that, in all fairness and justice, should be borne 24 by the public as a whole. 25 The the City really demanded Mrs. Dolan"s 4 th... ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W. SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202-) 289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO r- ~ t P ~1t; : 1~ t t: t 1 _ . F µ tiJ' t• 'Vim... V,C Caa- r of the Federal DOLO 1, TA ?A Z04 a) 129 n elauee n~ ect 2d in violation of the taki ing the till evi_ 5. 129 L Ed ropertY The beard, however, is by subetan suPP°T as noble relatit 15 d COURT n.PORTS tea tal~ Of i ions F'[,h Amendmon were city a G hat t a reao t dad to tan U.S. SUPRA Cow used that the iew that them was uiremen tea acts of claim, (1) s ~od the, meet an$ the req of the it ap and exPr° $evalop fife alleviation c18 Pathway ar' an dence~ n (a) the rOpWd' and N) between fora gra°nway, of.a pedestrian u /bicy o£ APP in the creo Oregon gcpr,sme , along traf£tc and the facili~ ttation. The °n ~ 5taQ'~ increased means of transp ntentton that the tJnt favor on Setricter rime alternative . tea the owner's ble relatio8~3iPThe.Oreg 1 had affirming, re3ec the teat of reasons 2~2 p Gerrit had abandoned 113 Or APP . that both Perm. condi(2) ttht(rOiOre' i "toil nexus ( ed the view. poed site. and owner's buai- lost of airming, e%PrWvelopinent of the pro ton of the r LO, Petitioner M. to the de not or the expans a i iL! FIARENCE co ~entiol blolntod to the imp ead v wore (31 Or 110, 437)• Supreme Court rovers ScA dA remand nzVq` C . ' CITY OF T1G~ the United SWt Pined by O' decide whether conditions % L Fd 2d 30,1" S Ct On cOrtiora b garirz4uisT, Ch. order to are imp~6 by In axi opinion by held that (1) to which conditions an 512 US _,129 (rio. JJ.F it was. a city, whi rant, constituU, , 93318} g die dedication of land ' building otlveo 1994. of a lot owners rnendinant s taking's t~vicea - to ided June , the on its aPPn al nt:ud nexus ex's ZA 01 h 23,1g94. P, titidar city violation of tho• Fifth A and tb) if the court Arguod °"n roportioaalitYrequired, talci ins whether an e+ city per ions, uh , it Moclo court ust first deform the mit condit a ~vhatheT the have shown r° g building (o) interests and ust det~sra'ur the proj'd laion: City held a°n~ cla to condition and then the court the exnctiona and }r eat hand+r°II ire, rtwoy an jeatstrio legitimate state nexus exia between ..0 thai cit for gr~ •~ds that a portionolity and (2).. to the DeC Amen dm of portions of lot to y a tough Pro r the { hna shovm ed devel°pinent~ an gtu►Ot+O stints ink aatwil on d~ication at the propos to bQtwcen 10~ dingo did sot 1 i1 abora, impact , nexus 00 0 the city pathway. SUW&A sated a retn - An, the cosh 186tori use :l h an esaeni in lr pro~rtionslity, ivato ono, was which she ope ve$ •and thong ues, ho ; u d to P Oregon, on a bigger store, a ®it sv two condrttona , an Oppose had not ra The owner ':t its i ng. lot in Oreg dire fob comp u require ment or test of shoo lic grae wolf and (b) the city and bi,cyclp of a city building I~Tmit for a P cont rol, of vehicle.an the pedeat son fora a Cow vor sal why laid uan that bad no in tilde interest of flood additional number to to the'citY an additional strue t to the dty' app areas and mission; pure two conditions: required demonstrating that the onably r arkin8 veloprn¢nt yeas ed the pplication'subject portion Of hflT tot with and burden b expanded pThe city's plannIng CaW a to the de bWA a ranted 1 as a greenwaY the h u hono corner an development cod , the city t) wed tto g Pathway an tripe gepQth rated condi~on aIIUtrGi JJ , nonality tn) which flo cle a Vner bir-y the owner d c lain of a creek estrianlhir! b Bi..+ MUK and s othere. tough ear goodp „ Iot; and t2) as a the lloodplain: nd made Scxv ~s' J , joined Y hurt a test of I o exc~uae d lit n ig the 1~ a bouudarY °f ' of land adjacent to the request ers that W the supremee~rty owner s renti. an admittedl al of along mission denied ume that cuatoffi clo the view narrowly on a p iynplenn ectt+d spa } additional 15 aria strip the coin reasonable to edrlart/b:+Y too roof on a city tcd a rej (;%Irve a variances but it was Bite co a novel burl and (c) resurrec the Supreme a were, at most, findings nu~~ to the effect that tI) f the old utihm o n d Tecreatianctl [r neivo land use plan )even under of the future srs lio of the site, loaned iD° rehe ceusu~ict in the city's cap era comprehensive omp and a ploys u~ o development for trarisPo ,s P five due pro analysis adjacent to the expect that some use pathvrsy it aY jubstan is found y athwaY adl noble to lbicYcle tbi ° f the now the dof harinl error. $ C;a+iTt reasO n ,i t2) it w°$ ould us° the pedestrian sate pedestrian am test, ote than t, while the Suprem en. kin8 for bicY nvcnicnt, old ore on, i uothing nr view tba ~tween gover par creation of a.co nation co ccung ling, erg the aired nt. of transportation tra(I~, ant exr real hnie co- str alt Ornativo s and lessen the increase flow, the rM op SOUx, J.' di~n~ the degree of Connection the adverse efi~m °at veloi hand, which system ag on nearby eta crease in storm leaf int i a announazd a test as liiterest iai land t the tactic of txte case so tragic based n an anticipated related to the p coined, sub. of l exaction.of an to l that t9s and (A) ) based the flondPlum was roved by the city and use ard ts art (1) did not app Y the of n wag app Al a i not to, of dedication an Thedication co ca on io 8rOgerdinorder g su ded On ication aPPe requir t,~ were uncompew 4 rve tbAt ap opeals,edthe a dmrlopmcnt' and therefore coast late. to the propaced + .r fi=r c , 2d DOLAN v CITY OF TIGARD U.S. SUPREME COURT RE PORTS 129 L);d (1994) 129 L Ed 2d 304 'did not raise the question that the court addressed; (2) improperly placed on interests and the permit conditions; Constitutional Law § 38.3 talc the city the burden of producing evidence of relationship; and (3) having if the court finds-that a nexus exists, ings claus6 = states thus assigned the burden of proof, improperly concluded that the city lost. then the court must* determine 4. The-clause in the Federel Con- . whether the city has shown a rough etitution's Fifth Amendmeht prohib- MMNOTES proportionality between the exec- iting the taking of private property ; Canifted to United States Supreme Court Digest, Lowyors' Edition Hens and the ptojected impact of the for public use without just compena- proposed"development, that is, while 'tion. is applicable' to the states ; Em±t►oat Domain § 98 -taking - isms, (c) while the city contends that .no precise mathematical calculation . through the' Constitution's Four- building permit conditions - a recreational purpose is only ancil- is required, the city. must make some te:enth Amendment. 'dedication of land lary, the owner would lose all rights dugli7ed.determination,• In-li. Even though an essential to regulate the time in which the sort that oftheindivierdu4 conditions are re- . Eminent Domain § 6 constitu- norus exists between legitimate state public entered the greenway, regard- p tional purpose interests and two conditions imposed loss of an interference that might lated both in nature and extent to 6.-One of the principal purposes-of by .a• city on its approval of noof be posed with the store, and (d) the the impact of the proposed develop- the takings clause of the Federal owner's building permit for a bigger proposed development. does' not en- mont; in such circumstances, the Constitution's. Fifth Amendment, in retail store, a paved and expanded croach on existing greenway space; burden properly rests on. the city to prohibiting the taking of private parking area, and an additional and (2) the city has not met its bur- justify the required dedication, be- property for public use without just structure for complementary busi- den on demonstrating that the addi- cause the city has made an adjudica- compensation, is to bar a government nesees--which conditions reqire the tional number of vehicle and. bicycle tive decision to condition the owner's' from forcing some people alone to owner to dedicate to the city (1) as a trips generated by the devetlopment application for a building permit on bear public burdens which, in all greonway the portion of her lot reasonably relate to'the pathway an individual parcel. (Stevens, Black- fairness and ju0tioo,-should be borne within the 100-year tloodplain of a condition, as (a) the city must make mun, Ginsburg, and. Souter, JJ., dis- by the public as a whole. crook which, flows through one cor- some effort to quantify its findings rented from this holding.) )Eminent Domain § 78 - taking - nor and along one boundary of the beyond a conclusory statement that land along creek lot, and (2) as a pedestrian/bicycle the dedication could offset some of Appeal § 470 - from state' court 6. With respect to a creek which pathway an' additional Mfoot strip the traffic demand generated, and (b) federal quostion'- eminent flows through one corner and along .i of land adjacent to the fioodplain- the takings clause requires the city domain one boundary of a city'lot; if the city for purposes of determining whether to implement its policy of providing 3a, 3b. On certiorari to review a a the • two. conditions constitute an a continuous pathway system by decision of a state's highest court- simply requires the lot oorner to uncomponsabsd taking in violation condemnation unless the required re- which,- in upholding a denial of an dedicate a strip s land slung the creek for public use, then s, taking of the takings clause of the Federal lationship between development and owners request for a variance, ruled occurs under the takings cl.aiuac of Constitution's Fifth Amendment, added traffic is shown. (Stevens, that two conditiondimpose:'d by a city Federal Constitution's Fifth Amend- come findings of.the city's planning ' Blackmun, Ginsburg, and Souter, on its approval of a building permit meat, because such.public access commission that are relied upon by JJ., dissented from this holding.) did not constitute an tthbompensated deprives the owner of •tho fright to the city'do not satisfy the takings -taking in violation of the takings Evidence clause of the Federal Constitutions ' requirement or test of showing rough Eminent Domain § 98; exclude ethers. proportionality between the condi- § 398 - taking- pormit con- Fifth Amendment-the United Property and Property Rights § 3 tF r.'' tions and the projected impact of the ditfons - burden of proof States Supreme Court will take the eizcluslon• proposed development, because (1) 2a-le. In order to decide whether 'case as it comes to the court and will 7a, 76. The right to exclude others the city hits never said why a public conditions requiring the dedication not pass on the constitutionality of is one of the moat essential nd'ks in groonway, as opposed to privttto orie, of land to a city, which conditions the city's variance provisions, which . the bundle of rights that elre com- ;l is required -in the interest of flood are imposed by the. city on its ap• allowed the owner to pose alterna- monly characterized as property. control, ev6a though (a) a ptiblic proval 'of a lot owner's building per- five mitigation measures to offset the greenway would cause the owner to mit, constitute an uncompensated expected impacts of her proposed Eminent Domain §-98 taking - lose the right to exclude others, (b) it taking in violation of the takings development, where the state's high. land use regulation is difficult to we why allowing !Core- clause of the Federal Constitution's est court did not address the cone- 8a, 8b. A land use regulation does ational visitors in the greenway is Fifth- Amendment, a court must first quencee of the owner's failure to not effect a taking, for purposes of aufl4ciently related to the legitimate determine whether an essential provide alternative mitigation mea-' the takings clause of the Federal interest In reducing flooding prob- nexus exists between legitimate state Cures in her variance application. Constitution's Fifth Amhndment., if , SM 1; 1: p 11; 11 ROOM!! KIM Z"' ^ OF'1'iCsARD actions to 6-0 v A 2A sod ex le from a 1 ressonab DC (1994 ~ L generally congestion 1 SIVP a Part of the rst avoid excero rty use• FA 2d h eat ;roposea p 0matn $110 punt 129 L muc Aendm is as B, which the Const►tutmr C~UgT pEPO as a of R ghts ent or Fourth tglsing ..-ngntD of the U B SUPI~MB lot, and (2) - - wendm $ 96 -n°o the talsi cla fiend d~ t boundary bicycle pathway dlacflnt w ont n°~ tuglons dgtexmining 14.Und°rt~tution`s ita tiallY aAnd- d pedestr~-(00t strip of lanurposes of p°~i u;poses of r a city Feral CA public des ill not a iy r}atio~`~ ion al 16 lain--for p 13• 4oldd strong s r q ithe two Cgndld g her Cott dibons ding Permit went. a con di cie to Ipbaro~ca and t ion, of the ;0g logitumate or econ to th whether 0ngato whet ofd nailalit`! rove tee ubj the s~tutb Ysnow deny °r own ' land With ;mining uncornP s a rovsl r0p0rtion of p rhievlr►g aa. the tpkin8 on its app roug clause ;ran the con . not nor a by dete nstituto of ate' of the ° . w. p tions c°, s ,amble use condrtsonn im +s in violation institution' satisfy tent of the ta~~ ,s Fifth w ortex cut the tl►o t to two vat of a lot owner 11 taking Fgdcral the uizem stitution trots, sly for` t reaPPc to rota of tb0 bocause(1) re4 graI Con for atreo way of paw scion, clause Amgndmgnt,, along' the the Fea dedications . vrays hro ~t t a t6 app. for a bigger dm city an lenand other public of 6,ooair,g of traffic ~aen building.Petra' 0 Other constru that the Fifth aad s np argum'ont t - the pY°ventloa the re ductton th ~'aaliiY sidewalks, - k store- la jur 2d' Toning and 6. re ean• . ould deprive , creek Is, in the area * and (2) i~ CgP the 0ondltlons catty bengfic►al Use conSCSt. ublic Purfor to) °s 161, 83 two 04 she currentldY 62, Icg►tm~ nouue ° dgveloP' et econosni 959Z, 104. t Do65, 491 , 492 , 9315 , 936 939 of ioPertY~ hero On the lot an • the ceq flooding, roe rvious of hex p sto 8toze nomic Clio p thq imp° Bminen Tanning - P acts 2d at~as a Boras oco n ould 0% pan ana incroa sn o 26 Am tuning 43, 44, 48-611 v), ocimg rot to opera. and of F , as her to Pr0rivaOerty' • s surface on Clio water r tho Plan & Pz Forms 8 Am jut P Proof roof of FActs thusfrom h talcin t 0f storm in thgo rY, a, Sur P1 main; Sur W50. Domain 98 trirs ° amouc A and (b) athway would 261 131 649, Eminent ~etion; l0 Am Property ~ vent ~ lo doctrina t p edesto' '/bicycle V~ative 'means 4 1 ' proof of;acts- of %or Reytrlity for`~a~g aQOxnn10 ttled 1 tb conditions useful.al s -alit, m Sur ouabloneeB jack of 11e~ per, a worker mom: Ordm°n 9. Under rovide fox. A 63, Unross ce ,inco'a jitutional a pe p e entU° 0jpg al tranapor 2d Jur'`ziala 99,hgf from 7'0 , of raent mAY not Corkstitutlon of rs. of p roof bur 5 and Viern ive UP a ht, under the ehoppe don dznent Floods to uch as the rig a eral C°nstr- gvidor►co $ 98 16 Am men 95 t Domain; son . right 's of Clio F to receive rogvlatle ojuatiA9 most sell, titution, ' c1au? dment+ Is re inentDommu 4 mits; Fminen est, Em Building per Floods And rtY ,at lib.In bit 7Ahe b guurdenlati proons I Uj V,4 ' Dig Domain; tunsstion wb0n•p gheng° 1 Applica Y Bicycles; t• t bus a Xublic use 6't conferred of a mun'icip - arty challenge ~ Ed lndex, estr~ Erninen L V10061115, P~else; Building Permi taken for tionarY We the prop rc,ts on the.p've' that it COrop• of dial where orhy to tiro of 'P l3icY gaping fora ment, relation, elation lotion Index, triers thin m t, the govern little or no Black- reg An arbitrary regU' AjR Flooding, Ped~ "taking, v. r0perty for tl - o by lass rty sou8~?o qgt. (8tov°zisenq ed in e ryghts• S, loll wont A to wb 't constitutes ng of ~7Yate q m m (3inehoilBding) ~prn+tltutlono~a busim'oas 'gu Et~o ro0 court's q~ut s prohibition e$° y F,d yd bon's Bill of Righ . CA& „art frost tbis $ 9g taking ~ 1DOmain $ king A govern- sup fifth Amend hoot just comPe . Federal COTO WuEd 24(3B6. ~,nont Dom~r it 001101ona SAP donodusa ;0$010• public use hnt pro 061013ai8 L Y4 2a 1386, . . tuout corave on• bulid4mg Pe and is 12: ure'aa abut. measure eat noto. ' licabthe states.. as cal g iodicah~ essential to `~qp cstB Mognntal m of irrinuli Cho a on tlr Comm. le to or fi ood Plain excepti°n app are cons easura etiolate tu° ar Wing of `vetlan& dition Of hanger' 49 oug 10a, 10b. iti~►ate std by a city door Lituti )ual cha11 a den leg , . imp ,build from that * Is Federal Cones of xO Bs con r botw condltlona . qr s ol", )sck l u ALvOth 4~ lion to imP°ao~ high*oy mad t 3~t and two. ,bvol of a lot 0wu .l store, a ~,nsion hts;.tbas that two 19 Zoning Comm uirQmenta as to on its aPF~ ab18B°r raring area: 'ban's Bill of :R8•to a claim on its t trait r city Authors y of or variance, req . in8 d and expandcd etr'4 46ure fox co~ndm~ ~mun.it y aP4imph~osed by a wit cor►sts permit, 4Q2 3 : and an a ddib ese t" 4edicate cordovalof auilding ted'saki of the (~LR3d plomeatai'S', o the ownor the aPP. uncompensa . a oar tuts an gs else dmont, tions ro4~ (1) as a.gr t, a 100.1 violation 0. the fifth tho' city -thin ws GOnstitution ich portion her f,a creek wbelo gong one fl~ou9h one corner and 306 ' t a lid U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d v DOLAN,v-CITY OF TIGARD. ' (1994)129 L Ed 2d 304 I Validity and construction of statute or ordinance requiring land developer the conditions imposed oa.Dolan'a tool. The, diferenoe.to Doren i% the • to dedicate portion.of land for recreational purposes, or make payment permit--the necessary- connection loss of• her Ability to ercludo o,hora i in lieu thereof. 43 ALR3d 862. I required by the Fifth Amendment is from her property, yet the city-has I' Auto-Cite®: Cases and annotations referred to herein can be further r. 'rough proportionality.'.' No precise not attempted to make.any individu- _ 1 researched through the Auto-Citee computer-assistod research service. W11thomatical calculation is re- alined determination to support. this Use Auto-Cite to check citations for form,- parallcl references, prior and qWrod, but the -city. must -make some part of its request. The city hats also later history, and annotation references. ; sort of individualized determination not met its burden of demonstrating . that the required deddmtign:ls.re- that.the additional; number. of vehi- latod,both in nature and-extent.-.0 cle and-bicycle trips geaerata:d••by BYI.LABUB BY REPORTER OF DEMONS tho• proposed development's impact. Dolan's development roasoAaWy re- i ' This:•ie essentially the "reasonable lates•to-the city's requirement for a ' The City Planning Commission Held. The city's dedication require- 'relationship'test adoptod'by the ma- dedication of. the pathway. easement. k conditioned apprgval of petitioner mente constitute an uncompensated jgnity of the state. courts. • • - : Tho.city must quantify its finding be- Dolan's applicatlon to expand her taking of property. -;,•(d) The findings. upon which the yon(1 a•conclusory statement thaat the store and pave her parking lot upon (a) Under the well-settled doctrine o , elty'rclies Flo not' show the required dedication could offset some.nf the her compliance with dodication of ..Of "unconstitutional conditions," the xeasonabla relationship between- the traffic demand goperatd• by the de- land (1) for a public grocnway along government may not require a per. dfoodplain. comment and Dolan'a•pro• 'velopment.. ~ Fanno Croak to minimize flooding son to give up a constitutional right posed building. The Community.;De- 317 Or. 110; 864.P2d 437,. reversed that would be exacerbated b the in exchan o for a discretionary bene• yalopment Code already,requirod and remanded. : increases in impervious y surfaces fit g conferred•by the government hat Dolan-Jeave.159o' of. her. prop_ -Rehnquist, C. J.,• delivered the associated with her development and where the property sought has little wty as open space, and the undevel- opinion . of the Court, in -which vpod floodplain would have nearly O Qonnor•, Scalia, Kennedy, and (2) for a podeotrian/bicycle pathway or no relationship to the bencfiL. In ThomnA, JJ., joined, Stevens, J., filed intended to relieve traffic congestion evaluating Dolan's claim, it niust be. tatisfiod that requirement. However, in the -City's Control Business Die- determined whether an "essential -the city has never said why. a public, a dissenting opinion, in.which Black- as opposed trict. She appealed the Commission's nexus" exists between a legitimate opposed- to a private, greonway is mun• and Ginsburg, JJ., ,joined. Required in the interest of flood con- ' Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion., denial of her request for variances state interest and the permit condi. • il:• from these standards to the Land tion. Nollan v California Coastal APPEARMCMOFCOUI'M Use Board of Appeals (CUBA), alleg- Co * m n, 483 US 826, 837, 97 L Ed David B. Smith argued the cause for petitioner. ing that the land dedication require- 2d 677, 107 S Ct 3141. If one does„ Timothy V. Ramis argued the cause for respondent. I ments wore not related to the pro- then it must be decided whether the Edwin S. Hneedler:argued the cause for the United States, an l posed development and therefore degree of the exactions demanded by ; an(icus curiae, by special leave of court. constituted an uncompensated tak. the permit conditions bears the re- OPIMON OF THE COURT ing of her property under the Fifth quired relationship to the projected Amendment. LUBA found a reason- impact of the proposed development. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivl red 107*91 Ct 3141 (1987), o) what 'ia the able relationship between (1) the Fd, at 834, 97 L Ed 2d 677, 107 S Ct 'the opinion ofthp Court. " . required degree or connection lie- ` I development and the requirement to 3141. tweeri the dxactibne -imposed by'the (b) Preventing flooding along 140, 2a] Petitioner challenges'the city 'and the projected impacts. of the dedicate land for a greenway, stare Fanno Crock and reducing traffic the larger building and paved lot decision of the' Oregon, -Supreme proposed development. would increase the impervious our- congestion in the District are legiti- Oourt which held that the'-city of mate public purposes; and a nexus Tlgard could condition the'a?proval - 1 faces and thug the runoff into the exists between the first purpose and of'ho's' building'petzrilt on tho•dedica- creek, and (2) alleviating. the impact limiting development within the 17 tipn;ef n portion of her property. for The S7-ate of Oxegon.onacted a of increased traffic from the develop- crook's floodplain and between the l~pod, control and traffic imprgvQ- compreheneivg land -use naanage- meet and'fncilitating the provision second purpose and providing for ments. 317 Or •110, 864' P2d 437 ment•program•in-1973. Ore aw Stat of n pathway as an alternative alternative means of transportation. (1983): We granted certiorari to re- 197.006-197.860 (1991): The pee- r moans of transportation. Both the (c) In deciding the second 'ques- solve a question left open by our de- gram required. all_Ore$on cdtieg nhd icy Stets Court of Appeals and the State tion-whethor the city's findings are cision in Nollan v California Co68taa1 counties to:adopt 'new compreb:ensi4e Id: Supreme Court Afirmed. constitutionally sufficient to justify Corram n, 483 US 825, 97 L liW t 2d 677, land use plans that-were consistent 810 311 1 1. wnm, `r DOLAN v CITY OF TIGARD ~ (1994) 129 L Ed 2d 304 within he flood- 129 t, Ed 'e coniprehenaive plan bicycle. pathway . h the U.5: SUPREME COURT REPORTS ment„ The city tan plain ted in pedestriaccordance c eleu. } system. adopanlbicy P ~ee w YOOap C1~ § 18.120.180.A.8, App to ]3iief established that the increase- in lm- includes the F city's enno grFt tanning goals es part of the with the statewide p $ tans are pervious' surfaces associated with lied to the city' for a for Respondent. exa u 197.176(1); 197.260. Th P regulations continued urbanlz:ttion rablems To Petitioner app th implemented by land use f perinit.to redevelop - ~,us, the. Commission ate' "'e" cerbatO ombat these risks,these' flooding the Drainage proposed plane called` for nearly titioner dedicate the portion o'.f her which are part of an ititCgt comb e site. Her required that etch -of legally binding ti g~ p10~' ested• a eorios of irLiprove• doubling the •eize• of the atom and regulations. to Property lying within the 100-Year 1fl7.17•ti, rata Bugg uare=feet, and pavm8 (loodplain for improvement 'Of • a "17 6t~' ~1 apace panting lot. The' existing the storm drainage SYstcm along Fenno 197.176(2)(b).•Purgu ilt to tho Stag % monk to lithe on l'soacavationBin he , l Tigard, a including titianer'e property. Creak and that she dedicate en.-addi- requireincnta, the city df Arty. located on the opP in sections tional 16-foot otrip of. land adjacent r community•of some 30,b01rosidenta area next to Po parcel, would be razed don the new d dkcen! on tho southwest edge of Portland, APP pot for'Cert G18, Gar mmendatione included ensuring construction progressed on the floodplain as a The Pdedica,tion Plan and fete to build bicycla pathway. that the •floo iplain remains free of building. In the second phase of the uartj feet, devol®pod a comprohenaive p reserved project, petitioner proposed req aired by that condition dnoonkpas- as structures an'that nirnize flood dam, roximately Cont Code in ltd CoThe nCDC requires . as groonways• to mi Doe No F, an additional structure an thelemen- sea •aPP the property. in • meeat Colo (CDC). arm(' zoned proporty owners 1%,S the W$ side of the site for ovm'►de more or roughly 10% of ago atr -16, t ' Itoo4 to businesses, and top . accordance Central Du©these tri to Comply ch• 6; PP ludod0 6-21' The t Ofi Drainage The proposed ezp'angion with con he dedirated tionor could rely open ~ aW with a: 6q'% oen•apaoe and, landacap plan concluded that the cost of these parking l the ing requirement, which limits fatal and intgjIsifled use arrcehcne is the Property,to Meet t}x~ including all' $true improvements should be • shared with the city's zoning and landscaping Lures 'ment man- site coverage, to 85% of based on both der ownars indirect along the city's zoning 6ch.emo. and paved parkingr Central'. Businesto DBrieft for PpC dated by < The to Pet benefits, with property. ' the parcel..= ch 18.66, App the waterways paying more duo to § 18.6,6.030. App APP to pet for Cert G28-G29 the coet of maintain Cl CQ• for Co G17. After the study that receive. id-, cli 8, p 8.11. CDC Chap- Commission ing a landscaped buffer between the nation study th the direct banoftt that they would tionor planning citywould box lion of n tr traiisPo The City tics. articular tore 18.84, 18'86 and CDC anted petitioner's s permit apri dedicated area and the neW t. re identified congestion in the Central ' ` Business District as. a p out.. these recommends- flea subject The conditions CDC esta imposed by establishes [d, at G44 G46• varie.nces ptoblem, the city adopted a plan for 3 18.1carry carry ut. the Tigard Par petitioner requested .10() and a pedestrian /bicycle pathway the city's CDC. • in. Plan c following standard for site davel- from the CDC standrf~ taebn be (ions. owns a - roust: are granted only Where it tended to encourage alternptivea to , the rtation for short petitioner Florence. Dolan • store opment re,eiew approval: ahe,,n that, Owing automobile transpo plumbing ft And electric supply ifle pia ce of 'The CDC requires that new located o Main Street in the. Central "Where landfill thin and adja- stances related development facilitate this plan by and/or. develop to are) a specific of e cstrian path' rticnt is 4ltowed ear floodPlain, the the land, the lit r rovisiona dedicating land for P~ Business District of the city. The cent to the 100-Y licable zoning P ways where provided for in the store covers approximately 9,700 city shall require the dedication of the apR ;c lo pa ld cause pedestrian/bit., pathway plan. square feet on the eastern side of a sufficient apeuJand area for green- wou it unto hardship' Maxtor 1.67-acre 8 theVariance ar el, whic~i includes a `ray adjoining and within the atirY CDC § 18.134A10. ~•PP to The city also adopted a varking lot. Fanna Creek Drainage Plait: (Drainage Plan), The g - noodplain. This area shall include Brief or flows through the southwestern tor- posing alternative mitig;atuig f0i e plc hotted that flooding western portions at'a suitable el eda for an! Blinn per Respondent 4.010 Sather Drag erase along nor of the lot and along its. the construction of a P contain. the fel3ovrinK occurred in several undary. The year-round now of the a. c~c 41s.i3a.uso areas near 110 ion Sneludcs the [allowing ariawherebythedo-i~°ki satlwritY crook renders the stela nivirtually Z. The city's d" ►icant shall en rave, approve with inodiflwt+oas, or Fenno Creek. including Doc No aa petitioner's propartY• 2 to 4-6; croek'q 100-Y~r flOOdP relevant conditions: "i. ThnwP~P Ell ~peguons can aPP 2-6 to 2-8; 4- dedicate w the Gtity me, Gree • deny a varlanco re4 will not be metal F eh 2, pp a Plan oleo unusable for eor~morpial develop- ` c all "tllrfho P P of this t- trian! e r ulriog Of the site th at [allwith'sn rho existing 1 ally detrimental to the p .,pees the ~1?~ Figure 4-1. The Drainage ."the dedesii;ication and linking developm construction en °C ~ ts, dtatrisn and year floodplain [a[~abelowelevmton 150'0) U -01 of lieiee portions of tine props Y sast o be in conaict with the PO apPi,Coble Pd S.'lo e 18.68.040•A•1 b provldr: and all property 16 feet above (to ~'11i 1d- hensive plan, to any Ye• moat Colo, an3 development sha1T't eSllt i 'Pe des bli<epaths identified in the comprohonalve tan, boundary. of the community De 'oP atendards. and biercle circulation u the seta tths oocatad aoent plan.;l[ dicaiet•n)n in the Cannot con, the IGOA oin oodP other atcd ldkepa run to the amount of f Lho.wn- ins shall lk.dcstga sO °s not to intrude into applicable pol►aea and . ' App ..t for Cart 813 sliest with design rk Kqu that dP ,nto an account for thenway area. to a deeigtnata3 groenwey/oPeia lk Pre' str~"~1°„ «mt be dopasStad pthe:' (AYp to [ ~,e p lpoea or construcu p. 8P n ndent B 13 34). „felon etllclon'conv nt ~d osculatiulation e 4 pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation llrle[ [or 11lepe 312 gl; g H! NMI ii " E U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d •DOLAN v CITY OF TIGARD . (1994) 129 L Ed 2d 304 measures tit offset the expected im- • The Commission went on to note city's findings about the impacts of Supremo Court affirmed. 317 Or 110, pacts of her proposed development, that the required floodplairi dediea- the proposed development were aup• 854 P2d 437 (1993): The court also i( as allowed under the CDC, petitioner tion would be;'reasonably related to ported substantial evidence. Do- diBagreed. with petitioner's oonten- simoly argued that-her proposed petitioner's request to intensify the tan v 7Ybyaid, LUBA 91-161 (Jan. 7, tion.that the Nollart Court aban- , development, would not:cenflict with use of the eito.given• the incrc.wo. in 1992), reprinted -at App to Pet for doned the."reasonably related" test- the policies Of. the comprehensive the impervious surface. The Commif- Cori D-16, n 9. Given the undisputed .Id, at 118, 854 P2d, at 442. Iustextd, plan. a, at Ff-4. The Commission lion stated that the "anticipated fact that the proposod larger build- the court rend Milan to mean tbst denied the request. increase d storm water.' jYovY front the ing and paved parking area would an "exaction is reasonably related to The Commission made a aeries of subject property to an. Rlrppdy increase the-amount of impervious an impact if-the exaction serves the ,I findings concerning the rnldtionship strained creek and drainage basin surfaces and the runoff into Fanno same purpose. that a. denial of. the t. n between the dedicated conditions can only add to .the-public ne:ed•to Creek, LUBA concluded that "there permit would serve."Jd., at 120; E654 p andtthe projected:impdets•of•potitidn- manage the stream. channel, q' Is a 'reasonable relationship' be- P2di at 443. The court decided that e)r's project: First, the Commission floodplain for drainage purposgs." m=oon the proposed development and both the podestrian/bicycle pathway noted -that "[i]t is reasonable to as- Id, at G37., Based on this anticipatod the requirement to dedicate • land condition and the storm drainage sumo. that eustomer'a• and employees Increased storm water flow, thp, Com- along Fanno Creek for n greonway." dedication had an essential nexub to of the. future uses of- this site could nIM10a concluded that the, rogllire- Id., at D•16. With respect to the the'development of the proposed site. utilize a podestl'ian/bicycle•pathway ment of dedication of the floodplain _ pedestrian/bicycle pathway; LUBA Id, at 121, 864 P2d, at 448. T1ltite- adjacorlt to this development for area on the site is related to the noted the Commission's finding that fore, the court found- the- conditions a significantly larger retail sales to be reasonably related to the im ' their transportation and-recreational applicant's. plan to intensify develop. needs.'-' City of Tigard Planning Com- meat on the site." Iba The.Tigard building and parking lot would 'at- pact of the expansion of petitioner's mission Final 'Order No. '91-09 PC City Council approved. the Commis- tract larger numbers of customers' business. Ibid We granted cortio- `r A eion'e final order, subject to one mi- pp to Pot for Cert G24. The Com• acid o>nplfyccs and their vehicles. It rail, 510 U5 126 L Ed 2d 446, mission noted that. the site plan has nor modification; the City Council again found a "reasonablo rolation- 114 6 Ct 644 (1993), because of art a" provided for bicycle. parking in a reassigned the responsibility for Ship" between, alleviating the im- leged conflict between the Oregon rack in front of the prbpotiod building surveying and marking the flood pacts of increased traffic from the Supreme Court's decision and ow' do- and "[i]t is r•easonablo to expect that plain area from petitioner Lb 'the development and facilitating the pro- cision in Nollan, supra- some of the users of the bicycle•park- city's engineering department. Id., vision of n pedestrian/bicycle path- ing provided. foe by the site plan will at G'7 ,way as an alternative means of II use the pathway adjacent to Fan110 Petitioner 'appealed to the Land transportation. Ibid. tl Creek if it is constructed." Ibid In Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on the [4-6, 7e.] The Takings Clause of the addition, the Commission round that roan [3e.] The Oregon Court of Appeals Fifth .Amendment of the United i~ g d that the city's dedication creation of a convenient, safe ..requirements were not related to the aflirmed, injecting petitioners con- States Constitution, made applimble pedestrian/ bicclo axhwa s stem tention that in Nollan v California to the States through the Fourteenth Y p y y proposed development, and, .there- _ Cbaafal Comm'n, 483 US 825, 97 L Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q. Ii: Co. as an Alternative.. means of tranapor- fore,.those' requirements constituted 677 107 S Ct 3141 (198?), we v Chicago, 166 US 226, 239, 41 L Ed ' tation "could o St some of the traf- an uncompensated taking of their Ed 2d fie demand onneuzby] streets and property under the Fifth Amend- 'led abandoned the reasonable rela- 97917 S Ct 681 (1897), provides: lessen the. inorease in traffic congeg- mont. In evaluating the federal tak- tionehip" test in favor of a stricter "[N]or shall private property be flan." Ibid ing claim, LUBA assumed that the "essential nexus" teat. 113 Or App taken for public use, without just ?r ? 162, 832 P2d 853 (199..). The Oregon compensation. "''One of the principal other properties in lh s or the seine inning district poac:ble, while permitting some economic use or vicinity; of tho land; 4. [3b] Thc'Supremo Court of Oregon did made applicable to the States by the Four- i "(2ritfere are eptt(al circumstances t?at exist "(4)Existing physical and natural systems, not addroas the consequences or potitioneea toonth Amendment. But there Is no doubt r 1 "'ch -are peculiar to the Ibt size or shape, such ai but not'limited to traffic, drainage, failure to provide alternative mitigation that later eases have held that the Foufteentle pography or other circumetanew over which p messut ee In bar variance application and we Amendinent does make the Takings Clause of to dramatic land form 'm arks will not occur take the case as it coma to us. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendmenthppilcable to the Ststos, ~ the applicant has be control, and which are adrereely affected any more than would occur we do not pees on the constitutionality of the see Penn k 1221 t)aL A 2d Co. °8`JNew Bork G Ed I. 96 not applicable to otht properties in the same (f the development were located'pa apiciBtd 2646 438 cooing district; in the title: and city.' variance provisions. n. ' "Wrho use propooed will be the name as "(Whe hardship is not self-imposed and the 8 Justice Stsveru' dimant suggests that this (1 (19578): U9 NBPb,ofddn v 827, Cal97i•fLorrn 2d Coas677w,f C 0icri 7nrzSatn, permitter under this title and City standards variance requestod alleviate the minimum variance ease is actually grounded in "substantive" due 3141 (1987). Nor is there any doubt tlud these Brief process, rather than in the. view that the taste have relied upon CAioago..& & Q. P. Ca will be maintained to .the greatest a:font would uld alate the hardship. " App to for Respondent 49 0. Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.was 'v Chic%v, lea U9 220. 41 L &1 970. 17 8 Ct 814 315 giiipg~ Mile x l• r U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d DOLAN v CITY OF TIGARD ~ (19%) 129 L Ed 2d 304 purposes of the Takings Clause is "to US 393, 413, 67 L Ed 322, 43 S Ct v Sindermann, 408 US 693, 33 L Ed nexus question in, Nollam The Cali- G~ bar Government'from forcing some 168, 28 AI.R 1321 (1922). A land use 2d 670, 92 S Ct 2694 (1972); Pickering fornia -Coastal Commission de- people alone to bear public burdens regulation does not effect a taking if v Board of Ed, of Township High manded a lateral public easement f which, in all fairness and justice, it "substantially advance[s] legiti- School Dist., 391 US 56.3, 568, 20 L across the Nolln.ns' beachfront lot in i should be borne by the public as a mate state intoreste".and does alit Ed 2d 811, 88 S Ct 1731(1968). exchango•for a permit to domolhit an whole." Armstrong v United States, ."den[y] an owner economically viable Petitioner contends that the city existing bungalow and rep[-ace it 364 US 40, 49,•4 L Ed 2d 1664, 80 S use-of• his land." Agins v Tiburon, has forced her to choose between the with a three-bedroom house. 4113 US, Ct.1663 (1960). Without question, 447 US 266, 260 (1980).4 building permit and her right under at 828, 97 L Ed 2d 677, 107 S Ct had the city simply required peti- fg, The sort of land'use regulations the- Fifth Amendment to just com- 3141. The public. oasement. was do- Ix W dedicate. a strip of land discussed in the cases just cited ponsation for the .public easements. signed to connect two public b~aaches along Fanno' Creek for public use, however, differ' in two relevant' par- Petitioner does not .quarrel with the that were separated by the Nallaas' rather than conditioning the grant ticulars from the present case. First, city's authority to exact some forme property. The. Coastal Commission of her permit. to redevelop her prop- they involved ceaontinily legislative .of dodication as A -condition for the had • asserted that, the public ease- orty on such a dedication, a taking determinations classifying ontire ar- grant of a building permit, but Choi- went condition was imposed to pro- i`. would have occurred..Nollan, supra, eas of the city, whereas here the city Jestgea the showing made by the city mote the legitimate state interest of at 831, 97• L Ed 2d 677, 107 S Ct made an adjudicative decision to _ to justify theso.exactions. She argues diminishing the "blockage of the 1 3141. Such public access would de- condition petitioner's application for Shat the oity has identified "no ape- view of the -ocean" -caused by con- privb petitioner of the right to ex- a building permit on -an individual cial bonefits"• conferred on her, and struction of the larger.honse. elude others, 41 one of the moot sawn- parcel. Second, the conditiohs im- has not identified any "special quan- tial sticks in the bundle of rights posed were not simply a limitation tifiable burdens" created by her new We agreed that the Coastal Com- . that are commonly characterized as on the use petitioner might make of store that would justify the particu- mission a concern with protecting vi- property." Kaiser Aetna v United her own parcel, but a requirement lar•dedicotions required from her eual access to the ocen>1 constituted States, 444 US 164, 176, 62 L Ed Zd that she deed portions of the prop- which arc not required from the putt n legitimate public interest. ld., at 332, 100 S Ct 383 (1979). 835. We also agreed that the permit erty to the city. In'Nollan, supra we lie at large., condition "would have been constitu- (®a) On the other side of the led- held that governmental authority to U 't';~= III tonal even if it cdneisted of the get, the authority of state and local exact such n condition was circum- - requirament that the Nollmcs pro- governments to engage in land use scribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth (tb; 2b, 10a] In evaluating petition- vide a viewing spot oil their property planning has been sustained against Amendments. Under the well-nettled er's claimi we must fittst determine for passersby with who[ sighting of constitutional challenge as long ago doctrine of "unconstitutional condi- whether the "essential nexus' exists the ocean thoir.new • house would as our decision in'Euclid q Ambler tions," the government may not re- between the "legitimate state inter- interfere." Id., at 636,.97 L Ed 2d Realty Co.,' 272 US 365, 71 L Ed 303, quire a person to give up a constitu- est." and the permit condition ex- 677,107 S Ct 3141. We rocolved, 47 S Ct 114, 64 ALR 1016 (1926). tional right-here the right to acted by the city. Nollaii, 483 US, at however, that the Coastal 0=111I Government hardly could go on if receive just compensation when 801,_97 L Ed '2d 677, 107 S Ct 3141. sion's regulatory authority vras set to some extent ralucs incident to property is taken for a public use' in If we 6fid that a nexus, exists; we completely adrift from.-Its 0onstitu- propekty could not be diminiahtid exchange for a discretionary benefit must then.decide the required degree tional moorings when it claimed that without paying for every such conferred by the government 'where bf connection between the exactions a nexus existed between visual access change in the general law." the property. sought has little or no and the projected impact of the pro- to the ocean and a permit condition Pennsylvania Coal Co. v'Mahon, 260 relationship.to the benefit. Soo Perry posed development. We. were' not requiring lateral public access along 681 (1897), to =aaeL that result See, cg, Penn a [fib] There can be no argument that the required to reach this question in the •Nollans' beachfront Jot: Id., at Centro; supra; at-122, 67 L Ed 2d 631, 98 S Ct Nollan, because we concluded that 837 97 L Ed Zd 677, 107 S C•t 3141. permit conditions would deprive petitioner of , 2866 Me tssu[e] presented [(s] whether ecenotnically beneficial us[e]" of her propetty the connection did not meet even the How enhancing. the public's ability the restrictions imposed by Now York City's as she currently operates a retail store on'the loosest standard. 483 US,. at 838, 97 to "traverse to and along-the shore- law upon appllantn' ezploit4tion of the Tar- lot. Petitioner easuredly is able to derive song L Ed U 677, 107 S Ct 3141. Here, front" served the same governmental i moral site effect a 'taking' of appellants' prop- economic use from her property. See, e.g., however, we must decide this ques- $ } erty for a public use within the meaning of Lucas v South Carplina, 606 U9 ' purpose- of visual •aece88 to • the t the Fifth Amendment, which of course is 120 L Ed 2d 798, 112 S Ct 2888 (1992% Kaiser lion. ocean" from the roadway was beyond made applicable to the States through the Aetna v UniW States, 444 US 164, 176, 02 L our ability to countenance. The ab- Fourteenth Amendment, we Chicgm R d: Q. Ed 2d 332, 100 S Ct 383 (1979); Pehn Central A sence of a nexua left the Coastal R. Ca v Chicago, 166 US 226, 239 [41.L Ed 7}anspor•tation Co. v New York City, 488 US 979 We addressed the CIItI&1 Commission in the position of simply ,17 S Ct 581](1897)-l 104,174, 67 L Ed 2d 631,28 S Q 2540 (19'76). flob] Qas Pce 318 ( 317 is r 'I ii SEMI t INS i s, f i U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d e • • DOLAN v CITY OF TIGARD trying' to obtain an easement Surface Transportation EfficienC (1994) 129 L>d 2d 304 through gimmickry, which converted Act of 1991, Pub L 102.240, 106 Stilt applicant ont en's plan to intensify develop- a publion rher property is taken for a valid regulation of land use into 1914 (recd niziti went on'the site City of Tigard a public purpose. "asp out-and-out plan of extortion." bicycle facilities as odoco pedestrianand Planning Commission Final Order Iba, quoting J. R D. Associates, Inc- netts of any stra No. 92-09 PC, App to Pet for Cort Other state courts require n very v Atkinson, 221 NH 681, 684, 432 fie congestio- Y reduce leaf- G37• exacting'correebondence, described A2d 12,14-16 (1981). as the "spec;fi[c] and uniquely attrib- The city made the -following spe• utabl.e" test. The Supreme {hurt of No such gimmicks are associated B cific findings relevant -to the Illinois first developed this test in 'with the-parinit•conditions imposed I2c] The second part of our analy pedestrian/bicycle pathway Pioneer Trost 8e Savings Bank , by thb city in this case. Undoubtedly, sis requires ua'to determine whether Mount Prospect,. 22'Ill 6 380, 2d 3 the prevention of 'flooding along the degree of the exactions do- In addition, this proposed ex- 176 NEnd 999, •802 •(1961).' Under Fanno Creels and the reduction of manded by the city's permit condi. paced to use of this site ia• vehc,' this standard, if* the local govern. traffic congestion in the Central Buai- tions bear the required relationship Pam generate additional acing , went cannot demonstrate that its ular n®ss District qualify as the type of to the projected impact of petitioner'a dong traffic thereby' increasing exaction is directly proportional to legitimate public purposes we have proposed development. Nolloit; arterial streets. nearby collector and the specifically. created need, the upheld. Agins, sbpna, at 260.262, 66 supra, at 834, 97 L Ed 2d 677, 107 9 arterial Creation /of a con- of the power "a veiled exercise ai)d L Ed 2d 106, 100 S Ct 2138. It seems Ct •3141, quoting Penn Central, 438 pathway, safe pedestrian bicycle of the power of eminent a property equally obvious that n nexus exists US 104, 127, 67 L Ed 2d 631, 98 S Ct 'Pathway system as an alternative n confiscation of,privat property r between preventing nexus along 2 S 1 (2978) (7 L E use restriction means of transpottation could off- bohind the defense of lice flooding "[A) Fenno Creek and limiting develop- may constitute a taking if not res. po 8. set some of t a tsa demand lionso Id, at 381, thc,6 NEZd, a at 02- ment within the crook's 100-your sonably necessary to the•effoctuatidn these nearby streets and loosen the he We do not think nk uch ox oral Co wticru floodplain.'Petitioner proposes to of a substantial government pur- increase in in traffic congestion." Id., tiny, ven tee such ox f the seer- ' double the size of her retail store and pose'"). Hors the Oregon Supreme at tiny, givetl the nature of the inter- to pave her now-gravel parking lot, Court deferred to what it totmed the The question for us is, whether ests involved. thereby expanding the impervious "city's unchallenged factual find- .those findings are constitutionally A number of state ,courta, have surface on the property and increae- ings" supporting the dedication coax- ing the amount of atormwater run- ditione and found them -to be reason- vufhclcnt )gsttfy the conditjQna tn~kea~ a(a i~ntercdiute position, re off into Fenno Creole. imposed by the city on petitioners qulring the municlpality'to show a ably related to the impact.of the building permit. Since state courts "reasonable relationship" between 'I s The same may be"said for the city's expansion of petitioner's business. _ have been dealing'with this question the required dedication acid the ittl- << attempt to reduce traffic congestion 317 Or, at 120.121, 864 P2d, at 443.. a good deal longer than ive have, we pact of the proposed development. by providing for alternative means The city required that petitioner turn, to. representative decisions 'T'ypical is the Supreme Court' of of transportation. In theory, a dedicate "to the city as at a titio all ' made by them.. Nebraska's opinion in Simpson v ZG6 Neb 240, 245, pedestrian/bicycle pathway provides portions of the site that fall within North Platte, 1 98 , where.- 292 a useful alternative means.of trans- the existing 100-year floodplain [of ` It some States, very generalized . NW2d' 297, 301 (1980), that ' portation for workers and shoppers: Fauna Creek] . , and all ' ro .rt. -staemone$ as to the necessary con- court stated: N "Pedeatriano and bicyclists occupy- 161eet above [the floodplai ] bps A motion between the required dcdica- ing dedicated spaces for walking ary." In addition, the city dolgatedod * See, tion and the proposed development "The distinction,"therefore, and/or bicycling . , , remove poten- that the retail store be dosignod so - seem t surfce, ello e.g., Billings which moot be. exercise of the*. tial vehicles from streets, reaulting as not to intrude into the groenway Properties, Inc v Yellowstone County, "appropriate exercise of e e in* an overall improvement in total area. The city relies on the Commis- 244• Mont 26, a394 rv P2d 182 NY2d (1964), power and an improper exercise or e transportatior°•system flow." A. NoI- ,ion's rather tentative findings that Je~ IRc- 73 (19 6). 18 hank this eminent domain is some e reasonable soir the eon, Public Provision of Pedestrian increased.stoYIInYator flow tram pets- 218 N) 2d 679 (1968). We think this requirement ha8 some Bicycle Access Ways: Public tioner'e property "can' only add to standard is• Loo -lax to adequately relationship or nexus to the use to and ' Policy Rationale and the Nature of the public need to manage the (goad- -Private - protect petitioner's right to just cam. which the 'property-is being made -Benefits 11, Center for Plan- plain) for drainage purposes" to•su' 7. The "s ire "specifically. and uniquely ateribub of. 4 of Wayne 66 n 682, edo ,734 AM ning Development, Georgia Institute port its conclusion that the "requ C P* has of Technology, Working Paper Series mans of dedication of the Iloodplain ~°t now boon adoplmd by a minority 30, 40 0 (19Th); df cKain it Tolledo Ctty Plan of other courts. Soo, eg., J. A Associates, omm iy 26 Ohio App 2d' 171, 176. 270 N=d (Jan. 1994). See also, Intermodal area on the site Is- reiaied to the Inc. v Atkinson, 121 NH 681, 686, 432 And 12, 370, 974 (1971); Funk Ana 910, Inc it Crun- 16 (1981); -Divan Dutlden Inc. v Planning Bd. ston.107 A( 63.69, 264 A2d 810, 913 (1970). 318 0). ~ 929 4 i , r v G~ OF. TIGARa DOLO 304 a tlia P~° 4)129 L FA uld likely CO° Greeted by ment wo antai on ganno Croak Ira fac . 129 L Ed a governor . „ ®urgs cement. UR•r g~pOR'IS ply den°mtn° cbUatnesa reflation titioner'a develop tY ties tJ.S. SUP MB a Ganetitu• pe Petition ~n°titutionnl An at s proper DItstrict, Analysis of Devolop m,ssurq it from that because P gusinesa t code (j of e v 823 dog not immunize' the grounds gill of witjan the central DB"But n►Om' - act etit used p° an ex nt gxactions, 69 B _ L'Le Watson, 116 tional challenge on ion of tbo the mmunityuIlaa thatn gFnCe and or is merely being aimplY me see also Far+~ it violas a Pr071° rtow'8, Inc- leave dY eq king Pro ,at Party moment (89~6~ -653 (CA91983). In ?4arahaE v~ 345, 98 S Ct 1de of it OO lain wou for to ld cure articu developed fi that :req17 the °ra R'gl'~ 307, 66 L statute the. un ea evelop uire-651 beca eat that p the city We think I Battsfied Gl 11a] 496 U that search Ot tea landowner is ask -L„ jic, relationship t adopted 1816 (1.978), we held € have near to Pet for Ce , ma license or I ~urte is closer a warrantle r to de~C ment AFP demanded more-it not build for ao able Of tho ta s in Ord, majority norm authotss Premises the"Fourth held that a city tnaY buaineas violated But the city titionar not to Thus, the oour~ rty owner to dodi' to the foderal CO iiviously dis- usin vtolattons only wanted p- as ant. S~ also Air Pol iter lain. are a Pr°p0 o future t it ro rty for gore than either of those pre OSHA f adop °ndm v Western the goodP Cate Private P p° But we do00 Board of Colo. 40 L FA in , roportY 'along The ; a ~nditton of future ebta"Urt g cased.. ly mouse. rho tar CO tea- Variance 416 US 861. potitioner s p nway 8Yst53m• public use t when su such, Paf aeetna nfus , ! atfa C°rp•, 974), New k for its reeaid why a public ~mbte relationship loan statt4nat Zd lf Carp" Ct 2114 (1 Ed cGct~ has never rmi coup- 607 0 94 a building ioned by the 06 L to a priv use a ate ,i , tt~d• similar .to the to the u1nmal v burg 482 U9 631, din nways °PP° the interest of not • i»glY at sought to be h desert rhot 601,107 S Ct 263 Corp. was red °s} in. t 2A8, 292 N'rNu at 302: relti- busts" of lscrutiny under. nth irk er, (1987)- tric one, requi Id, u nable level of the Fourko on ca, to Po of tho rea®o adopted in lion Clauso ntral fluf MM n of NY's Ct flood control. (fora» t* ~ma form been protecdm think a term such • blic Seruic¢ C,o t6dt has e.g.? ont. We +t beA en' v 65 L EA-24 341, der of 11e, Tat The the loss of Ili ttonship iuriaitictions.e+ Ana rtionalitY U557, that an of, cou rse, is we her other . 28•Wis as „rough Pr°p0 S we beta Com- tioner, others r: many ce t$a ability to oxcl d bt to Or& ~~thero we .hold toAmend the - 2343 (1980 ork public rvl 51', ~,paulatea w of iC~ ' ili rdun v Menomonee Fads , Collis tho Fifth the 21ew ned to cut down • tod, this rig OaBentiat IIt , ,lo d442 4196 city miOaiOn, deals because of a fuel no W8 137 Z 310 Minn 5, 246 reqtiiretnant rociso mathematical cal- showing • of the mOat ren;; v li Btoorningt©rc4uiring a ment. No. P aired, but the • of electricity t Amend,- one , of rights that areerty. 1976) ( t<aeen is xeq use violated the Firs adver• the bundle - +,12d 19 ( tationsl~+P >1° culation sort of indiviuireld sltortage+ it prohibited pre 1~nonlY characterised t• 6, 6622 L of a re6aonablo ra uat male 80m° that the roq insofar comp 444 US' It is di tanned subdivision and the mu- a anon t both in It utility We see Kaiser Aetna, S Ct 383• ¢ ized determin i nt any Calt¢g nature me b tj, 332t am- f the P ,s need for land); 680 dodicatton is related mots the use of electric, i Clause of Ed 2d. 100 ational ' visitors lain ality the impaCt of the pro- tieing y 9oodp titioners nicip ^'urtte Rock COrpCall v n why the Takings much a to see g why room $tatton v d extant mment.° no the reaso tfth A dment, as along P tllate$ to (Tex 19 , 229 tab devalOP + dissent men fits the First plin ciently.r posed ant era te interest a 5W2d 802, 807,6 p% 217 6q. . o, (U o n- :r in re, article for part of the gill of Rlg endment, crier Ie ti ma tang Wes 7 ,Tor~n+ use of threae ~ L1d~ 121' Justice Stevens ourth lux s gisuffi ua 9 as r; j 1979) (afftxmir~g t DesPits any . relies upon a law reviow ° g'condi- dmAmen cnt or F to the statue of a • the city' h relegate flooding p reOn VI orelicea,.genoral - the p F°sition that 'tnrt- of petition- theca arable ducing Croak, and the city not dividual- able ica le lh m of should be in comp anal- paring any in•m~ this j tea to rnal~ m$ntical among the courts a~ tiona dam ~r~°~° spa P ciea of bus', poor relation now to relied at+xinF auPl• P stances. Vic turn moot ax er s property that heretofore natio circum who the so~table findinBa. determin to a ©d Ce,Gon aho to tits n ®ere- tion of ysis of w , first with re-. izefl . ement, and part.of its nda that recre- Ibid. Sae Hess regulation tea strung Pre sump n by the city here relationshi, entl:' " post , at reques f to the G,reen- "tal warren validity. sPoCt to the floodplain eas the 1q the City Cori atad by the [develoPm Beach Niorosot, Take MY canatitutional ~ at 3y,7. But aim- res act to satisfiod easement t e'cy to generally, lfornia Coaetat 129 L 2d• ecend with Path. ational good Pleasel: the, city 'B ` ollan v ~3exus '183 us. at 935, s Irian/bicycle p way is only Controlling tional- Nollnn. ComII3i8$iohand & Re .its on the dtY Sea g141.This concltision Y• pedea gjrements, . the Chief purpose her asserts that un- property disaent takaa I .?A 917,1015 ride f,oined by ours thee rte` 1+ at issue L t „rtond, 43i us Creasing It furl Stevens tic that in will hazards rope 8• [7'e• Alb] for Ja'~'ca 9te* . e city is not. as he 01 eats vfiieh axioms the residential rho burden on th It is ous surface. like ir rope ty is petitioner a p us to talk for pluu~•edg luatla$ ts H. is t an In ldoore v 97 5 1932 1197 7). n th6k tm erVi and rate .Of in No!!a nucdatdon Zd fi3wrs a ordinance amount of Paantity n, to chara Jude others t nd to L ~ unit erctal ap k doe of haaut(mn8 Weli'mg to the mew, Due increase the r qsaw from Pett o 4,+p cotnmerq right to exc ent u ~ that cv ltwtl elatj th'th$aab R 52 e stcuc an , e lieu ISte violating i rasa pbalt "atute th T~cord, the flood. fore, ber hod Brief for V plicable aonta8 the ndraent atarm'wa D NO C P 9B1 outro . proparlq its on patty of S-5 ngl tahme Fourteenth any on Property regulation to pro" that it regulation 212 see. p ~~o Clause at Issue in Moore 1ntru8earraa o nb'o .29. Therefore. keeping develop- 1 f PrOpa ~2 DS 385• ardtnanoa living ►r6itra~id Ambler. ELI "Y CO. ' 1016 (1921')• Th0 family ape freefr0~ Euc 64 Al R choicaa concerntns dofo ~pn p n and 4 made dtea- area in which the be inap 19-2. tttl an 9 711, FA Ana theldty doY,ar s P4lt~a- upenta, w lagialaturb yA 2A 631.1 dc= d found to 5 CL 3 Hors, by an to maW, inn an Individual a W ate. the td. at 499.52 L : % don for It buull uo the burddo properly tia • ~i. it , U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d - DOLAX v C1'FY•ORTIGARD - (19%)129 L Ed 2d 341 41, quoting United. States v Orito, ence it might pose with her retail tion from a prbposed-prdperty-use. way. Myond' the.'oonclusory state- .413 US 139, 142, 37 L Ed 2d 613, 93 store. Her right to exclude would not - But on. the record befoit us, the city •rdoht that it could offbot tsonic id the S Ct 2674 (1973) ( "The Constitution be regulated, it would be eviscerated. had not,mot .its' btlydow-of demon- traffic demand generated. U== extends special safeguards to the strating that thomdditional number i privacy of the home' The city If petitioner's proposed develop. --of whit le and bicycle tr(ps.gt nerated maintains that "[t]here is nothing to meat had somehow. encroached 'on b~yy;•the'petitionevs dovolopmant xva- suggest that-preventing [petitioner] existing greenway space in the city, etrnablp relate -tdAhe city°a+ require- ' -[11, wrCrities have long engxiged in frpm prohibiting [the easements] will it would have been reasonable to ment • for •-a'- deditfitiont• of . the the oommendable• task* 'of land -use unreasonably. impair the value•of require petitioner to provide. some pedestrian /bicycle -pathway.-came- planning; madenoee6sary byineress- [herJ property as a [retail store]." alternative greenway space for the ~tt nt. The pity gimply, found that the frig utbaaization parlacula;ly its met- PruneYard Shopping Center vRob- public either on her property or creation•of the pathway'"copld ol)'set rdpolitaa areas such as Portland. ins, 447 US 74, 83, 64 1, Ed 2d 741, elsewhere. See Nollan, 483 US, at some. of the..tr*c demand.: and .The!city's goals-of reducing :flooding 100 S Ct 2036 (1980): 836, 97 L Ed 2d 677, 107 S Ct 3141 lessen the •ini r;eaee in trig wn~' hazards and traffic. congestion, and ("Although such a requirement, con- tiori,"10 providing for public areenw~ye; are Admittedly, petitioner wants to stituting a permanent grant of con- prov ,.-As dUetico.Petasson..of the Su- ' laudable, but there are enwir ; are build s bigger atone to attract mem- tenuous aces to. the property, would tq;how;tllia may,bs done; .JL strong b~ors of the public tc her property. ha:ro to be considered a taking, if it prcaio Court of.O;egon explained'in public•degire to improve the public Sht'i also wants, however, to be able were attached to a dtivel'opmont •;his dissontSng opinion,. hovrover, t~ t rxn( achiev- ; " [tjhe-findings of fact;16t.the bicycle • MO RI= [will 'by tvna to, control the time and manner in permit, not the Commission's assumed pathway systani'eould.offsot some-of •mg thodpsire•by a shogter•out U=' which they enter. The recreational power to forbid construction of the - the constitutional t^ay,of psi,yit7g•for ±r casement on the Groenway is differ se' in order to protect the public's 'the traifit deimand, is a far cry. from the cl ant in .character from the exorcise of >mngv:' Pennsyltlania ('cal, 260 view of the beach must auto!Y• in- system. oi-fndvn~ that thb bicycle-pathway US at 416, 67 Eylva a 3 al, 60 state-protected rights of free exp,res- elude the power to condition con- told!, or.ie;likely to, offRCt Iq d.322, 43 - : e.of ;the traffic demand:' 31 ffRet 28 ALI;•1321. sion and petition that we permitted struction.upon. some concessioil.by som F2d, at 447 (emphasis 17.. in i in PruneXard. In Prune Yard, we at 127i 864 .o 1h the owner, oven a concession of propThey Sudgtnent of the Supreme held that a major private shopping , original). -No precise mathematical Court-of ,brego'n iu:revereed,, 'and'the erty rights, that serves the same calculation is required; but the. city case ib remoulded for further pro6eed- ct ntor that attracted more than end"). But that is not the case here. !tify consistent with thisgpinion. 26,000 daily patrons had to provide We conclude that the findings upon must its findings make in some support effort of to the de quandtca- access to persons exercising their g which the city relies do not show the flea for the pedestrian/bieyole.path- IC'ia so ordered. state constitutional rights .to distrib- required reasonable relationship be- , ute pamphlets and ask passersby to twoen the fioodplain easement and 81'ARATE O~INIGN9 tiign'their petitions. Id, at 86, 64 L the petitioner's proposed new build- Ed••2d• 741, 100 S Ct 2036.-We based ing. Justice Stevens, with- -whom -Jus- rule of law that this case has bean our decision, in part, -on the fact that -tire •Blackmuh .and Justice Gins- used to establish. It is unquestion- I ably an important case. the shopping Fen ter •"may, restrict [1g, 13] With respect to the btu joiii, dissenting:: i gxprowive aetiiity by adopting time, pedestrian/bicyclo pathway, we have ' The record does -not tell us the Certain propositions are not in place, and manner regulations that no doubt that the city was correct in dollar value of petitioner-Florence dispute. The enlargement of the will minimize any Interference with finding, that the larger retail sates fa. Dolnn's interest in excluding tote Tigard u onitresin Aolan's chain of hard- arse its commercial functions." 1d, at 83, cility proposed by petitioner will 'public'from'tha greencynyadjacent wary st wi ll barns 8n '83v 64 L Ed 2d 741, 100 S Ct X36• BY increase traffic on the streets of the ].o her haidware business. The moon- hnpact on the city's legitimate and contrast, the city wants to impose a Central Business District. The city toil! qF briefs.-tljet the.caso.hea goia n- substantial interests in controlling permanent reel national easement estimates that the proposed develop. ated novOrtheleas makes it obvious . dxainsge. iii' Fanno Creole and, m. I- upon- petitioner's property that, bor- meat would generate roughly 436 that the pecuniary value of her vie mixfng.traffic congestion in Tigard's ry is far lese'importanf than *the "business district.. That idipact'is , ders Fahno•Creek. Petitioner would additional tripe per day.' Dedications to lose all rights to regulate the time in for streets, sidewalks, and other pub r,F • which the public entered onto the lic ways are generally reasonable to. [1h] In re}ocft potit3o'het's roquoA for of presiding a continuous pathV!jy system. Greenwey, rega;dlesa of any interfer- exactions to avoid excessive conger- -a sarlance 6-ont the'patliway ded(ontiob codili- ' Bat the Takings•01auw requires the city to Lion, tho'city stated that oinat{ri4 tl"ie•planned 'implemetiviwpolicy by Dondelnniitiorrwitean 0. The city uaO a weekday-average trip rata 'Trips Generated 53.21 X (17.000. 9720). App sattion of the ptithWey AeVoeb"pot)tiondr's the requirod relationship botwoon labs petition- of 53.21 trips per 1000 quare feet. Addltlonal • to Pot for CartG15. - property would conaict with ita adopted policy = ea 6dvalopmont and added tmffic Is shown. - 8'l3 322 'U IMP MMF=1 FM M min- IMES= e DOLAN v CITY OF TIOARD U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d a9W in L FA 2d 304 condition. Ants, at -,129'L Ed question). Although 4 of the ll2 opin- su&cient to,justify an outright denial of federal, precedent for its exercise rh2d,o at conditi The Court also decides ions mention the Federal Crsnatitu- of her application for approval of the in rulemalting, Ahae Coltrt purpoateto dance in 12 "repreoeaxtaiive" for lino first time that the city has lion--two;af those only 'in.Pam~°zt expansion. The city haul nevertheless And gut agreed to grant Dolana application tthe burden of establishing the conati• ie. quite obvious that neither the l nslats court; decisions. To do so is , - . cx;tai~ly approPraato.1 The State tutioaality of its conditions by mnk courts nor the litigants imagined if she will comply with two condi the Cotartni naults,howover,sl- ing'an-"individualized -dotormina= they might be participating in the Lions, each of which admittedly will Cases .mitigata •tho adverse effects of her . thor.fail•te support or decidedly tlon".that tho condition, in question development though heel state law cases, Rroposod.dovolopment.'Ifio d?eputod undermine ho Court's conclusions motne~ ante, oportionality require-29 L do le d support is the Court's, reaffir- 'q questioa• is,vrh®thor,-the.;city:•haas .in key resP• manse of Nollart's.reasoriable i;t xus sdalated the.Fotarteenthndlnont Fd 2d; nt 320. to•the Federal Constitutaon.by rafua- F ilst' talttiougli di8ct~sion oli the requirement, the role the Gaunt of tartg to r Dolaat'e: planned - cen- state cases .perdeates the Court's Not one of the, state cases cited by . cords them in the announcement of in g ts•;procead z hits hoes analysis-of the appropriate fast to the Gourt•announces anything akin its newly minted second phrase of the l apply in this case,-the test on which io.a "rougki,proporti6nality"• require- constitutional inquiry }a Xemarlwbly~ conditions are met., • r tho Court settles is not naturally went. For the most part, moreover, inventive. The I is correct in concluding .derived from.those courts' decisions. those. cases that wmalidated••munici- that-the city may:Ilot attach;arbi- ,The-Court recognizes as an initial pc(l ordinances dill so opi,stato law or .'In addition, the Court ignores the trsry conditions to a buildhng•permit -matter. that tho-sits- conditions unspecified grounds roughly equiva- afate' courts' willingness to consider or* to d variance even when it tan satisfy the "essential nezus''•ioquiio lent to Noilnn's ••"eseentSolnnexus" the exchange th'a'pro in .question a'The Su-what rightfully- den, the application out- moat announced in 1Viollan v Califon requirement, See, e.g., p righL:I also s&ee thAt'State court nia Coastal Coinan'n, 483 US 826%97 North Biatle, 206 Nob 210, 246-248, pierce Court of Wisconsin, for exam- decisions dealing with ordinances L Ed 2d 677, 107•S C0.8141:(1987), 232 NW2d 297, 301-3102.4980) (ordi- ple; found-it significant that the that govern municipal d®vblopnloiat because they, serve the legitimate npnce lacking "reason*nable relation village's approval of a proposed sub- i plans provide useful guidance in a interests * minimizing -floods•and ship'` o>•."rational nexus" to-proper- division plat "enables the subdivider ' ' case of this kind. Yet the Court's de- traffic congestionlh.';Ante, at t•y's use ;violated. Nebraska • to profit financially by.eel1ing the scription of the doctrinal underpin- - - - 129 L Ed . 2d, at ponstitution); J E. D. Associates, Inc. subdivision lots as home-building pings of its decision; the phiraeiiig of 317-918' The-Court goes oti, how- v Town ,of Atkinson, 121 NK 581, sites and* thus: realizing a greater its fledgling test of "rough proper- ever, to erect.a'new constitutional 583-686, 432 A2d 12, 14.15 (1981) price than could have been obtained tionality, " land the application of hurdle in .the • path of those oondi- (p~ato constitutional grounds). One if he had sold his property as unplat- that test to this case. run contrary to •tiona.'In addition to•ehowing-a ratio- case purporting to'apply the-strict ted laiiaa!'.-Jordan v Village of Meno- '.'specifically and uniquely attribute anonee Falls, 28 Wig 2d 608, 619-620; ble" test establishe by Piano the traditional treatment of these nal nexus to a public purpose that cases and break considerable' and would: jm dem- 3 Wt &eSauingabBarth v Mount Pros- quiz d d 442, 448 as (a conlit on of uafy it, the citytmusst adenial unpropitious new ground. the per onstrate "rough.proportionality" be- pact,. 22,I11 2d 376, X7: -NEgd .799 that approval was permissible Ifln I tween the harm caused by the now 51061), nevertheless, found that test return for this Benefit" Ibid. See :was satisfied because the legislature also Collis v Blow" ington; 310 Minn Candidly' acknowledging the lack laud use and the benefit obtained by }ysyd decided. that. tb® suhadi ion at 5, 11-13, 246 NW2d 19, -2 -24 (1976) vis . 3. hfoor~ L y 2R-ast d Musland. 431 U8 AN. the Nollana. to 'provide o ri"ocea app qb- {due cro@ted the need for a park or (citing Jordan); College Station v for `i (Steven, tit L Ed Zd tf3I 9T $ Ct 1532 (1917) Arudersby by whose new•on area L _ rks; Billie s .Properties, Inc. v Turtle Rack Corp., 680 S1v2d 802, (Stevens, d„ concumrag in ludi[mo?lt)• Ed 2d od by their new house. Id, at 826, 47 L P 8 "Although u sushi n1 t t18,718Mont 26, (1964). In mo only.trigg)ered when devolopor 1 In tv411on the Court recognized that a re 070 Ct 3141. ocean i ' requirement, 60n utituLtngting' n parma penneneriT grant t _ 38e .•3fl P2d82 state agency pnay condition the grant of a of continuous soce" to the proporty,-woWd ply one of the coven cases uphglding cho6ees to develop land). In this•camw, j .0* land use regulation did the. losing moieover,• Dolan s pcceptaqce of the I i, land•use• permit on the dodicattoia of a prop erty interest if the dedication serves a la iU- have to be ar.drercd a sakp8 it it were not roperty owner petition tl}is Court psralit, with.it$ attached auaditioas, attached to a.dsrelopmsctto • foroemit,bid the cona>Colznn'a p mate police-power purpose that a refusal to issue the would lttstify on'~ assumed;porter., permit For the-first tiA'o! the house in order to protect the for certiorari. See Jordan v Village would provide her with benefits that time, how®ver, It held that such a condition Is a vies, of the basic must mmbr include n f 'Menohao'nee Falls, 28 Wis 2d 608, may well go`beyt►nd any 'advaritage would jut ry the b~~ w~ to condition construction upon 137 l~jW2d 442 (19 65); appeal dutm'd, sh _ fade L .unconstitutional if the a refusal. 483 Us. e gets from expanding her busi- Zd 3, 87 S Ct 36 Hess. As the Uni%ed States poizated 87 at L w liod uld 2d 877. 1 677. 107 the 9 p° 38$ US 4, IT L Ed fella" l. Ica US, a at goal 837. that some. oonoaaaioa by rights, ~ Ct 3141. In the Nollan Court's view, a sonde stun o! pr6piiii r18 (1966) (want of substantial federal out at oral argument, the improve- uoa.would be oonalitutionat even if it rOquired one ll::d _ '816 I jp~ i • t ` DOI.NIV v =Y OF TIGARD 1 U.S.- SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d (19%) 129 L Ed 2d 304 I Center v Rob ante is sufficiently great tr"'dt ter the -with - his rtation Co.:. w•Nem pruncyard ShaPpinB l moat that the city's drainage plan Contrail Tra4 pUS 104, b7 L Ed 2d bills, 947 US 74, 82-84, 64 L Ed °lanned drys oproceedg. pl contempl nentln Id. at 917 { demonstrated and mpar lutes would widen the than- 11york. 98 City,. 'atated 741,100S Ct 2035 (1980)• p nel and reinforce -the slopes to in- 631, 98 9 Ct 2646 (1978), wa The city of Tigard has that its plan is ratio and impar "dose not The Court's narrow focus on one l crease the-carrying capacity during that takings jurisprudence in the property owner's bun- tittl and that the conditiom3,at issue serious !loads, "coilfer[rhlgJ consider divide single parcel to dot ro strand hts• is particularly mis- ' able beno5ts pn the property owners segment ts and attempt to determinmine dlo of .rig are conducive ta.fulfillmeint of au- ' Dolan, evol- thorized planningobjoc tivat: ' Tr of Oral A adjacent to the oraok. whether rights in a particular guided in acase involving the d 41.42,. . • moat havo•boen entirely abl•ogat~d.'; •opmant, of poulmorcial property. •p's on the other.•hr}nd, has offei-er3rno s3v- T of Oral Atg Id . at 13o.131,.57 L Ed 2d 691,:98 S pofeasor Johnston has noted. idence that her burden of cox4pliaricie The slats court decisions also are Ck 2646. Instead, this Court focuses "This subdivider is a I>zattufac- has any-impact at all an i:he value of a or ettlihtening in the extent to which both on the character of the action of h .stet d extent bfrthe turer, {5rocenseri and ma of hi8 raw opmont Followi gethe 2eStckiing of they r@quired that the.entirt P find or: the nature an irodncti land is but o by given controlling ilpportanco. All interference with rights in the parcel matorialb. In'subdivision control the cat e Cot sho a which u dl:~ot isolate the Vitt ono of the cases involve chal- ati a whole." Aid. Ai;drue>v:A11arK, disputes rho developer is not do- rely, longoe to'proviiitins In rdilitic$al or- 444 US 61, 62'L Ed 2d 210; 100 8 Ct den levelopers' to 318 (I979);, ed the nohdivial- 'fending 6srtli dnon,. °but simply the power to ex clude from 'in evalual d - e es requiring t reallirld ' dedica dicate either n percentage of the the kings intrust billty principle btitlined in `l'eitil gttitttipting to maximize his profits tion of the benefit to be derived from J entire parcel (usually 7 or 10 percent ' Central, stating that "[a]t least Where from the sale of a flnisRed.praduct, the permit to enlarge the store and of,the platted'aubdiv;sio>}) or an nit owner postsesses.a 'bundle' of As applied to him, subdivision tho,parking lot equivalent -~a1ue in ca$h.•(u®ua11Y ° property rights, the deetriletion'of lntiona:' Johnston, Con- The Courts aeaurunceia that its finance control exactions are actually bud!- . certain dollar amount gwr lot) to hole one 'strand' of the -bundle ?a not m ness ' regu "rough proportionality" tort .leaves utilities, the con schools, etructi parks on of and* play,- tll be ikn i. g b iii ecause itsthe aggentirety:ro°'gaId.t, o ot'muet'85- stitutionality of Subdivision Con- ample room for cities to pttrau0 the the c commendable task of land use plan- grounds. In assessing the legality of : ;The Quest for A "commenda 86, 621. Ed 2d'210,400 trol Exactions , we approved proved Rationale, •52 Cornell L Q $71.923 Wing;, 323'exen ante, at.--, 129 L Ed Zd, at twice avowing that " last Term, we - indication tVa,at tke the .cpurta transfer gave of anon recently as ' mono oNb- the principle again: See'Concrele (1967}` revise mnthemutical calculatio2n9 is indication th[]o interest in realty was )my. pipe ~`p~oducta, Inc. v Construction ;'h° exactipne associated with the poquired,ante, at ' jectionable. than a cash payment. Laborers pension T}ttat, 508 US dovplopment of a retail business are , see, ,&g., Jenad Inc. V Scarsdale,. 18 •124'L Ed 2d 639, 113 S Ct 2964 likewise a spociee of business rogula- BEd endtho result that test compels t+ trV2d 78, 218 NE2d 673 (1966)i Jor- (dxp~ing that tion that heretofore warranted a arsel ofpropcrty'["ncannot) first claimant's be strong _presumption of aottstitutional here..-Under the Courts approach, n nrce . den: supra; Collia, suptn:. None of the parcel- Atro validity. city.`~ gmust ate, not only decisions idetitifted the surrender of divided into what was taken and "quantify its h, a at 129 L Ed 2d, at as hav owner's "power to exclgde" what was left" to demonstrate a eom- •Iti Johnston's view, "if-the munici- inga, d make "individualized deter e o limits- 01 -Vality sessment can of financial burdens demonstrate that - its as- against 323 , an mination(al" with respect to.the na- Y n^ as Lead, theanyspecial uniformly~ ormly e craam- Lion of pensablc the taking)right. to bxclttcl Although- Instead, t ined the charco acter in of the entire eco- undeulit~dly•conetitutes'a aignifi chAt al, subdividers n vial impartial, tune and the silent of the relation- ,Y nomic transaction, infringainent upon property' owner- and conducive to .ulfillmi nt of au- ship between the- c0nditibtls ~t ipt Kdiser Aetna v Uliffed Stay , thoHzed'•planning' objectives, its ae- , impact, ante, at , e--,, 19.9 ~k E II 44gh4US194,•179-180;621rEd2d`382, tior► Head be' invalidated lrare roposonalitbyut TtilsiIi donescYratc Y' tpooe extreme and presumably air ellould' inatehe corconcentrate It is not merely state casas,'bilt 100 S Ct hdo (-act a 1979}; lone 66ictions on where ,the burden of compii- 9 Y our own cases ae 'well,'that require that rigtd do not do so in any event the analysis t0••focus on the ulpaiet t le8 4.'Johnaton'a arttcls also sets forth a fair 28 Wis 2d t1o8,1371tw2d' >"ntse(r} 1.' "judic)al avings the value o or vs®" of the propeTtY• summary.,o[ the ste ts cases from which the •a modsiate coup oC e" •betvr Pioneer 22 Teen IrlTruitt h0 2d •3S7a, 178 of the city'ti'actioh vi the smile 'uiil a e unreasonably impair proportion' obstructionism" y Coact purports to derive its "rough Nate arty. In Penn v parcel of ly, prop alitp'•.teoL J ~ 6 ohnst29n Corneil L Q. at 917. Like Bank (1961), 1and the excessive w; and , is that "tribe the Couat, oboorvsd that cases re Ire. v lcito,++r~ "parcel of per- .Q 11 2d..3 do174 fi•.3.n, v Bened. y pelknednietit{s systont Uri 8 470, (tum( 498-499. Cool 94 no for ta basis fori)► purposes' • oaa N52 NEEd 799 7 9 and t he 182 (1904). 62 , ABfi .treating the leap than 2% of ieinit n "zaUocal news' between exaeti cluded t 144 Mont 28, 304 P2d we con- titioners' coal no s separate _ and public needs crested by the now aubdivi- County, LI 2d 472, 107 . that t "ttJli lie 9 ET Cl million ions tons . of seal do pity r slot especially Jordan v Ifenomorlee Balls, Cornell LQ, at 917. elud . . q~J net cotestitute a capartite m latest of property - 326 s+ v: Cry OF TIGARD (19941124 L Ed 2d 3a4 itm eons wational RT REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d The Court begins ngns , o, 19: $ 1 ' U.S. SUPREME COU itb just .how many c yciiato will its analysis by dti'Cr• i i plac.'inotorists• predidtiotts oh ouch AR. Co, hicago, 156 U9 2;E6, 239, More onerous tharr'a simple , , or: be any nst wily development raatter8 are inh( ~rontiy 1y he SO_ .41 FA 979,'17 S Ct f~1 (ifG9') Certain on whether' the re1qu;ren consider prohibition egos offset- the proposition that they 9'akinga action of her property than estimates. eudcateat Is t present and venttir¢ beyo • ' aunlptioti:that them will be an ations of a condition's nature -or an that p rerson- blouse of the'Fifth► ~gerinanoness only if.the developer Given the commercial character of tibg. at a• concededly ger- both.tho existing sad the proposed benefit here is entirely ash Fouricable tiieiadment'° atone sat t at fishes th rot•ty.as a retail state, able and shouulld sun rer it ++arjpllcn. t h- Athe ame t' Antes, hat potential g• at 3 15'j`li8t opin- S establishes ] ~ dispro' use of the P Pa euata tR p° 1n eel y* i p~ocreme• L lad 2 custom- 16.meatloaof prProfdeveloP- it sooms.likoly t nt of the t e to t to the is rtienat along petitioner o tip 41Y 6 ; rCe t ; 's adverse offecta that it .ors tramplinfge at 129 L tstaxtioblle traffic that,NQUld Other- hOvCetror; ~uttttlis ,hs the use t0 either the Tokitige Cla ji or manifests use the meht than land 8oodplatn, an n _ iviee. occur. ]S $~ie C<lurt:llroP Ament~itnerit, . ;,otives other re3iulf:tion on the part of they at 321, are more valuable the y ' tho iedoral judiciary m]csoman, Fifth l of vacant land. Moro- y haya f *a& kind, it• is protection,allordi;d by the Yfuo Prn =The heightened requirement a useeless Parse an the state decisigaists wV0166iio mat to city. flyer, 1'sabi c e AeOlfig sees Clpdse cif this •Fguictoainth . es on cities is even the duty a pay taxes ~oridment extends to+ms,t~ro Yf the Court imposes r~ponsiliility tent al tort W. ciiflctilat nnew clubs •of litigants. Vin,,! end morn d to resolve whequestions tools wall mak- ownership cf the tt s h there is no .toesen to be- sutsstance•as yell as Pr~ Pre' it y 1 land a liability filth u8 . ~e ailed.to that the subet @a ndo to the nrnered f~ interost in uee. plain hY >alnsc of ~'tl dtao pra- case can garnered 't'hat naay ox- n eented by this lievo that e our existing caae,law. thic Courts ha ' oinad by tb e - Fouz- aw rather than an cease task, property owners of law,* Cram o' the )Dolan never conceded. that ri6 P. anew friend to- teas endIDt;nt rvquiro cow tstth she urely found. •AnP ado or adoquat®ly w s from building Have could be'prevented action -to be. at rivato Pref. on the floodpiain. The City Attorney d@Y+ secured to,tho ow z Applying its new stalidard, .the olio pointed out that absent a dodica- IV - ©cu taken for Public use, wider, the fects in the city's ner of P Court finds two di roPerty owners would bo'ro : of a Bids:' C1ii To+"B. all , , '168 US, at 236 236441X . it + flied the case. First. while the. record would ui tionr, ed p "build on their ownA tor- . ; Cmurt.+e a serious or' C. authority. that adequately 09PPort a. requirement q the traditioAa! Fd Co -16 3 S, 681: It apt and with their own money. K roir •by,abaadoning ago fa~ility•for the wator runoff, Tr )r tsumption of.constitutionalitY and lilehttfierl Dolan maintain therpo ertn ae 30.31. Dolan aPpar not toof.on same kind of substantiate duo- process neatly the Soadplain en pace, it does not of Oral ArB but chow inypoaing a novel•burden 9f P analysis more undeveloped'oPn spare' "did have that option, ht am hovel. g an admlt"Y. that acr tsction land.use• P ~ s support the'addittonal requirement seek it.ld, at 31. If Dolafl n1i8 aiaity P with a better knawtntiae"pl•g work- that ~►ixd• comprehensive Even more conaequentisl than,its corded.'simililr du»n... , that the floodplain be" dedicated to have been entitled to a variance v a bak©r'e liberty intetsst In Ante, at 12W L confining the ci¢y's'c8nditltitt'in°n ition of th14 case, .322. Second, k and 10 hours a t, her r illCpriect. disp(1a rreotion 60 hours a vree while S Ed the 2d, city. at 320 Court would dccep ins manner this Co day. gee' Lochner v •1~'ew Ynrk however, e Court's ° , 49 L E 937 , 26 9 Ct 639 the city equ~ately that tt e - p.r ed theo osad failureto seek that narrower form'of of a species of substantive d us Pro- acted US 46+ - traffic increase that , 196 relief at any stage of the state adtbiA cis that it firmly ] (1946), - developmont would generate, erate, it istrative and judicial proceedings co~s'•analy adlon'~rouk be ln~+- clearly should preclude that relief in nv s&~~: ~2 US 7~8 ht be that its final failed to quantify . the .offsetting de- dotiades age. w detrrmn(ntng y Court now. e g,, 1~. miget snth'that ame produce. traffic. Acr that the this g;-Bee, of law reseed must had crease in automobile Ante, fit 10 L Fd 24 93, 63 S Ct 1028, 96 ALIl2d whsc is due Fromm „ Bard d s $ .k Q• Mace path will idmedOn m~„ to i Ca. ♦ substance, n micarot.~ 4 formUs.~s+~' , 41 L . • J;29• • L Ed. 2d, at The Court's rejection of the bike t19a31.. n - r doomed it'"" path condition amounts nath}Dg -7. An earlier anab ,ia a limitatiou on 979. 17 9 Ct 681(189 n. • ' 322-323. Even under-the Court's words. Everyone l,nt that the a o C i rnment, end not snore Coat .f roed.u, presume be- ra®soaabls connects nothing new rule, both defects are; at omost.edplain more than a Play on nth `'could" r a t Fodere►sa"° 13 s.'oho a Crrar. + theme Puropf {ly vGcrm AaX•Co+. there ass + rogalati In than armees offsets some tof thekin ceased tragic 66y ps72). ca and la core ecti Watt F, 20 L Eel not, by Dolaona,to flow that the larger store will gener- 160, toctinS~e in+bllc hedth.•198 M a to In her In ~ 'Dolan made s no nos effort to do not uv,eQuivo• =•s, The Court held tlrad~ ~ piuona ;'0L FA 2b g Cc MA A rdmlla rch demonstrate condition." that' the but the findings any of its agerrdes+ t nosva'bet°r^d r to state that it Wt~l d0 80, ar tell ch Rmendmont. Ito judicial identify a suffiaen cation of l sally than po-rte of her p p y Would sal, r dap (and] tould oifuth•thooritias may•rourteen within n keep the lettuerer of in the ged Vallditig affi with n neariiilyminhnteinr'the when h the state inters a rovoe r6u Percent 96 bi" forme of Proced the let and Gooding and traffic ffietiloa er additional vehicle trip pe 76, atmtute DCe~nve the parties interested the of rrsfaa ov a,; S. he Bugg en's attorney ratatod'3he dons ulrod her to dodiea eour{s and gi and yet It { emeat that have rla o sti d at t oral UP-4.1a of her lead for a widening ~ without some requirement for p ro p° rtloaality, fullest opportunity, fMain street" Tr to' be hoard, "the•Cst'* could hew found that Mrs. Doler►'s or Oral l+rg 6ZU• traffic by one } new store d have increased 1 7 -9 Nl 0-F aGAV the °Y DOLO v S, 2d 304 garticulsrly ,~vot, i W (1"41 aa~ atutionality). rho i tons that deuce on intoresta enca of not any ~testuae that'tht sdof 't .PtvF 129 L wires the PrOp $arrender. Since wa gltotlld flt the C-1 than r eh has refused rrad I there has cretianary that va hat Dolan can setae lose g E ~ T Tt ` has Yet ~ °nt of her i's • SUB s Lam" no taking infringoln nsotion. farodinUeto the Lion -U.S. . But ° due Pr°ce cae$ hav'ing slpot been any oomPo arty her oP, ere so riot , 494 US 1, or sutra ationarY eca►aid 'It to ~ Sides. al rig. tivQ erprotad the oxomP~1ed &; tln~° alcial c°natltutIt v IM .Ct 914 41990) T' thz►t nd.mV ciould, n°tpt P w as ' urcoa of 1 is gao ry~u 1,110 S stare flan os hmYe nt's subotPn. try, lath d Later csa ~yacnam mPon anceB op°~'and. da stato o.0 hie 1Q8 L ~ •2d a claim Prem t et trl~'g W:Ora h pe t it° the latloneplaan ` pourteenth against upa0 P- ttullyr to lull. °mb~ra of finding tp1lsrnB aWner had n0 er area ~4 no ce (1on of Privates pro pov?P that felt... t ,au ea PTOver'y eatl under Tu "little or he court eg o Id rt ,:,.a P~ u h.,it. r°gtt}ations urtop Min, u 'senco sated.dePrivatiana as hOP Fifth ~t twlow r. on evert sought coraPen., Surfer o vale - us W roPort°yt t t~ho CI Soe~ - }ate ' :than Uadet V VLig4 peen., Inc., 462 why, th, srequircd g icleaocm by the. S4Statex t of 19 case, ir+ nayatlon Act). anon 101 S' the Conti flops orty d rho use. V 24 iacooor% ~t,s gak?ngs ~Cpt Aaan. :Tl? edam 1, molten the , taking wh°ra lp this res «aaconst itutiotal t mt : I ondme urinous n more xnt j'-{ii1BP aoctrtue•hc ink pect, cono sue. Ara K tone Bitumi 4741481, US 264 29A-296 69 L no ldtory, . nati£v tioiLS1 (na t • • the y novel tlgna B edici~, t U 0 Ct 1232 the t'lo1P o'f th4 tua11Y Wa* Ct 29'52 (1981) any Prep°n,+yj • dat, . actx e.ls assay °dl Q city's con~ can 480, t 2,1 . em a lied I to a Yn t «idontified boon taka callerent. Th lute from , v Ike" 2d 4 . , •nQthwB PP lubt' all, 14,I+ • an 0 ndM0.11B ia-j:t tgis one of wily t the ahlYby no are Them as as 4 s°euns The level of fi 'tlon action cou that h (1982),• t 1nloTPXOto and a elty.•T should acca not aPPr°1'- for the t the ' oilrtaorth Qcial tral>st 1io , . -ant Dol doh •ltie abou the ®city,a re. frln~s . hose that In on farcac~g at gtato~atio ; our , fu Qti° jar. ~vs can D~°ns oaks ~°ould °n sstt: V ru Y'alcind of rovNow fisted?on a n~ cos ridme~ agp1ntictuAl`phYsace the ret1o11atYbe n~a the had ens end- coml10 . that if the ca AN . involved th° erty. See fl disc receive lust • thdt she begO thattollow nsa, she tioph s nG4- It apply s y afl}°lans Fist] wild, nigh he prQ rty ink tliolittla - nocassarily a to cangider e ndar• chan8a for that. t eion'oE''Priveto' erIfan hattoei to Ity inv hat n~ 73 tot .t dedicate mPo yor+eW It x. 4G8sroT13g A19~ 4 .43982); has refire oPorty sough bo fit:'u _ °oujd bouast PP co ropria e6 n onY celc5 e n out ri81it. Qn can on ah oil First ~t Corp., r142 S Ct 3164 (13„Where rho 4 to the that a recnlpt of thaE cosnpeusatI0n. 26in8 Perrurt's reliance Ro CA e,t n 4 , sae nte, I h' 2d 868, SEbtl~, re b it is W settlod o luanieu coal CO, V IVIa A~' 332,100 or no it is W oll benefit on etnis ••,r [jnittd lion K er A ©2 L'Ed . klolnlos Although not deny a " p¢nn$Y 61 L Ed 322, S -let ndlns2d 31fr317 (~,jine PerrY 178.180• eat can. titnttopally 415,heri► " cons ing that ' a ra. and fl g ` _ US 16{, 1979). Just,"" souse, gave rnp►. „oeP®cially~ ~ 399, R 1321419x2) knot of advan- 1291) e~nnnn 8, sp f 7,0 rship .G S Ct 383 ( nifict now aba that infre►8 1}S ' rtoa a sig a ed'that nto cr otoated intersattl oShctl 168'x? reciPrceity many Y S` ° 391 ' g68T.0 1. 0 an •693, average ed to lustily 744 v Board t , Z3S 563 and cha . s ho P isnP pr • . t . freed LrS 694 „Was deem 481 LS ' School 731(1 hoWav°rrwhor„cornfnoal'.' had [dcle'ejinYe° rretann, 408 S vt t 'g cseta v Since 92 S Ct •tago el v IruinB,' Ct 2076 811, 88 S wel of, the term t , 107 A Ltl a oifoo%, for perry , 2. 670, 92, ~ndi ' laVto)i Hod 668 s E:. 39'ji'F'd 716 96 L ' of advan• F candid 6131010 ct in Cd 2d statute a file 19, 2 y rA 2d 1 rya Rico tieable•..tc I'l-the same ropri 59~; hC'`urioDps deg'an inade- a •,,r.eiroelty ••very n oval. pu gy(nan tltYlx, doctrino PrO ltiah ana1Y~ (1987)~(weig ed in favor a With 362 US 613. D~ poeod°m to WIN 47s 1 ~nati(.uti tt oy ft 395, 414, ti0ps c~vOr)t )p . taSa ttino is ..riven a1 1332 (1Q661. Go• of pr 108 S ct Sung x d `,Lihtln, 'o U ~B..ALA qup ~t~ ea ~ " 1816 ta9'9} td p at ljae~,ntiL~~nS6 Ass ~ 6346 92~ ~ ?A 266, to oo%,plo the Y . 16 1816. nstltution ~Lgupretne U3 the go r Power indudas F Coal co- ..32i1r 43 S ad's, lla- this right to.be City c4nststoncio 67. L The' ao that tl►e has t no unless. tho•. in and c° xhe (1g88~ axcsna: casino (1922) doctrine ccnditiLnn Y 321, 322 (19 361 ("artione of 2988 atpblinC eattisingtTt Dow aking t° tietaaht" colum many nuch d doe ban to ban sd and editional 321, . takini3s" fed lies an ahvi• gated fora the - Nutt has austa►ned ncin8 the bt°atj the looter p°aas ar9 tau .orY w. kin a at enbe~td° rmystioanhip after a1 the'a`}. g The p-l' P°r`at LOaith the ther golm~ d1cZ nth the 1111 o littta or na. ~of even uld ' invalidato ti~t• °nt . at 1°, ambtln oI toge •+ehii has . nee Iform 4 that wo ®ug vcldn% breadth )ed' kinship thls histary. L FA itlno eitaUons dec"aionn in develoPment. d easii; oub _poldons ISad it has along 461, 27- 1. my s ease modern involved ropetty fr4ls on that of ft°O i rmi3 ►thouRh 446j at 516, uontly 4 at as u (AUK to the saLpa P `ao' ~pgn A~ q 12• A v bfo,se•.2° Lliutiailal c°nditiiraCl kyn a29~F.d 24' have toont tra4 also. c•8 , abaonce her* rights such t the fatal. the CAUtt . coa vt r: a.-CA• the • uncahe Qercd. ga 1 the doctrin eat liberties, a~~144,161' Constitutionea ~t 9a' t° cleat t r ~r than u►se uCor . Y .9ftominom4 FS 2d 472. 366 (1978), tot lust Sh. top%1 atlan; It h - t Amendok ~g 138. trod v mak 'Wan at. at. Sure Ife?ei°}ie 484. 41' this trtine h@° nnlatsnt app l0 it 0offitl' r . F[rs v M7trg, 461 19831: 2a 64 . sP°9 '•yrct on a docttl 40 rig 440, lamina wh7 doe . ugly [ne°s,dP al torCa (p~,niek 103 S Ct 1884 49 L 7 y tin¢ wah ayttted" r to. un L 2d st $1s. 1 967) kwlalo }lotfitlt• an o4er°. .alth aQU a„d 2d 708, 7, 381383, o inionT; Sher- merely opPly'D29 " 83 107 S'n 1~.32'(i w°t metair o tight" 421 $ Zd an oP ata1s.Thy nVIvertra aa`thae u ° of the rl8 vfh7 Burns. 1~8't8) (Plc's 404 10 L F~3 ft uat 10 b won VA 2ar of the L er•th0 tuti4nal Of 1b • e 8 Su¢wii`ins 0 98 S-CL 314139 ' iau v Ronda ' Q° gee. alt a2e to "13rdtlOnal tagardle" uoation. See, cj'u Doe v Ycrncr, y, Spe tav. - ties Ora CAurt s W3.~(1~°1 $3 S 011790 (1983 V. A ~ a~,,Q' lane unconstt afro Powero 'in $titutionel FOR ~ o cut may not lO V L Y 986, s,e11•saLtlad docttin° saahnacb, D~°cN$Q ns fig ti van. 4 roq t-- the to" utuvaaal r+81', r: Q0"diRlonsbt givo uF ®tonauat Cc ,WA-v-11 tdoctttd® hoto -60 Rof le in contos o~ ley ' a r; s; a a P° rWnt lto-t en for a~ao Lccoafa:red iJno~~~ttuti°aal Condr9s when P~ {at a dlracr°t'annrtj~ Pr0yorty oou3bt ~yct ota yIIL "bare J~jji ~ . v CM or TIGARD ' t (iSt94)129 L Ed 7d 304 not about the T REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d ? is a further question, of {In. our changing world•ono thing nature, but about the degree, U.S ill characterize uired botwcon Such as U.S. SUPREME COUR uncertainty w fed a zonin g ordinance that co~ln: about the imPact•of now. unction t°qd the adverse effticie on Percent of redictis'na 0 on the risks of exaction an urt'$ op' to describe its now adop confiacaLed76 1) went. The Ca thiS "rat[ontil -basis at effectively owned by the an. development traffic coti8as~ develop teat to address standard of review, see ante,' do the value of Property s, earthquakes, Whcw announces a I read the op[t~ion, at 920. t Golupany. Despite itsd rniontal haxsns• - but sit3 1 that Ucst to r 129 L Fd •2d+ Ambler Real t ordinance Bon; or enviro- the ma~'• quaStioLn, does not app l recognition that such an arbi- there is doubt concerning the Public the Co not su;ni{Y a reasaertian of the, kind war the Court „would have been rejected ac 'm moat out shoats facts, which not raise the , q the Court ad dds the of auF erlegiela"' the fochner era. reseivo" at an'earlier y . ps terii tudo of those imp trary and opP tin averting exorcised dub7nB y r[vate interest- o€ th® uestion and urt )iris decided td apply its date, the Court (over .rho diaseaolds :h, the P the gav- • to the il.oodPlain The vanter, NicRey woig near. if Jt sticas ~~lercitil ontropi a that the First' an the Court acknowledges Coheightened'' scrutiny to a singlaand Butler) upheld the ordilnaiice. ant can demonstrate_ land Greenway, out of this lanclud ';i the power to exclude-iii ernin im in a - ,imobly strand-- rights that enables a Today's ma3ority • should heed the artial open apace {and Arcs nt the b~andle'of rig Sutherland conditions it hasratio imp that s casa glo ed for rit+eded to fiourlrih in woi da of Justice iyrmit arc( the` alms , ° commercial enterprise use P g.the five feat r~ tnents) it` st)o- ` ~ilan, n Strong creek channel impro an urfaai? eiiv[ronment.'T'hat of Such regulntiona are .suetsinedf and cval'td land rid-use. ghduld bb related W $p°d contib~ at ' Ile interest is undoubtedly Y lax conditions, o °q & lition of validit3 eonably 129 L Ed • :+7 Prow-in like under the comp to protium the burden constitutional prot•in decid- for reasons analogous . conditions. The, 31, but~argueS that the URI ustity traffic regiila- tech to that those •txindi• ante at the g ith randmother's interea sham our a which J advent of ai'rod 317-318,- ay those a of,•demonstratinS nnably imp permanent recroational ant' ytie ~ tives m before the ing which other'rela a Cleveland, transit of ra and P° t'..o Gt s tc, , 97 S Ct tuna have unreaS on' see an her home in Moore v 2d 631, automobiles and rapid squarely for the public' 431 US 494, 62 L would have been the'ccotiomic value the pp° an not so rolatod. at 321-322, Both interests are pro- street railways,. arbitrary imPravomont belongs challong- no 129 L lgoi 1932 (1977). y fatai'iy titutionai- it is not becavM c'f any condemned 0 r the shoulders pction'6 Cons If that is so, onality twe°n per- i tectad. from ~m Cl of the Four- and unroasonablo. And in chile g the state ro i'ti the Due P there is no isiconsiatoncy, i , That allocation of burden ss ll lack of P po and adverse effect, but tcenth Amendment It is, however, a of constitutional All ed us well in the Past- Th mit condition an t rational that Members of the the rmeaning the scope oerv badly today by revere- because of a la cur mgjo: ity ck of Curious irony guaranties never varies, has stumbled on at all between shy exaction of l;co,tion must-expand in this cants would impose of their app connecti owner'in the nt. a public recreational area 'and the • an abiirot lnsurm°untable burden of or contra ct to meet the new and ing it. respectfully disse governmental interest inpro,r 1 iding the proof on the'proe saddling the city 1 atantly coming within the field of for.the afloct of inn a'~ PPlicatlon of , Moon. ca burden in this different conditions which are tin off- That is merely water run- with a heightened their. operation. In a changing Jilaticc 9outor, disse4 g' ctisnworld it is impassible that it California Noilata's nexus npeltiLioner's Pto- ' 11 v fi notes, inent had somehow In its aPPlic.tion of what is essen- should b° etherwiae:' Euclid 71 L This can e+ like N4Sgatlan US 826; 97 L Court need develop the doctrine of substantive dun Ambler Co., 272 US 366, 387+ coastal Comin'n, Ct 3141 7 oule Bally l; iroceEgs, the Court confuses the p08t S Ct 114, 64 ALR 1016 Ed 2d 877, lt to Sucre the city eit would lave been } with 1926). the Coll, exami T)ne the, P af Petitioner to the present. On iVovember 13, 303, a7 iilvltes conditions im- cpeai►~nabie to teq _ between a inion joined ro petitioner to e o£ Euclid, Ohio, 1922, the villag, 2 L Ed s4a, 48 S Ct 4a7)" dd, nc 640, n lo, lationship went .permits; Ye' vide tome alternativo g oanwal e 2d 631'. 97 9 Ct 1932. The dissent Posed by develop dedicate provide ublic." Ante, at use by the spnCe •0i Ed 2d the P at 322, But that. ` et b3 L Ed calling the city 19. The author of-today ' P - quiring I, r the , fact, and ' jistient in Justice St landowners to 631, 97 S an to state explain the Hoed for ensile portions of their land' for 129, was not the i 491 US 494 62 L Ed 2d 531, v wont an the enfml. intereb of course. Cteu932 stars found it tack for falling „ ~dj the burden overnm and never sought Ct 1932 (1947). •phara® dim ant that the onlinanco p lie public, and g the adverse effects ° tha City of T[g n of s responec to my arm s• i"g trN Ibid (emp4raaiA added). my pip mitigating declared ublic eionla, la was an arbitrary rc$i1 wrong Pa' bnra of today's ~ • meet. Nollan the cation as related,tU flood Lion of o Portia th a 3=: e r zasing ocdanattm ht~ that "if the orditcite oEntly, t u't i the holding in 160 - See Such develop nexus between Justify dedication the p ccess rig t to promote 'the city's emverety cartion 512 US the need for a o£ an interest the argued that, R'hat were made is a rational preserving (1994) (Sceiia. exaction and the control. It merely a~s and Cite ado i eigh t in ode.' ving the character of its united Stages v 114 S • nature of an nt) Young v Amerieo1 Mini 129 L Ed Zd 22, 114 S Ct see also id at bicycle path CL 24401 t (a beach over easenno nmontal intereti of t ever he bicy recreat ,nealr crhoode L Ed 2d 310.96 S in u ment); Scalia, in land 77seatres, 4Z7 US 60.71149 J. it to , s J. concurring 2d 22. 114 S Ct ( nature of B~a~ this ca8°'~ raistang optesta of Stevens. s Private 129, L rring min judgment) icaliing the oxydoe 333 to%7=0* The Court Co.. J.. Concu ` per,alaaiSle restriction an the use of Pr B ttme of subetantiw due pTO 114, 54 property under Is A 3 v R,nbter Really 272 US 386 fr 1 L Ed 303 44 S ~ 1 US 183 raal- lom and Nectow v cambridet. 23 332 Y' ~ t ;M1l U.S. SUPREME COURT. REPORTS 129 L Ed 2d DOLAN v CITY OF TIGARD (1984) 129 L F3 2d 306 foot edge on -either aide,. were inci- traffic congestion and bicycle paths Plan ("'Bicycle and pedestrian path, S Ct 849 (1988) (Scalia, J., concw ring dental to the permit condition requir• is too -tenuous; only if, that -bicycle way. systems will result in some re- in part and dissenting in part). The frig dedication of the 16-foot sites- path ."would" offset the increased duction of automobile trips within bicycle path permit condition is fun- meat for an. 8 feet-wide bicycle path traffic by some amount,. could the , tlio community' Nollan, therefore, damentally no different from thee. and for flood control, including open bicycle path be said to be related to is satisfied; and on that assumption apace .requlrement&and. rolpcation of the- City's legitimate interoaWn ro- the city•s conditions should not be In any event, on my reading, the the bankr.of the river by como.five ducitig'traffic congestion. held to fail a further rough proper- Cqurt's conclusions aboltt the city's t' y 8 vulnerability carry tonalit test or any other that mi ht the urt no fur- feet. It seams tome ouch incidental • • - ' I.. recreational use can stand or fall ~l ct}anot agree that the application be devised •to give meaning to the ther than Notion has gone already, with the,bicycle path, which the city of Milan is a sound one here,. since constitutional limits. As Metnbens of and I do not view this case as s eu11r justified by reference to traffic con- it appears that. the Court has. placed this Court have said before, "the able vehicle for taking the law be- gestion. As to the relatiohship the the burden gf•producing evidenco of common zoning regulations req%ur- yond that point. The right Cagle for Court examines, bntweoli the recta- relationship on.the city, despite the ing subdividers to dedicate Cer. the enunciation•of•takings doctrine ' ational easement and a ur ose usual rule in cases involving the po- twin arena to public streets, are in seems hard to spat. See Lu+;aa v never put forth- as d justificdtion by lice:pgwer that.the government is accord with our constitutional tradi- South Gzrolina Coastal Councf 1, 1105 the city, -the Court unsurprisingly presumed to.have acted constitution- tions.because the proposed property US 120 L Ed 2d 798, 112 , finds a recreation area to be unre- ally. •'13aving thus assigned ;tho bur- use would otherwise be the cause of S Ct 2886 (1992) (statement of hated to fleod control. den, the Court concludes that the excessive congestion." Pennell v San Sauter, J.). City loses based on one word ("could" Jose,. 486 US 1, 20, 99 L Ed 2d 1, 108 Second, as to the bicycle path, the instead of "would'), and despite the Court again acknowledges the "theo- fact that this record shows the con- _ r[etically]" roaaonable'relntionahip nection the Court looks for. Dolan ; between "the city's attempt to reduce has.put'forward no evidence that the traffic congestion by providing (a burden of granting a. dedication for bicycle path]. for alternative means the bicycle path is unrelated in' kind ;f of transportation,'".ante, at 129 to the anticipated increase in traffic L Ed 2d, at 318, and the '.'correct" congestion, nor, if there exists a finding -of the city that "the larger requirement that the relationship be retail sales facility proposed by peti, related in degree, has Dolan shown tioner will increase traffic on the that the exaction fails any such teat. streets of the Central fluainess Dis- The city, by contrast, calculated the - trict." Antc,.at 129 L'Ed 2d, at increased traffic flow that would re- 122. The Court only-faults the city salt from IMlan'e proposed develop for saying that the. bicycle path went to be 436 trips per day, and its "could" rather than "would" pffaet Comprehensive Plan, applied here, j' the increased'traffic from the store, relied on studies showing the link be- ante, at 129 L•Ed 2d, at tween alternative modes of tranapor- _ 322-323. That again, as for as I-can tation, including bicycle paths, and tell, is an application of Nollan, reduced street traffic congestion. See, j for the Court holds that the stated e g., Brief for Respondent •A$, quot- connection ("could offact'7 between wing city. of Tigard's Comprehensive • See, e.g.' Goldblatt v Nemptead 369 US to IIriof for I(ceppoondont B-26. The adjudication 690, 694.6.4, 8 L Ed 2d' 130, 82 bt' Ct 987 here was of Dolan's requested variance from (1962):_United.' Stater v Sheeny Corp. 493 US the permit conditions otherwioe required to 62, 60, 107 L Ed. 2d 290, 110 S CL 31f7 (1989). be imposed by the Code. This case raises no The majority characterirm this caw as involv. questf on about discriminatory, or "reverse ing an "adjudicative decision" to impowe spot" roniog, which "eingles out a particular ppooemit rnndalions ante, at n 8, 129 L Fd parcel for dif.rent, leas favorable treatinenl 2d, at 320, but the permit conditions were than the nelghboria ones:' Pen9 n Central Imposed puruuant to Tigard'sCominunity 7Yv7 'Co. v NerdYork Gl'h'. 438 U 106; 132, - Development Code. See; e.g., $18.84.040, App 67 L Ed 2d 631, 98 S CL 296 (1978).. 33.6 - 4 ~ l i , 06/07 17:13 1995 FROM: FROM: x034237588 iu: 000 PAGE: 2 06/07/95 17: 02' ? 9 '3 684 7297 CITY OF TIGkr CITY A 1 ~IICSIT neee~a e,r~ L1 11-- e5a~ee-. 5 NOTICE NOTICIE M HEREBY IGiM THAT THE TIGARD Ci7'y CoUNcIL, V.- AT A MIEE FG ON TUESDAY$APRI[, 29, R995 AT 7:3® FM, r.'r IN THE TOWN KAU OF THE T11GARD CIVIC r=R, CIi'Y OF'IiGAEtI9;: 13125 SW KALL SOULEVA~, TIGARD, ®i~.-oN 97223 . VVILL CONSIDIMt THE LLO O L TI®Ilai: FILE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT RMEW (SDPJ 91-OOOS lARMCE (VAR) 91-00 i0 FILE TTTLE: DOLAN/FADIEZ A APPLICANT:" Tr istees for John T. Dolan OWNER: Trustees for John T. Dolan 4025 SE Brooklyn Street 4025 SE Brooklyn Street Portland, OR 97202 Portland, OR 97202 REQUEST e• Consideration of U.S. Supreme Court remand of conditions related to the dedication of property for floodplain management and a bikepath relating to the determination of the rough proportionality of those requirements. LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700). APPLICABLE REViEW Community Development code Chapters 18.32,18-66,18.86,18.100,18.102,18.106, CRITERIA: 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134 and 18.164; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. ZONE: C8D (Central Business District). The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities, among other uses. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCILAND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE C17Y WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (50x7 684.2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR 70 THE HEARING TO MAKC ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHINGTO PRESENT WRFTTEN TESTIMONYON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING- ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARIN`.+. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTE14 TESTIMONY. THE Cl-if t.v^Ui IC1L IAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC NEARING TO ANOTHER ~~EE'; I~r'Ci TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON 01 SHOWN ffl~. 06/07/95 17:03 884 7287 CITY OF TIW- ► CITY ATTORNEY 111002/002 SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORTTO THE APPLICATION AFTER APRIL 5.1395. ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO CCM ICCT A Pn►r"kly 1AfjP'C nCTUC ucAOlfuP II~T3J m:I-q NCj rnmT ml Ifl111f c 0-CAAITC0 AT THE UCADIRI.- ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST 'kVE N DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE 11CA,RD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DMAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL VII LL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRrrERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMI6RTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE, OR FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CITY,- APPLICANT, OR OTHER PARTIES TO THE APPLICATION WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. WILL PRECLUDE APPEAL ON SAID ISSUE TO THE STATE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA). ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THSABOVC-NOTED FILE AREAVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ` THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR SENIOR PLANNER RICHARD t3l WE-2SO RFP AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 12IN HALL BOULEVARD, 11GARD, OREGON. ;c Oak= JOHN W. SHONKTVILER, AC. APR x ~ 1995 .4trorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue COT TIGA,V G bAC1Lag,~ Tigard, Oregon 97223 C Fax 684-8971 Phone 624-0917 April 17, 1995 EXHIBIT Timothy V. Ramis O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew Attorney at Law 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 RE : Dolan vs. City Qf Tigard Dear Tim: This letter is in response to your letter dated April 14, 1995. I am glad to see that the City is still willing to pursue settlement of The case. However, from our previous settlement negotiations and my prior letter, my clients are only willing to pursue a complete settlement of all issues. My clients cannot separate economic and non-economic issues. It would appear from your letter that the insurance carrier has not authorized the economic portion of the settlement offer. I suspect that you and your insurance carrier's intention is to wait until the federal court ruling on the motions before seriously considered an economic amount. As I am sure you are aware, the federal court merely sets a projected date for ruling on the motions and sometimes runs a week or two beyond before issuing the actual decision. Therefore, it would appear appropriate to continue the City's remand hearing set for April 25, 1995 to a date thirty days later. This would allow the parties to complete their settlement negotiations after the federal court ruling. By this letter, my clients request that the remand hearing be continued for thirty days to around May 25, 1995. You indicated in your letter that the City has nearly completed review of the plans for the site and the two buildings proposed. You also indicated that the City had not found any significant problems with the plans so far. The plans submitted for the main building were filed with the City under its normal building permit process. By your letter, I assume that the City will be able to complete its building permit applications review shortly, and issue a building permit to my client. As to the second building, your suggestion of postponing a building permit application until the latter part of this year could provide a workable solution. My clients, of course, would want a description of that alternative defined in the settlement agreement. Finally, on two other issues, I feel there is a need for some comment. First, from our r i t Now, , .17 Page - 2 settlement negotiation meeting, I understood that there would be some contact between City officials and my client. Regarding the notice on the remand hearing, I understand that Dan Dolan contacted the mayor for an explanation. No attorneys were involved in the conversation. Thereafter, the mayor called W. Dolan back, but the City's attorney was now present in the telephone conversation. I know that these things sometimes happen, but from now on we should be careful to have legal representation present for both sides at any discussions between the parties that is not in the context of merely an application filing or review. The second matter was your reference to my clients being concerned about other parties on remand. Actually, my recollection of the conversation was that the City mentioned other parties such as the Audubon Society. I was not even aware they were interested. However, I then suggested some solutions for best dealing with possible "other parties". To continue with the settlement process, it appears that we need to schedule another meeting to finalize the non-economic portions of a possible settlement. If -we scheduled that meeting approximately one or two weeks from now, hopefully we will have final resolution of review on both buildings . The first week in May looks open for my office. Please let me know a date and time con-N.-enient for the City personnel and yourself. ncerely, J W. SHONKNNTILER, P. C. John W. Shonkwiler cc: Dolan Cofield Smith 'iilli ON! 111 11 ON Ems ffl~ 06119 16:06 1995 FHOG: 503 684 7297 JU: 000 rAbt: OC/19/95 15:56 IT503 684 7297 CITY OF TI6ARD CITY ATTOR'N'EY 10002/002 'TLU rOATVV W. SHOAliNlYIZER, P. c Adomry of Lave 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigeid, Oragm 97= Fax 664-8971 Phana 624-0917 May 10, 1995 MAY 3.2 f99~ ;F Mayor James Nicoli City of Tigard 13125 SRI' Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Dolan Remand Hearing SDR 91-0005 and LIAR 91-0010 Dear Mayor Nicoli: The Dolan remand hearing is presently continued to May 23, 1995. On behalf of the Dolan family, I previously requested a 30 day continuance because of continuing settlement negotiations and all the parties awaiting a federal court ruling that might affect s the monetary issue. The federal court still has not ruled on the motions before it, and it appears appropriate to continue the remand hearing for an additional 30 days. Therefore, the Dolan family hereby requests that the above described proceedings be continued for approximately 30 days into June of 1995. In addition, I would like to schedule another meeting between the parties in the lawsuit to address the remaining settlement issues. Please let me know of any dates that would be acceptable to you and the City Attorney. Sincerely, JOHN W. SHONWKWELER, P. C. John W. Shonkwiler t.XL cc: Dan Dolan Tim Ramis Dorothy Cofield David Smith J K.' a All t ""HE F'OI,I~0IllTG DOCUMENT IS OF POOR ORIGINAL UALITY f ~ f ....sietdRt:31Y1>YY 'tf' _31.J' •:17$4 "f.~'i M . a t:-~ -J+1Lls-~ ei~i ~ . •7~~1 'r . , z rus' 1 l - , f ~ 1yJ 3 tiL t C , 1 3' lj~ m dP 13 anagement2 88 on°odplain ct ot• indirect prder 119 avoid dire 1 cdcable gxeeudve policy „to 04 presidental nal Yer there is a the risk lisped a nationp nt where art with, 1911 eStab develop in p with in lain concern liattce in Come avoid . 12 ~$0 support of floodp ions reflected c 22 The real development desire to meat. ed floodplain altemat~ve. posed even b . also reflected th elop developtnt:nc d dev e subsidize encourag insurance of flooding This policy ds. floodplain have p damage as$ed a ; to federally effectively at private,1viA risks posed by d states ental v?;1 subsidies rtized f The old nmental ri ress an the etlvironm recog a tugyd an strttctuml the enviro s Cong of of similar concern , protect against kinds believed that these these But Congeshecause d . in developmeet ally availabi rovide disaster e was w require Reflecting designed to accompany certa wing top ce availabl that tends the nation was not none is to limit flood variety of Laws to wide pro goo for Contra along tnsutan radalion lams. ulted in and for m use contra deg floodp have res ains. BY control, an and merit in oticies meet in floodp flood t strict 1 44tn(b)(3)- flood jnsurance, develrofphese national p d develop floodprone tries adop SCSec. with wide that 1°c~ U of federal nation of lan communities lied damages. See 47 adoption regulation andhg ~o) of 20,506 mat at least c0minteragenCY Not long after 1990, 1S'07 3 adopted ordinances teguirements am mum federatme fgat 6 2 ' the Federal .ntergencY (1913)' 42 in Assess Tegutations of 97. 93-234.8 Scat. ploodPpQd insutCe E pub L . F1 . 2ta)(3) ° sec t t ' 3 (1992) accelerating aY 24,191'1). U .S.C. Sec. 4W2(a)O 4(102(a)((1)(2) (findinghe legislative ped ,269 51 (1`1 Chapter 14 of the 42 U rtzed in taws .S.G. Sec. u 41 mtra etary of -it regulatory gee federal subsiuR by the sect su v Some § imF°tt'~' 404 of ause of laws art bec vat a Sep WAY of include: 25 costs in T with appc0 Asse ssment eats, CtU in . disaster Tess Devquotede the past 30 fainchew eQuival ula~ing • Gong lopment. msns of thV' interagency Ftoodp to and local 92) (reg 16 t histacY otection Pmg ate( widespread s~ 1344 (19 entent Ac , 13rbv, PT d hazard is now e have Zone t}.S, C§ ne Manag ensi Housing ;aid of the flood 1100 moved which Act, 33 U tal in spite Waal ople Kaye clean water ve coos the average tin s bean. because Pe tone areas faster the d hatbox); GOB cornpreh erosion, ye~s• prog` rim ds, rivers ~ au1ng state protection. ch ecty into flaod.P Many wetlan A64 (1992) rte r quality er imPacG; of cons ware before su and then prop been built. U.S G %1451-1 s to address oar elves an have meet of among 1613,5 C. h them works this develop ecnent Plat' funcclons 1985 ( buster rotectl°n of Population, manag key natural "Swamp wh( than flood-p nsible COr P , Vey Security Net of fan-11 ave bet" P° rowth C1&iP that reservation of benei'tts t0 1211-128 f211 {actors h are" 'S the Sene'nl g but it is also ment}, vood agrir,, 16 U .S C. %1211 {lood-prone on% others; bentilis•-whereby develop 1992) (denying ers Act, y,tivities t wealth RiY and costs from of flood- §382138?A (ds), wild d scenic federally au income. tial $eparation of the casts wetlan vities and n ub of bets primarily convect federal aela vets) SUM the s public beau' most 99 ltmjtm~ i noted wild and scera the general while individual mem encouraging 0 2) g w°i a maior factor act des would imp l protection e ts--h''s been Neu;g at receive th & Ad. such development tl S. Code Gong' _583, reprinted in 1913 rte k - BEEBE= MACKENZIE ENGINEERING'. INCORPORATED ~EXHIB____l CIVIL m STRUCTURAL, N TRANSPORTATION 9 5.:{ 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET a P. O. BOX 69039 CJ PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 s (503) 2249560 0 FAX (503) 228=1285 MEMORANDUM PR DATE: June 20, 1995 I l u i ~l SUBJECT: Dolan / Tigard - Storm Drainage Project Number 195159 ,i3EG QIV ti BY: Tim McGuire, P.E. ~'j r 'YW.t~ TO: File Following is an analysis of the impacts that the proposed expansion of the Tigard A-Boy would have on runoff to Fanno Creek. Methods to mitigate the impact of that runoff are also reviewed. MEI has suggested steps that the City should take if it requires an easement allowing maintenance of the creek channel and floodplain area Mansio Drainage Impacts of the Ex As detailed in the attached calculations, the proposed A-Boy expansion will increase runoff to Fanno Creek from the subject property. Current peak flow runoff from the ste during a 25-year storm event is approximately 1.32 csf The A-Boy expansion will increase that amount to approximately 1.91 csf. (This assumes the existing building and parking in Phase H will be removed.) In making the calculations, N EI used the 25-year storm event because of the following requirement in Unified Sewerage Agency regulations: The conveyance system (pipe, culverts, channels, and the like) shall be designed to provide a level ofprotection from all damage due toflooding from a 25 year event.. . Alternatives to Mitigate Increased Storm Discharge r MEI reviewed alternatives available to address the increase in storm water discharge that will occur if the proposed major development is built. We believe only three possibilities are available because of physical and legal constraints. The first alternative is to require dedication of an easement that would allow the City to _ maintain and enhance the creek's floodplain area to provide additional capacity to accommodate increased runoff. The second alternative, which would avoid the need for a dedication, would be to construct an on-site retention system. The third alternative is to build an on-site detention system. Retention <r Attached to this memorandum are calculations establishing a design and construction cost for a retention-type drainage system. The proposed drainage system is intended to limit peak flows and volume of runoff from :r the site to the pre-developed (existing) conditions. This is accomplished by retaining (infiltrating) added runoff generated by increased impervious areas of the proper development. MEI's conclusions from the calculations are as follows: MACKEN.ZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED FAWPDATA\954W95159\20M1.SK st 1; ,y yGR?A N 7 Memorandum to File T%^1 an Ti anrA Project Number 195159 June 20, 1995 Page 2 ® Based on the existing site drainage conditions and the proposed development plan, a drainage scheme allowing direct discharge of most of the site, while retaining approximately 5,000 square feet of roof or parking lot runoff on site, would maintain drainage characteristics similar to existing conditions. a Soils types in the areas as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), have low permeability and are not the types typically associated with retention drainage systems. The majority of the site is mapped as Aloha series with a permeability rate of 0.2 to 0.6 inches per hour. Areas closer to Fanno Creek are shown as McBee series soils, with permeability in the range of 0.6 to 2.0 inches per hour. ® Based on a 0.6 inch per hour percolation rate, it does not appear feasible to construct a retention drainage system on the proposed site. With 200 lineal feet of infiltration trench, surface ponding in the parkin, lot would occur within roughly 3 hours during the 25-year storm event. a Assuming an optimistic two inch per hour permeability, approximately 284 lineal feet of trench drain would be required to provide the necessary infiltration :ate. Based on a construction cost of $24 per lineal foot, the retention system could be expected to cost approximately $6,800. (Additional structural sections in the parking area might be required to compensate for saturated subgrade conditions produced by the retention system. This could add significantly to the cost of a retention-type drainage system.) Detention Unlike a retention system, a detention system would be built to temporarily store water on the property and meter it out over time. Using the same calculations that support our analysis of a retention system, we conclude the detention volume required to limit the future 25-year peak flow from the site to that of the existing 25-year peak flow, is approximately 990 cubic feet. The cost to provide such an on-site, 25-year detention system would be approximately $8,500. The detention system would be constructed using an oversized (36-inch) storm drain pipe in the parking area to temporarily store the storm runoff. A control manhole with outlet orifice is used to limit the release rate from the storm drain. Some pondin in the parking lot is allowed, prior to overflow condition, to increase system efficiency. Mitigation Through a Maintenance Easement A more economical and efficient means of mitigating for runoff from the site would be to require an easement allowing the City to maintain and enhance the creek area to handla additional runoff. Several mitigation steps could provide the additional capacity necessary to mitigate for the runoff from the A-Boy expansion. Those include: 1. Addition of extra volume to the Fanno Creek channel through excavation. The site area required to widen the Fanno Creek channel and provide a suitable level of detention is approximately 220 square feet, at a cost of approximately $2,500. This would effectively store any increased runoff from the developed site, allowing no net increase in downstream water profile. To perform this mitigation, it would be necessary for the City to have access to the creek channel in the vicinity of the site. MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED F. WP'DATAWS-06195159V0M1.SK 7Tijzard 17 WAL Mem orDolan / Project Number 195159 June 20, 1995 Page 3 2. Increase the hydraulic efficiency of the Fanno creek channel. This could be accomplished by clearing of vegetation, such as brush and grass or other debris from the channel, providing a smoother channel surface and increasing the ability of the channel to convey water. Again, the City would need access to the floodplain and channel area in the vicinity of the A-Boy site, both to conduct the channel enhancement and to maintain the improvements. Periodic maintenance of the creek channel would continue to be necessmy to preserve the current hydraulic characteristics and capacity of the channel as well as the improvements gained through enhancement activities. Failure by the city to maintain the channel would cause a decrease in hydraulic capacity and result in an increase in water profile. Such an increase would damage not only the A-Boy site but sites downstream as well. The proposed development plan indicates the existing building and parking will be removed following construction of the new building. The drainage calculations and cost estimates were based on this and the assumption that the Phase 11 area would be left in a landscaped (pervious) condition. Impervious areas within Phase H that are retained may significantly increase the drainage requirements and costs of mitigation. TWM/sk a g" MACKEINZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED F-.\wPDATA\95.06\95159\20M1.SK 5 USINAR: DETENTION DEVISED ~-r9-g S' ~ I, j?6z Ep-~-u M.c- ~1'1 M °5 AN o To VII~~ aN-5( c ~1`~4V~i~~2 TQ. 215 ~61kg 5 T 1 'j'am Tai N? ~~~Lo Pr~r~r~f c~yrl f~ C°CIc.15 ti wl t'L~ Ol AAA A126. vF 25 ~6AJ2 Dead llc,ti 57(51~-A 1~ASt~ I P-IC~~'oN cv~V~ Q~51 ~ S°T~1 I~ ~ , - IJ~L.I I 1 yBYI c~ DATE >S MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. 169 CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SNT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET P.O. BOX 69039 S PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 1346 ALL r m 94 ALL I FIGHTS HTS RESERVED COfiPORATED ~ L ERVED Weak 51 to y. TA gC-AV- 25 :T &t .j At-Z -to pRovAe- ~o~:~- SIz~~ = 72, 743 sF LhJN5c e 6 f efA55 ARIGNY - ~ 4°i ~ A~sP~ l~- i = I S, ~Q BY ----1- a DATE -AL ME MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO.^ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET a P.O. BOX 69039 ` PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ® ACKE HIGHGINEERIINVGCD ORPORA7 1994 ALL V" s'-ve 4-3, St,,a TA-13c.~ X t 1 ?i FS 3 pT/sue ( A55vIL4E0 = ),3 HI 4 tZr' ~.l03 1>~l~ 1,31 -Tit h n L- Ir s) C r ~7 ~t BY, 1 / H DATE MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPOFLUED JOB NO . 4 CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. 3 OF IS 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 0 MACKENZIE D,GINEERING INCORPORA~ 1994 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED at F A-p-c-A 5F l3b.ILDIAI& ROOF AIZ.PA (PROPOSED) = {771 GD© SP PARkING SlOfWAL.k li Soo IF mum LA Al o-rcA)p,6 _ J 3l 6 S/5 SP 7Z/ -7 4F E~ 33, 6'1 T ( 4, ~"5 I ~J -0 Dr 92 LAMOSCAPE -t PAI?kl46- -t- PJPE l l ~0~3/60 _ / S, y M /A/ Y A2s= 2, 1? G,cA =(.9Z)(2-09) = l-9l CPS BY DATE s MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB No. CIVIL- STRUCTURAL* SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OFf 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ® MACKEN IE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 1994 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED II(~1i(a 12so ~3 ~ _ ~ ICI, 2a = I Sd,~o~ -3 tofi p~TENT J I,~ c~~~ MN (G~l PT W IL-L- I IN~b CO !~~AI°-j -Tj L7~ 12E) BY 7 DATE j q~ J I MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOBNO.-` CIVIL- STRUCTURAL- SURVEYING *TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ® MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 1994 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 'a yi r DETENTION CALCULATION PROJECT: DATE: 6-19-95 BY: RLF (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) TIME OF INFLOW INFLOW DEPTH OUTFLOW OUTFLOW ADJUSTED CONCEN. DEVELOP. INTENSITY RATE VOL. RATE VOL. VOL. (MIN.) CA (IN/HR) (CFS) (FT^3) (FT) (CFS) (FT^3) (1)*(2)*(3) (4)*60*T+(9) (7)*60*T +(5)-(8) 5 0.92 3.40 3.13 . 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.1 6 0.92 3.22 2.96 180.87 0.90 0.7 39.6 141.2 7 0.92 3.04 2.80 309.03 1.35 0.8 48.6 260.5 8 0.92 2.86 2.63 418.34 1.70 0.9 54.5 363.8 9 0.92 2.68 2.47 511.79 2.00 1.0 59.1 452.7 10 0.92 2.50 2.30 590.68 2.30 1.1 63:4 527.3 11 0.92 2.42 2.23 660.88 2.60 1.1 67.4 593.5 12 0.92 2.34 2.15 722.66 3.10 1.2 73.6 649.1 13 0.92 2.26 2.08 773.82 3.11 1.2 73.7 700.1 14 0.92 2.18 2.01 820.46 3.15 1.2 74.2 746.3 15 0.92 2.10 1.93 862.20 3.20 1.2 74.8 787.4 16 0.92 2.04. 1.88 900.04 3.22 1.2 75.0 825.0 17 0.92 1.98 1.82 934.34 3.25 1.3 75.3 859.0 18 0.92 1.92 1.77 964.98 3.30 1.3 75.9 889.1 19 0.92 1.86 1.71 991.73 3.40 1.3 77.1 914.7 20 0.92 1.80 1.66 1014.03 3.45 1.3 77.6 936.4 25 0.92 1.60 1.47 1378.00 3.50 1.3 390.9 987.1 30 0.92 1.40 1.29 1373.45 3.50 1.3 390.9 982.5 F-- 35 0.92 1.28 1.18 1335.78 3.50 1.3 390.9 944.8 40 0.92 1.15 1.06 1262.24 3.40 1.3 385.3 876.9 50 0.92 1.00 0.92 1428.91 3.60 1.3 793.0 635.9 60 0.92 0.91 0.84 1138.25 3.47 1.3 778.5 359.7 90 0.92 0.72 0.66 1552.03 3.65 1.3 2395.4 -843.4 ASSUMPTIONS 1) ENTIRE BASIN CONTRIBUTING AT T= 5 MIN. 2) STORAGE VOLUME IS ZERO AT T = 5 MIN. 0=0.62*0.14*(2*32.2*H) ^.5 r rz.~ tar gll hr, L- loo` 1 CILOSS - SfC, cc MAA j! ° fj11~h"1 VDL A/737 J D D /y7.8 0,35 O.36e 36.81 . 1.1 q,'l 0 mo 1.7 St Ll 17 8. LIa 0.76 2.6 L/ 26 N. U 6 M-0 0.85 3.53`1 353.'-13 I Nq, 3 0,93 q.N3 LHM' luq, 1100 5. 22' 5 M'A/ rw9. y 0,a b 6o 6.2,V 1 Sv. Z 1, 1y io Goo-~ ,0. I5 U,S t , zo ?,od 706. g6 151. ZU 1, 32 195 706 PIPr 4- 12-50 Sf t2 fA E Q = CA (z5") '~Z C~ = 1.3 t h = 3,7 - G o'e, z = JCd 2 9 1,32 p-62 2x3.,.2 X 3.7) O.y2 = 5.0 ;n 63 = O. / -'f, Qo t! AAI - ? Gy12l' BY I vyJ DATE 6 -20-9-5' iJoBNO. 1 Ct FrTl 515°I n MAC KENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED % 5 Iul I I CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. --L- OF U I U 0 690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 MACKEN2IE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED I_ PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ® 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED t Hill MEN= e A-Le oL-A ''Tl c 7N eA-, f~~C , Sr2 YI W~ 5y1~--~ I, IN FI/~T `lf 2.45 ~6A9 L~6/67,- Do65 p~7 4413T, Au, / r7y J L) /A MoD 6-Wc- 15 Fqz Tt4v Itn Y -57-zLqzm, ~-S Eye-~`t~►s Q~SS>p ~ 1~o Z'o 25 . ~''i ~s121~~ . ~ -~'t b lex~ Y2. C1.&V. - ISM /c-- - X25 = o,~~ 1N/H•R (,1S a►~S X°SL~-?cam ' 25 - ( - 2,=,5 csU jT ~ ~ 2 5 L1 6M2 Fvc~a MRS R6 61Q-A'5-c-kql Cis <u75~ Td t5~v, !=f~,2S BYE-1 DATE` L{- L~ ME MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSP()"r~TATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 MACKENZIE ENGINyERING INCORPORATED 1994 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED _w. MOM - aN I ~ v~ 3c~jr G M P PRoJ 4i~tN ~ ~d7 ~3 _ A55~)~1>✓ ~Mtc.~2 t-~G.i HS ~ ®N - ~1Z~ Po~oe•~ W~l~ l&-z~~t,:Qtj Jt~,S W (7iAc->J-T # g) Soo C,c,5-T Teo 500 , DATE l ME MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - SURVEYING - TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT S i REET - P.O. BOX 69039 ESERV INCORPORATED PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 - (503) 224-9560 - FAX (503) 228-1285 ® MgCKENZIE ENGIRESERVED 1994 ALl RIGMS R .,n T.7. ems' r` I E-~-, = I~ra2s _ 2,5 Yrz eI266~- FT2_-TjlZT7AG6 At-II SI'C6 = 22c-, F7 (z &t,25 'To pFV be 2s Yukg wwLt~ NC4-b -cc 4PIz,:V,. 7 FTj 5rrs A?~ 9G;:q` k l = 22a )e. l = .22zo. 56?l f'; i2t:VL - 1~ ARL D BY DATEm SIa~ MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOBNO. CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 POR D, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ® 1994 ALL RIGHM RESERVED O WI: lllc~ _ ,.m ti2 Qe- ~ I I I i ~ I I i 6 ~5 1 W 6H DATE ME MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. CIVIL - STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 rnacKErmE ENG~NEEA~NG INCORPORATED ~ PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ® ~A~DRESERVED m MEN 7771 SCI HAH '51, e , r I I ~LbL, ~Kt t•tL~ e I CI~~f) DATE IJ~'_~l JOB NO. MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 11 1, J CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. 1 OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFf' STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 buCKENZtE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED ' PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 FAX (503) 228-1285 ® 1994 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED =re r~, s 41, RAINFALL INTENSITIES FOR EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY 71 (tor Range* 1 & 2 West' 25-year Storm Event 5 3.40 10 2.50 15 2.10 20 1.80 5,1 3.38 10.1 2.49 13.1 2.09 20.2 1.79 5.2 3.36 10.2 2.48 15.2 209 20.4 1.78 5.3 3.35 10.3 248 15.3 2.08 20.6 1.78 5.4 3.33 10.4 247 15.4 208• 20.8 1.77 5.5 3.31 10.5 246 15.5 2.07 21 1.76 5.6 3.29 10.6 2.45 15.6 2.06 21.2 1.75 5.7 3.27 10.7 2.44 15.7 206 21.4 1.74 5.8 3.26 10.8 244 15.8 2.05 21.6 1.74 5.0 3.24 10.9 243 15.9 205 21.8 1.73 8 3.22 11 242 16 204 22 1.7-1 6.1 3.20 11.1 2.41 16.1 ' 203 222 1.71 6.2 3.18 11.2 240 16.2 2.03 224 1.70 6.3 3.17 11.3 240 16.3 202 22.6 1.70 6.4 3.15 t 1.4 239 16.4 202 228 1.69 6.5 3.13 11.5 238 16.5 2.01 23 1.68 6.6 3.11 11.6 237 16.6 200 223.2 1.67 6.7 3.09 11.7 2.36 16.7 200 23.4 1.66 6.8 3.08 11.8 236 16.8 1.99 23.6 1.66 6.9 3.06 11.9 235 16.9 1.99 23.8 1.65 7 3.04 12 234 17 1.98 24 1.64 7.1 3.02 12.1 233 17.1 1.97 24.2 1.63 7.2 3.00 12.2 232 17.2 1.97 24.4 1.62 7.3 299 12.3 232 17.3 1.96 24.6 1.62 7.4 2.97 12.4 231 17.4 1.96 24.8 1.61 7.5 295 12.5 2.30 17.5 1.95 25 1.60 7.6 293 12.6 2.29 17.6 1.94 25.2 1.59 7.7 2.91 127 228 17.7 1.94 25.4 1.58 7.8 2.90 122-8 228 17.8 1.93 25.6 1.58 7.9 2.88 12.9 2.27 17.9 1.93 25.8 1.57 8 2.86 13 2.26 18 1.92 26 1.56 8.1 284 13.1 225 18.1 1.91 26.2 1.55 8.2 2.82 13.2 224 18.2 1.91 26.4 1.54 8.3 2.81 13.3 2.24 18.3 1.90 26.6 1.54 8.4 279 13.4 223 18.4 1.90 26.8 1.53 8.5 2.77 13.5 222 18.5 1.89 27 1.52 8.6 275 13.6 221 18.6 1.88 27.2 1.51 8.7 2.73 13.7 2.20 18.7 1.88 27.4 1.50 8.8 272 13.8 220 18.8 1.87 27.6 1.50 8.9 2.70 13.9 2.19 18.9 1.87 27.8 1.49 9 2.68 14 218 19 1.86 28 1.48 9.1 2.66 14.1 217 19.1 1.85 28.2 1.47 9.2 2.64 14.2 216 19.2 1.85 28.4 1.46 9.3 263 14.3 216 19.3 1.84 28.6 1.46 9.4 2.61 14.4 215 19.4 1.84 28.8 1.45 9.5 2.59 14.5 214 19.5 1.83 29 1.44 9.6 2.57 14.6 2.13 19.6 1.82 29.2 1.43 9.7 255 14.7 212 19.7 1.82 29.4 1.42 9.8 2.54 14.8 212 19.8 1.81 29.6 1.42 9.9 252 14.9 2.11 19.9 1.81 29.8 1.41 10 2.50 15 210 20 1.80 30 1.40 r ~ 13/c ~ TABLE VIII - CHARACTERISTIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CHART Values of coefficient, C Land Characteristic Average Gradient of Terrain Less than 2% 2% to 7% More than 7% Asphalt or concrete 0.85 0.90 0.95 Roofing 0.85 0.90 0.95 Grassy surface 0.20 0.25 0.30 Bare soil 0.30 0.35 0.40 r i 5 ;c - 40 - Rli i-. TABLE XI OVERLAND FLOW TRAVEL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN) LENGTH OF AVERAGE GRADIENT OF TERRAIN OVERLAND FLOW (FT) 1% or ?It 4% 7p i04% or less more A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C 50 11 6.5 4 10 5.5 3 8.5 4 2 7.5 3.5 2 7 3 2 100 15 8.5 5 13 7.5 0 11.5 6.5 3 10 5.5 2• 9 5 2 200 20 11 6 17 9.5 5 15 8.5 4 13 7.5 3 12.5 7 2 300 C913 7 20 11.5 6 18 10 5 16 9 4 14 8. 3 400 26 15 8 22 12.5 6.5 20 11 6 18 10 5 16 9 4 500 28 16 9 24 14 7 22 12.5 6.5 19 11 6 18 10 5 700 33 18 10 28 .16 8 25 14 7.5 22. 12 6.5 20 11 6 This Table is to be used for Sheet Flow conditions only. SURFACE TYPE: A Grassy B Bare Soil C Rooftop/Paved re ! -44- RETENTION ` '6> r l f)XpjNAeO6 -5y,-76m 5HAu, ,)ml-' Src& f,;vNvFF W 7z Aai~.1 VCS. H45 7H' 6 PR~IFFIIP,, LtS('t iv C} ` CsSIV Q 1 1C5 e~ ti I 'l oA~c~.a 6 ~ Y W. VN AR& Oe Jzrji,-:pAL- ~le7146-b Q LA) r-vY- a BY 79M _ DATE MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. I_ CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - SURVEYING - TRANSPORTATION SHT. OFI 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET - P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 - (503) 224-9560 - FAX (503) 228-1285 MACKENVE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED r 0, co- 24,3 h~ C KA1- 2 V- - ~xl S?, j~P~s G~~a►7~~5 1,2ce Him, L (,2.ta 3 ~i) x-,2(4 ~J QD-ZS (rAk 2S YR 9~ - b~vukl--!op4) 7 U56 e,-tQ5G;-VAJtvil~ SG--{zU1c-6 (Se-,e) HAN . pep---o' RA-r&5 For- S` 145 Dw 1G0~ , BY F DATE MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOBN°'--ice CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (50) 228-1285 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ut~ lS. _ 10 a HAH 1115~g~ 1 ~ I FATRk1Nd~ I,~ Li !X~ S~ t , I gr-, X220 i BY ~S//L1LL~ q Q M1,. C~~I J"/~ DATE qq JOB NO. 0 J S, MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED r) 13 CIVIL- STRUCTURAL* SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) .328-1285 ® MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 19% ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ,17 -To-77AL. SI1"g AR,-A 711-7495 5r Dse~y = 33/ecqS 5F 72 , 74t:5 5F c- 0,2 LAtJb5r S)+ 313, (c7c) 4.3, scl:zv 4 r BY DATE MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JO8N0. CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. 29 OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ® MACKENDE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Sa► ?~~S H A66 5 MS ( TNT 'Sill s HWjt,JG -Ti Lc~G4T, 6 A 457 Z )f.1f~1 e tart o, c, 2'0 1N/ A L 5sA t6 5 ( TIC E mkll 6F 7146 SfZ,6 APPEA-i I'lOM AS AU-44A WI-7H A uYS A pE516?,) P~`-$~, Ilk = Oil 113/'14; ~A5 ) l Exalt-)& 512 4-1 AAp av-srz~ A 43 s1 s 6 i' BY -a . DATE 45 -32 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF~ 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 ENG PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 m ,nuRC S'REEEERRUJVED ORPORATED i 10 ;m# MAN tlt d F~~INv 35 'sF 9 sF ~ t 171 60= 1/233 { 1 I LA -%sc PIPE ~~r912 sF 1p5cAI6 To R~GT ow -51,TL.G ; G~ ~ o, 2 I ~ li ~ a, S (35 s2 3 3 . a~2 Sty S 15 ~-~5~G 't'ub ~xIS?Iti1C~ G©N01`775 A~f~ WILL S Pt,l WSIL I A-Ph czNS'7KU C'r,'jN a4:'. Tj46 '545 , BY-l KV - DATE s J_ JOB NO.., iVIAC-ENBE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED CIVIL o STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. ----+--OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 NACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 0 (503) 224-9560 0 FAX (503) 228-1285 ® 19% ALL RIGHTS RESERVED n ~ e!3 `w 7 c; PAIN )l1=lfls 33'/, Vnt05 Ems, von, 5Tgg A6'6 / LF y7~oo 0 4,1? ~ (o°~ 2, cv3 2tn Ioo.S 2,;3 f G~ + 12 SJ G,9~ I~ S BY H ; DATE •~3~,®~~' / JOB N0. MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 3 CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF~ 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED ORPORATED PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ®~9ssa~RlGrrtsRESERVED S r'r( ~SSuM E 20o I..F I►r~"~r~~ -ZP~+, Nei Mme eA Vol, VOL ~s ► day . 1c.1 `a,~y® o.'L8 ~ld; X1,5 v, c~8 S,c~ Dom, 2~f® ~6 o, cell 2~ 2S"7 CJS `Z77 3s p,xg Its ~ as91 12~ o,~v lri `7 9 y ai I ` l 375 (8o a,~ ®e 713 1a~~2 o~ol ~;~2 BY DATE 14) 4:; ISO) MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF~ 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ~MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED -I ® 1485 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED i SEEM mamma, MAY N67 C?' F6A51&L-*'-* WITH 2c2c:n I eF 7~ ~(h-}~ I IN I.c. l 5 C:1 `T ~-R F ICI ti FAu., f:7sjrZ_o v&X Z- H i2 ~Pp c.~ S _ c CP = C.cA - ~,)l o, a*6p LF T~f ol-l v 0,6-r cis 2,1 I~ ~4_ lv g~ C.4:: -t?67j6-t , BY `~WM DATE MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. H5 15t) CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. 7 OF 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-0039 • (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285CKENZIEENGINEERINGINCORPOR•,rEO~ t9M ALL RIGHTS RESERVED z_ n r ~~~~tYCs✓~ '('=L'N Qf~Pd N 1 (0 )(3 47) 0!~)-6Y zu p~~, ~II>G !S 5 W-) 23L1 WI, pl-r-rNo 5A-y 2~f 1 P~ iL~ 7~ lS le~7 ppAg/ eAj_., wrtg -l-6 440 lW9, 2cw br- cf P&Pf ~I~ 7"r¢v SyS~~t wSvLQ ~tLl~~3 0 7~V~ R i?~ 1 ~S 15 paS51j, ~ vSlN6 A Z,%* BY DATE MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. 5,1 S CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING • TRANSPORTATION SHT. _ OFJ 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET a P.O. BOX 69039 D a3y PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-9039 0 (503) 224-9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 ~MACKENZIEENGINEERING INCORPORATE ' 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED x+14 cti i s . KIM ti low Sit y 'r rOwls4fFi .C7 4 r „'S . a. `t / A R71 Q\} N,- A - y. . IL }'•~~~..r r., ..'S- tiy• ;~W » ....r; M r~!•r'~~.~: •tu•'4~'D. tAi, .i - ''sa: '1} _ '~;~a7G~k ''4 l: , t , 1! ~ •S ~G;~s+. fiA~1 t•~ .11`/T„tt'W w : ~t•LIl ~ t i,,. i • r t. ""~~JJ ~ d~1ri A ~ w o k 'ice:. p s:' m~ :I.y Ly'R . 1 {I` ~ .~~•t rn'; ' a~ a+ w 3 =W1 ! ~ • , Y:., ; L'~,_!w, ~ i' ~ ;;~~,1~,•, .7 tom: ti99,,;?, ' r~'~j~l 't,, a r •.N ~ 4 _ > n .1 i/•4. } '~~JY''~t,• r '7°1 . 'i1~ ~.1 '°'.Jy~~q~{~~j~ y 1 `~J w \ IJ~' t ;L rl -45D , ~..•c sn ~r 1 It ~kw: y.Y -~t ~ ~ : .c ..r`'' ~3H1rlOG ~~'lr tM~• -rte' _ P N1. r •1+'• ~•:Rt~d .9tvG'•.'r~~~,',t 'i~ N t T;.i~ s~ES~;• T}/"'•~~, It~lop N w •r:~' :.1 ..i . y~k$ `.1.~ l~ • •/a^ .r . t' r ~ , '`'i•~' nY~y O ' ' I - °d• ro'0 of r r . a t .r 1. ` w; ~ ~7r,• i :may<' ' .`~i- . ~ c~'s'4r '~N'`}~ .1 w S1~HOIt N F~R~ o• S-r'Si~a t• ~ i 1. t: qR'•i ~ • 7 y'~fdt~ddr t w ,.r• o r R • X11-'wv _ '^t• t;:.~r.a(..•t`,'.1~~~ r~ p .In• .;,kt. a '.1a• , y t,a•. ~ .K:, w ~ ' ;F~Z °J ~ •O - ~~"y, an _ c A j~+Y 1~~,^~"'~,~`~ ^ t Xti ~ a•: ofwi o ~;..Ij:`, t $y r: '1 r• ~ 't'• . ~s.,y~. t+ L i~. -,'•Z- :1<. e Y.: Aps ~l ',°jf ~ i{. 2A~t i'v a l~ •+rcl \ V~ _ ~"47~'g. ~~:l! /~V' i ~+•i. l1, ~Y..- • N s .A, ~ ~ t- , ~ N . ti•.~ks, .t' ~ .f l " 4„ ~ N? .•s ~ ; f , t ~ ' . rS A d' ,il-Sya~ t+• tr~ fl.~~l. i~:,,1. .j t. :'N:',sws ur .t S.•'U'•' t JN i r) M1~; • ~J Ut ~ 1` • ~A ~ : ' i, Yat S ~ i ~ 1''i` tf . ~ ~ . ~ is~ r'tY °A r . ~ :•/f t~,wr ,p, :y••~ 'htlr rf 4SS~ 7C~ 1 {'•1 •,i y; f. b _ ~ . 1~ ~l 't~'~' .a'1"^•"?'1.''r' .l~i~ .Z~r ~ ••r"S`i '•~•.,6Cs• •a ! 'kS'f~'r .la'~• L>y' g ~ .:N'» 6' ~ ~ r y ` t''2'~.•(~Z ~ £j ~t Ir • : v;' ~i"'.'' .1~r -r yd n.; ':I~~ ~ ~,R tk~i.~l,..:~~;'\: VA'i~ , i ; ~s, ".I~t{ 1. ~{F. , ~ ' .i ' t gyp', . ~ .at ~ M~l,"ii 1 P • i.N j. t• \ • } I , •r~' t •rr. ~ ter.' t• •'S1iIt L. rt• ti .t lpLti ' N'r• N ~ . ~ •'N ~1 '1 1, ~ ~ '~•y 9 rp a ~~('Y~ •YS ~ , ~ ,T,tL+! f i~.•. ~y:•~{ Si ~ r ~.~,,~~.:]o/ ~tyi••~•y. t i>.'~.'.;1 •t t` , } ,4 .Z i . yp Alp, p r..,:Ir .,fn - Y ~ ~ -'tom } - ~~f re"r? + y'~c--> •~'iti~ t`.~.y S~+~: ! ti`31'r~ 'F7• ~ • 1 `~'a: ~ 'C; t J • , t lX . ' 1 •>~t'~w. FAY ~ y.~e "a• ~;.-•fni ' •f r+t • ,A~ ) , ~ e~-4t's .'k' Yi. ;S • .p.~:~. =e '1; . sl.. ~yt) S• • j1~n r.,. , N 4- :.o± .:~.j~].;~ri:'1 ;~1>r- w 1 ~;'l i yts;•:+~r^ -j' ,'L,+ ~ fps ria . J J'd ' t P ~ ! t.! • i ltd::-. - '•'t.. - ~ ~ ~}-1 r, ' ".k . m r :t' 10.. _ ~ f 1~ ` Y r-s ~ N . ' ` pL "..L`' J. ryt 1 ~ ~ e ~ . !X' , a '•ra •C ' '•{i.'•r ' 1'•• ` ~ .t .~J ? .r '.Ni. •:.+tl ..f+. Ti .l ~i j.! '4~ k tY~:t S 'H'' ..\~i3: . { t~ t :Sc~ . 1'~ y t i '~S'.~; e~7:t~ rvf . .t d ~N :~`{~'G - Ayli• '..~i mq}rt .C :)3~`9rL'~,1 'U tL, N {l0 t l~• G 1 r• w_'d J.ri.' wt 447 r 1 itf St?' ,;f31 „arlE»• r.- Lei. r 1 5 ~ ~ 11. 91i' •ti S f,.3 .•.~~.w1rSg i~ ..I r..i,il .f a CI 's° (loins inset A. sheet 1 Z) n i i.J 1•..i 1.•:•J rs~=a`•,Y YO YO`YM, • rw.r.• .VWV• ,i [r„.r,vV,•J - ~,,,rNM a.VVa,'rwl a•rJ ,r~ ~J~,. rVr 1•ii .r„r III ww~ f • ,y j114 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 12.---physical and che;,~ical (The symbol. < means less than. The erosion tolerance factor (T) is for the entire Soil name and Available map symbol Depth Permeability water capacity reacSoil tion In In/hr In/in I'll Aloha: Q--- 0-8 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.5-6.0 8-60 0.2-0.6 0.19-0.21 5.5-6.5 Amity: 2 0-12 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 12-40 0.2-0.6 0.19-0.21 6.1-6.5 40-60 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 6.1-6.5 Astoria: 3E, 3F 0-20 0.6-2.0 0.30-0.50 4.5-5.0 20-50 0.6-2.0 0.13-0.15 4.5-5.0 50 Briedwell : 4B, 56, 5C, 5D 0-12 0.6-2.0 0.12-0.19 5.1-6.5 12-26 0.6-2.0 0.13-0.19 5.6-6.5 26-60 0.6-2.0 0.04-0.06 5.6-6.0 Carlton: 68, 6C 0-22 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 22-48 0.2-0.6 0.19-0.21 5.1-6.0 48-65 0.2-0.6 0.15-0.17 5.6-6.0 Cascade: 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, 7F 0-11 0.6-2.0 0.17-0.21 5.6-6.0 11-27 0.6-2.0 0.17-0.21 5.6-6.0 27-60 0.06-0.2 0.03-0.05 5.6-6.0 Chehalem: 8C 0-27 0.2-0.6 0.18-0.20 5.6-6.0 27-60 0.06-0.2 0.15-0.17 5.6-6.0 Chehalis: 9, 10 0-16 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-7.3 16-45 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-7.3 45-60 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-7.3 Cornelius : ' I I B, ' I IC, 1 111), 1 1 I E, ' I IF: Cornelius part 0-17 0.6-2.0 0.20-0.23 5.6-6.0 17-38 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 38-60 0.06-0.2 0.04-0.06 5.0-5.5 r Kinton part 0-30 0.6-2.0 0.18-0.20 5.1-6.0 30-60 0.06-0.2 0.04-0.06 5.1-5.5 Cornelius Variant: 12A, 128, 12C 0-23 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 23-39 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 39-60 0.06-0.2 0.03-0.05 5.6-6.0 ;w Cove: 13, 14 0-8 0.2-0.6 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 8-60 <0.06 0.05-0.07 6.1-6.5 Dayton : I5 0-16 0.6-2.0 0.18-0.25 5:1-6.0 16-39 ,--0.06 0.03-0.05 5.1-6.5 39-60 0.2-0.6 0.17-0.20 6.1-6.5 Delena: 16C 0-10 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.5 10-22 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.5 22-60 0.06-0.2 0.03-0.0.5 6.1-7.3 I " v . 1~ .._1~ dr_ 116 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 13.-Physical and chentical l ~ I Soil name and Available Soil map symbol Depth Permeability water reaction 1 capacity !n In/hr /n/in qN Goble: 173, 17C, 17D. 17E, 18E, 18F 0-16 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.1-6.0 16-33 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.1-6.0 33-10 0.06-0.2 0.04-0.06 4.5-5.0 Helvetia: 198, 19C, 19D, 19E 0-10 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.1 5.5-6.5 10-48 0.2-0.6 0.15-0.18 5.5-6.0 48-60 0:3-0.6 0.19-0.21 5.5-6.0 Hembre : 20E, 20F, 20G 0-13 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 4.5-5.5 13-12 0.6-2.0 0.16-0.20 4.5-5.5 42 Hillsboro: 21 A, 218. 21 C. 210 0-48 0.6-2.0 0.16-0.1 5.1-6.0 48-57 2.0-6.0 0.13-0.15 5.6-6.0 5-4-81 6.0-20 0.06-0.10 5.6-6.0 Huberly 22 0-15 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 15-25 0.2-0.6 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 25-60 0.06-0.2 0.03-0.05 5.6-6.0 Jory: 238, 23C, 23D. 23E. 23F 0-22 0.6-2.0 0.18-0.21 4.5-6.0 22-62 0.2-0.6 0.15-0.17 4.5-5.5 ilchis: '24G: Kilchis part 0-4 2.0-6.0 0.06-0.08 4.5-5.5 4-19 2.0-6.0 0.04-0.06 4.5-5.5 19 Klickitat part 0-18 0.6-2.0 0.08-0.10 4.5-5.5 18-41 0.6-2.0 0.06-0.08 4.5-5.5 41 Klickitat: 25E. 25F, 25G 0-18 0.6-2.0 0.08-0.10 4.5-5.5 18-41 0.6-2.0 0.06-0.08 4.5-5.5 41 Snappa: 26 0-13 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 4.5-5.5 13-60 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 4.5-5.5 Labish: 27 0-13 0.06-0.2 0.20-0.25 4.5-7.3 13-36 0.06-0.2 0.20-0.25 4.5-7.3 36-60 0.2-0.6 0.25-0.30 4.5-7.3 Laurelwood: 28B, 28C, 28D, 28E, 29E. 29F 0=-23 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.0 23-52 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.1-5.5 52-72 0.2-0.6 0.15-0.17 5.1-5.5 McBee: 0-11 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.21 5.6-6.5 11-65 0.6-2.0 0.19-0.1 5.6-6.5 Melbourne: 31 B, 31 C. 31 D, 31 E, 31 F 0-18 0.6-2.0 0.20-0.26 5.6-6.5 18-66 0.-0.6 0.22-0.30 4.5-6.0 S SOIL SURVEY Hemhre soils are well drained. Tliey have a surface the ""Guide to Mapping Units" at the back of this ~ - yer of dark reddish-brown silt loam and a subsoil of survey. ,Irk reddish-brown, reddish-brown, and yellowish-red The acreage and proportionate extent of each map-14 gy y ,.t?V lnam nVPr 1hic~lt {iodrnrk Effective rooting ping unit are shown in table 1. M any of the t?*r±s ~se~ ~ - depth is 40 to 50 inches. in describing soils can be found in the Glossary at the Klickitat soils are well drained. They have a surface end of this survey, and more detailed information layer of dark reddish-brown cobbly loam and a subsoil about the terminology and methods of soil mapping i of dark-brown and reddish-brown cobbly and very can be obtained from the Soil Survey Manual (11).1 cobbly loam over basalt bedrock. Effective rooti depth is 40 to 50 inches. Aloha series 3 These soils are used for timber production, red 4 ation, and wildlife habitat. Availability of food, cover, The Aloha series consists of somewhat poorly and water controls movement and number of birds and drained soils that formed in alluvium or lacustrine silt 7 animals. on broad valley terraces. Slope is 0 to 3 percent. Ele- s Runoff is mainly from areas where the plant cover vation is 150 to 200 feet. Where these soils are not has been removed. Sedimentation from runoff is high. cultivated, the vegetation is mainly Douglas-fir and s. Maintaining maximum cover and using water control some Oregon white oak, shrubs, forbs, and grasses. practices on roads and logged areas minimize soil loss. Average annual precipitation is 40 to 50 inches, aver- 3 e° These soils provide good sites for most recreational age annual air temperature is 520 to 540 F, and the ec uses. As a result of the heavy precipitation, these frost-free period is 165 to 210 days. soils are a major source of water supply. These soils In a representative profile the surface layer is dark- 7` provide good habitat for game animals and some birds. brown silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is a 7c dark=brown and dark yellowish-brown, mottled silt loam about 38 inches thick. The substratum is dark 7C yellowish-brown, mottled silt loam and very fine sandy 7c throughout. of the soils loam about 19 inches thick. The profile is medium acid throughout. 7F This section describes the soil series and mapping Permeability is moderately slow. Available water units in Washington County. Each soil series is de- capacity is- 11 to 13 inches. Water-supplying capacity ec scribed in detail, and then, briefly, each mapping unit is 18 to 20 inches. Effective rooting depth is 40 inches 9 in that series. Unless it is noted otherwise, what is to more than 60 inches. tated abut the soil series holds true for the mapping These soils are used mainly for orchards, irrigated. 10 0 nits in that series. Thus, to get full information about vegetable crops, irrigated berries, small grain, hay, 1 ny one mapping unit, it is necessary to read both the pasture, and legume seed production. Other uses in- description of the mapping unit and the description elude wildlife habitat, recreation, and homesites. 1 of the soil series to which it belongs. Representative profile of Aloha silt loam, 0 to 3 per- 11 An important part of the description of each soil cent slopes, located 200 feet south and 40 feet east of series is the soil profile. That is, the sequence of layers the end of the county road in the NW1/4,SW1/4NW1/.1 from the surface downward to rock or other under- section 16, T. 1 S., R. 2 W.: lying material. Each series contains two descriptions Ap-0 to 8 inches, dark-brown (10YR. 3/3) silt of this profile. The first is brief and in terms familiar loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; mod- 12: to the layman. The second is much more detailed and erate, fine, subangular blocky structure; is for those who need to make thorough and precise slightly hard, friable, nonsticky and 12E studies of soils. slightly plastic; common very fine roots; 12c Color terms are for moist soil unless otherwise common, fine, irregular pores; common stated. The profile described in the series is represen- fine shot; medium acid (pH 6.0) ; 13 tative for one of the mapping units in that series. If abrupt, smooth boundary. 6 to 9 inches 14 the profile of a soil in a given mapping unit is different thick. 16C from the one described for the series, these differences 131-8 to 15 inches, dark-brown (10YR 4/3) silt are stated in describing the mapping unit or they are loam, light yellowish-brown (10YR 6/4) 17e differences that are apparent in the name of the map- dry; common, medium, faint, dark 17C ping unit, or both. grayish-brown, brown, and dark-brown As mentioned in the section "How This Survey Was (10YR 4/2, 5/3 and 7.5YR 3/2) mot- ' 170 Made," not all mapping units are members of a soil tles; moderate, fine, subangular blocky 17E series. Udifluvents, nearly level, for example, do not, structure, slightly hard, friable, slightly belong to a soil series, but nevertheless, are listed in sticky and slightly plastic; common very [BE alphabetic order along with the soil series. fine roots; many, fine and very fine, Preceding the name of each mapping unit is a num-• tubular pores; medium acid (pH 5.8) ; 18F ber, or number and letter, which identifies the mapping clear, wavy boundary. 0 to 9 inches 198 unit on the detailed soil map. Listed at the end of each thick. description of a mapping unit is the capability unit, B21-15 to 22 inches, dark yellowish-brown 19c wildlife group, and woodland group in which the map- (10YR 4/4) silt loam, pale brown • 1yo 01 ng unit has been placed. The page for the description (10YR 6/3) dry; common, fine, faint, each capability unit and a listing of the wildlife group and woodland group can be found by referring to I Italic numbers in parentheses refer to References, p. 135. i S 11L cr- _ 111111, 11 112%11110? 111, Ell LI,O~VI~G 0.1 '~"I~E D OCiJM E N'I'S ARE" 0F POOR ORICiINAL QUALITY FAMINE 36 SOIL SURVEY firm, sticky and plastic; very few fine Melbourne series roots ; many, very fine, tubular pores and few, fine, tubular pores; slightly The Melbourne series consists of well-drained soils acid (PH 6.4) i gi-'---', -n-oth bound- that fornned in rp,4i(juum and colIuvium weathered ary. 4 to 11 inches thick. from sedimentary rock on uplands. Slope is 2 to 60 C-45 to 65 inches, dark-gray (10YR 4/1) clay percent. Elevation is 300 to 800 feet. Vegetation is loam, gray (10YR 5/1) dry; many, me- Douglas-fir, Oregon white oak, poison-oak, wild rose, dium and fine, distinct mottles of very shrubs, and fortis. Average annual precipitation is 40 dark brown and dark brown (10YR 2/2 to 60 inches, average annual air temperature is 510 and 3/3) ; massive; many, very fine, tu- to 541 F, and the frost-free period is 165 to 210 days. bular pores; slightly acid (pH 6.4). In a representative profile the surface layer is dark- The solum is 30 to 48 inches thick. The A horizon is brown and dark yellowish-brown silty clay loam about i dark colored to a depth of more than 20 inches. Coarse 10 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark fragments are commonly absent in the control section, yellowish-brown silty clay loam about 8 inches thick, but their content ranges to 20 percent below a depth and the lower part is brown silty clay about 32 inches of 35 inches and to 50 percent below a depth of 40 thick. The substratum is yellowish-brown silty clay inches. The B horizon is silty clay loam or clay loam. about 16 inches thick. The profile is slightly acid and -,,,,,TheZ~-h"iz is clay loam to clay. medium acid in the surface layer, medium acid in the 30-McBee at ,y clay loam. This nearly level soil is in upper part of the subsoil, and strongly acid in the y areas along lager streams (fig. 9). lower part of the subsoil and in the substratum. cluded"'with this soil in mapping were areas of Permeability is moderately slow. Available water Chehalis, Cove, and Wapato soils, which make up as capacity is 3.5 to 6 inches. Water-supplying capacity much. as 15 percent of this mapping unit. is • 17 to 24 inches. Effective rooting depth is more Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. than 60 inches. n Flooding is frequent, and the hazard of streambank These soils are used for timber, irrigated berries, ; erosion is high. Capability unit IIw-4; wildlife group hay, pasture, wildlife habitat, recreation, and water supply. n ' M ~ ~ 1 • j r . - ..Y^l ~ y'~aYj i9,~ r ~ _'~ttii~ _ r r7:r .e`• C:fw `ls* ~ .y ~ Zvi. _ ..y. tf• .a r KA ip~;«~c 1rY,+.•~ii.~'~ i ewn,t'?f•~i - tsr 7 T 1 3 4 I. Figure 9.-IKcBee silty clay loam on nearly level flood ptsi ...r aureiwood soils on moderately steep uplands in background. v =t = 17 6 SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT r: { f PROPOSED BIKE PATH AND FLOOD CONTROL. EASEMENT'S A-Boy Plumbing r _ 12520 SW Main Street ~ - Tioardt Orman 57223 = - F - i [ E - L _ t _ d 1 - l - '1 i F. t i' r 1 7 EXHIBIT s - - ( 1 [ i p- Jam- 1 c _ f 1 i - E n._..~~LL.-~. Jr-+.-.~.r_...~.~. r... .~.~s.. _.i._~._:.v.. t•,_. J..~~.. .~.~~_.--~.i~~-~.._.,.. ..,o,y,r ....-_...u~.._.. 1-....-. b y` j E I - { i SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT i _ PROPOSED BIKE PATH AND FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENTS ' A-Boy Plumbing 12520 SW Main Street 'Tigard. Oregon 97223 Pre aced or:. ' Ms. Pamela T. Beery j Attorney at Law O'Donnell Ramis Crew & Bachrach, NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 -Y 3 Late of Valuation: May 3, 1995 ~ F Tuck Walker, AICP $ David E. Pierttim, MAI ~ PWmer, Groth & Pie , Inc. 110 SW Yamhill Stmt, Suite 200 E ` -71 Portland, Oregon 97204 ' . ) .IN&O93 f i-i ~1'ele~il®ile: 4,r~9 "v~u.+ OFVA= Am IN: SACMAMMM J PAL MM, GROTH NETKA, INC FF4 F f 1! 1 IN I q, 111 1 I' ® m o 0 rrA. 1 T rL \ 7~~3T~1 l +l l i7m. rsrmTi y*:m.1515 June 5, 1995 Ms. Pamela J. Beery Attorney at Law O'Donnell Ramis Crew & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: PROPOSED BIKE PATH AND FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENTS A-Boy Plumbing 12520 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Beery: At your request, we have appraised the captioned property using generally accepted appraisal principles and practices. This report is intended to comply with the report requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as adopted by the Appraisal Foundation and the Appraisal Institute. This report has been abbreviated at the client's request, and is presented in a Summary Report format. At the client's request, this appraisal assumes that the improvements have been removed in accordance with a proposed redevelopment plan for the subject property. This is a reasonable assumption given the fact that the property owner has continued to seek permits to redevelop the subject for several years. The site is described in this report. Based upon our investigation and analysis of available information, the estimated market values of the easements, as described in this report, as of May 3, 1995, assuming development standards and requirements which were in place at the time ! . i; (1991) of the owner's original application to develop the property, are: Flood Control Easement:......... $1,300 Bike Path Easement: $4,100 . ~j sa ~ ra a I ir Ms. Pamela J. Beery June 5, 1995 ;Donnell Ramis Crew & Bachrach Page 2 0 This valuation is subject to the conditions and comments presented in this report. The analysis has been prepared jointly by the undersigned. 0 Sincerely, PALM M, GROTH & PIETIA, WC. Rick Walker, AICP OR State Certified Appraiser o License No. 040216 Dave E. Pietka, MAI ~ OR State Certified Appraiser License No. 0000180 :TSL:DEP:kIf C95204A c b 0 z i i i I tom, PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. ® mill; f APPRAISAL SUMMARY 17ESC1i1F'IQN QP THE ENTIRE PROPE Name: A-Boy Plumbing, Tigard, Oregon Property Type: Commercial Land Location: 12520 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Census Tract Number: 308.01 Neighborhood Character: Historical, central business district Site Size: The gross site size is 1.67 acres (72,745 SF), as reported in the County Assessor's records. Zoning: CBD-AA - Central Business District with an Action Overlay Zone. s K Highest & Best Ilse: Secondzxy commercial development land. E Value of the Entire property: $473,000 DESCRIPTION OF THE EASEMENTS Flood Control Easement: A 4,000 square foot irregular shaped easement which encumbers only that area which lies below the top of the banks of Fanno Creek. The entire easement lies within the 100 year flood plain. 'The easement will allow the public to maintain the flood carrying capacity of Fanno Creek and maintain the banks to prevent erosion. Bike Path Easement: A 3,159 square foot, 15 foot wide easement which parallels the top of Fanno Creek bank. This easement will allow the installation, use and maintenance of a 10 foot wide, public bike path. The easement may narrow when there is a conflict with a proposed building. Value of the Easements (May 3, 1995)- Flood Control Easement: $1,300 Bike Path Easement: $4,100 Palmer, Oroth & Piet1m, Inc. File No.: C95204A C95204A PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. l OWN" PRELIMINARY APPRA S-AL MFORMATION goose and unction of Ap=M The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the fair market value of the proposed food control and bikeway easements associated with the redevelopment of the subject property. This appraisal is to be used by ,the City of Tigard, Oregon, for decision-making purposes. Definition of Market Value This definition is in compliance with the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), FIRRF.A (Federal Institutions Reforms, Recovery, and Enforcement Act), and USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) as adopted by the Appraisal Foundation and the Appraisal Institute. Market Value, as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 1994 Edition, is: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:. 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property. sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale." SEcified mincing Cash to seller, with or without financing. C95W41 2 PALMER, GROTII & PIET", INC. R 11 1111111 N11 l;,!l!!1 I'll, 1 HELiE o9NAR1f APPWAUSS.rp owrf, RMA-reON le-.%n+nonnef) lPropgrty Rights Appraised The property rights appraised constitute the unencumbered fee simple interest of all present and future benefits which may be derived from the property's present or possible use. History and Ownership According to Washington County records, the subject property is currently owned by Mr. John T. Dolan, Trustee whose family has owned the property for greater than a five-year period. Assessment and Tax Information lin -----1994-95 Assessed 4k• :.v. :ibk l.L:fff?:k? M.,n:-R4:.. fi:i?i.:k:~.: rY.YY•:•. ..n.... }y ::':"f w:::::::::.. >:lF;: •v:~BLLL~ '~Y4': v. ?:n.n v:-:... ./?.n:vu, ...g.~.......... .:!n::::: n...n.?. 'f :..ni)\?::f:f:: :f k[:l::r:x,> ..4. :n... 5f}::-. }r \ vv?.:}}`.j':}\i:+C,..: 7'g ?Y.r er{Ci:`v:}>:~:~:??{::f{ff`iu'?li ....tea,}... " Y.,'.r}\. . :.....4... 6::: n.. n...vn. n..... n.......n n}'tti.+i::u}.:..: .?.n. n W fiklk: tl" lP 1 1. ?{i:ff>:{ji ;.}:f:jf?f:'r?:}:fSf?: v:,:..: .vr}'{0:44:•: ~D?I' $278,240 $17 040 $295,280 Yr$4,563.03r The property is assessed at 100 percent of real market value. The 1994-95 millage rate is $15.4532(taxes/$1,000 of value). 1&gal Description (Entire Propertvl - Tax Lot 700, Section 2AC, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon. Lnsnection Date: May 3, 1995 Palmer, Groth & Pietka, Inc. Representative: Rick Walker and David E. Pietka, MAI Use of Rem Without prior written approval from the authors, the use of this report is limited to determination of market value for decision-making purposes. All other uses are expressly prohibited. Reliance on this report by anyone other than the client for a purpose not set forth above, is prohibited. ' The apt-boi's responsibility is limited to the client. C95204A PALMER, GROTH & PISA, INC. 3 i PRELIMINARY ~PPR®t~n a aeec~az~us~aaaavca f......b:.......a. - - Y.n. o .seam®® QW&i6tl 60tl tltl5C/6if This assignment involved an investigation of the subject property. In addition, the following sources were contacted to obtain relevant information: City of Tigard Manning and Engineering - Departments; U.S.A. Engineering Department; Washington County Assessor's Office; local real eta brokws; and various property owners. The dimensions of the eas: ments •,I provided ~ by Maclrenzie Engineering, inc. z i e C 2 " t t C952+ A FAI.MR, GR®'rH FIE'IKA, INC. 4 ENNUI- y ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is subject to. the following limiting conditions: Secitai kisumplions This report assumes that the subject property improvements have been removed in accordance with the property owner's redevelopment plan which has been submitted to the City of Tigard, for design review approval. The development standards which were used in this analysis are those which applied to the original application to redevelop the subject property which was submitted to the City in 1991. General Aswimntions The legal description furnished is assumed to be correct. We assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do we render any opinion as to title, which is assumed to be marketable. All existing liens, encumbrances, and assessments have been disregarded, unless otherwise noted, and the property is appraised as though free and clear, under responsible ownership, and competent management. The exhibits in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. I have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. Unless otherwise noted herein, it is assumed that there are no encroachments, zoning, or restrictive violations existing in the subject property. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for determining if the property requires environmental approval by the appropriate governing agencies, nor if it is in violation thereof, unless otherwise noted herein. Information presented in this report has been obtained from reliable sources, and it is assumed that the information is accurate. This report shall be used for its intended purpose only, and by the parties to whom it is addressed. Possession of the report does not include the right of publication. The appraiser may not be required to give testimony or to appear in court by reason of this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless prior arrangements have been made therefor. The statements of value and all conclusions shall apply as of the dates shown herein. C95204A 5 PALMER, GROTH & PILTKA, INC. ASSUMPTIONS AND I..BMMNG COMMONS (continued) 49 . I - - I . rM The appraisers have no present or contemplated future interest in i hr, paope'Ay wiuch is not specifically disclosed in this report. Neither all, nor any part, of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the written consent or approval of the authors. This applies particularly to value conclusions and to the identity of the appraisers and the firm- with which the appraisers are connected. This report must be used in its entirety... Reliance on any portion of the report independent of others may lead the reader to erroneous conclusions regarding the property values. No portion of the report stands alone without approval from the author. The ?liability of Palmer, Groth & Pietka, Inc., and employees is limited to the client only and only up to the amount of the fee actually received for the assignment. Further, there- is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraiser is in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiency in the property. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less valuable. The appraiser is not qualified to detect the presence of toxic or hazardous substances or materials which may influence or be associated with the property or any adjacent properties, has made no investigation or analysis as to the presence of such materials, and expressly disclaims any duty to note the presence of such materials. Therefore, irrespective of any degree of fault, Palmer, Groth & Pietka, Inc., and its principals, agents, and employees, shall not be liable for costs, y expenses, damages, assessments, or penalties, or diminution in value, property damage, or personal injury (including death) resulting from or otherwise attributable to toxic or hazardous substances or materials, including without limitation hazardous waste, asbestos material, formaldehyde, or any smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids, solids, or gasses, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants, or pollutants. C95204A PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 6 I Y IBM IMMEDIATE VICINITY DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in the historical business district of the City of Tigard. This area largely consists of commercial buildings built in the early part of the century with very limited new construction occurring over the past ten-year period. The boundaries of the district, as defined by the City's zoning map, are Highway 99W to the north, Mall Boulevard to the east and south, and a line which generally defines Fanno Creek to the west. The area is generally mined light manufacturing, commercial service and sales, with some residences. Main Street, which comprises the commercial spine of the business district, was bi-passed with the reconstruction of Highway 99W several hundred feet to the north. Even though Highway 99W is elevated in relation to Main Street, visibility from the highway is limited. Any significant new commercial development along Main Street has occurred at the intersections of Highway 99W. To the west is a new apartment complex, Main Street Village, and to the east is a neighborhood shopping center built in the 1970'x. Main Street and Highway 99W comprise the retail district within the central business district. The majority of the commercial activity occurring in Tigard is occurring in outlying service areas along major arterial streets. Commercial activity occurs along Scholls Ferry Road to the north of the subject. Strip commercial lies along Highway 99W to the east and west of the CBI. A cluster of commercial activity is located at the interchange of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road and Interstate 5. New big box retail development has been occurring south of Highway 99W between the Highway 217 and Interstate 5 interchanges. In the extreme north of the city is one of the largest and most successful commercial centers in the state, the Washington Square Shopping Center area. The Tigard central business district has had little commercial. development interest and is primarily evolving as an employment center consisting of smaller ` light manufacturing uses and possibly professional office uses. In summary, commercial land in the Tigard historic central business district is ranked as secondary commercial development land due to lack of traffic visibility, easy access and supporting commercial activity. M204A PALMER, cROTH do PIETKA, INC. 7. c. l'~ r. ENTIRE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Hazardous . Waste. We have conducted no independent investigation regarding this issue. This appraisal assumes that the site is free of all hazard- ous waste and toxic materials. Please refer to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions section regarding this issue. Municipal Jurisdiction: City of Tigard. Current Use of Site: Plumbing/electrical retail sales and excess land. Site Size: 1.68 acres (72,745 SP) as reported by the Washington County Tax Assessor. Shape: Irregular with approximately 340 feet of frontage on Main Stmt. Site depth varies between 223 feet on the west property boundary and approximately 255 feet on the east property boundary. Topography: Effectively level. Abutting Properties: The surrounding properties are generally commercial in character, being older and in fair condition. Utilities: The subject is fully served. Street Improvements: Main Street is a fully improved commercial roadway. Main Street is signalized at the highway 99W intersections both to the west, one block, and to the east, four blocks. Exposure: highway 99W, which carries approximately 45,000 daily trips, lies several hundred feet north of the subject and is elevated. Visibility from this highway is poor. Accessibility: The subject is directly accessible from Main Street which is the commercial center of the Tigard Central Business District. R sments and Encumbrances: A preliminary title report was not available at the time of the appraisal. Review of a preliminary site plan discovered that a 30-foot sanitary sewer easement bisects the subject, encumber- ing 6,720 square feet. If questions arise regarding easements, GnV1V(iVllallVllW, VX VLn{rr eliVlilllVifLLlVyJ, 1LL1 U141 rW6rQr Tih 1H advised. ' CY52WA 8 PALMER, GROTdi &c PIETKA INC. 71 ffn-RE PROftgyY DIESC91E UM (continued) Zoning and Comprehensive Plan: The subject is zoned CBD-AA, Central Business District with an Action Area overlay. Y'he CBI) designation allows a broad range of civic, commercial and residential uses. This zone allows for 85 percent site coverage with the remaining 15 percent being landscaping (excluding any impervious surface). For commercial uses, the CBD zone has no minimum site size or width requirements. There are no setback requirements except to a residential zone. The Action Area designation, seeks to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan for areas where intensive, mixed land uses are desirable. Action areas require that a new development facilitate pedestrian/bicycle circulation if the site is located on a street with designated bike paths or adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park. Soils: Given the character of the existing improvements and surround- ing uses, it is reasonable to assume that the soils are adequate to support commercial uses. Flood Plain and Wetlands: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency ([-MIA) National Flood Insurance Program QWEP) Float Insurance Rate Map (FIB Community-Panel No. 4102676 0003 effective March 1, 1982, the subject site is partially within the 100-year flood hazard (Zone "A"). A survey map prepared by a professional land surveyor defined the 104-year flood elevation as 150 feet, which defines the top of bank for Fanno Creek. The buildable portions of the property generally are at elevation 151 feet and above. Approximately 4,000 square feet of the subject lie below the top of the Fanno Creek bank. Discussions with city planning staff confirmed that the 100-year flood elevation was 150 feet and that all buildable areas of the subject site are above the 100-year flood elevation. This report assumes that there are no hazardous flooding conditions outside the banks of Fanno Creek. Description of Improvements: As described earlier, this appraisal assumes that the subject is vacant land only being cleared of all existing site improvements in preparation for redevelopment. For reference purposes, a C95204A PALM ER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 9 1122 ' r ENTIRE PROPERTY DE,5CRIp°ON (continued) preliminary site plan prepared by the property owner was reviewed as a possible use of the subject property (see site development plan at the end of this section). Highest & Best Use i Analysis: The legal, physical, locational and market characteristics of the subject were analyzed to determine the most reasonable and probable use that will support the highest present value for the subject property. The CBD zoning and location on Main Street support a commercial sales/service highest and best use. The general location and condition of surrounding uses supports a i secondary commercial ranking when considering the availability of locations on major arterials and state highways which provide superior visibility and access. In regard to the physical conditions of the property, the size and configuration are conducive to commercial uses. The property is bisected by a 30-foot sanitary utility easement. This easement will most likely result in a site development plan which incorporates two buildings with an inward orientation to a central parking area, similar to the plan which is proposed. This allows placement of the parking and internal circulation drives over the easement, maximizing the utility of the property. This configuration will result in smaller sized commercial space which is appropriate for the secondary location of the subject. The location does not have sufficient commercial identity to support a larger, single user, commercial facility. With respect to the subject property, the highest and best use is a secondary commercial development site. C952(24A 10 PALM ER, GROTH & PIETEA, INC. i t Y _ iA; MW I S. 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 2 US 1 p6LTNNEROEYG F THE WpRHiNGT®A! COUNTY OREGON ' CO °F SCALE 1 100° VMH4iAq TAACL Ao~.~ o 1 500 •e. 01 600 JfAlo. / Sao v• f 700 U '400 Ito, o~P 0 v\ ®a ~,a~ 43ft •c ti 800 ®o`' 2ZAG 4aP 300 Qr®. e~' a~ .~lAr~ I2Ac / a°°~ - 200 12061'1` 1101 Z r p~' e~' ~ .63~Ac ~~gye0 o~g• 4 % V61 A~ - \ ~s\ ® ~ ~g~~ ems a e , ILA- toe \ \~t d \ L S-No.0945) _ l.~XS 1200 ~ eo i' 2! Q2 2 26Ac• 1100 . BBAc a line Palmer, Groth & Pietka, Inc. Plat Oa:~- gis "M i ME= 'Nis nomi r 'full 4 : r CdPdlg, cw RCN`s . BIMt 7D6LtLp ST 4 ",j GTT ' GL.RV !67.98' • - sw MAIN .Si 0 0We ®+¢kYq h M-d 52 (¢IN) 0 tlf.l2 tmI.24 IA99 rlt~j - eac l4 b~ a: C sreL,J ' ~.YµeouaHr HinN, OaLY 130.40 . r~ . / ~ \ • ~ d ~ r ~ -fa~tip~-• T ~ g r. 4 t _ • ` yG to r ` f -mq ItV FL r-lC'V ISi.Sg }ttia'nt, Z-ce A">2 rH 1QC tl C4 Y'INISHor, @ _ ' trm7p SST er.. ~ Qsaaw 4' na P ~ ~ / ~ ~ e 'Yt to `t r IAN / Cato ~Kpr L a oeta~uq c y~ ' ISO,= V ► ' 7r lOAPttd ( I .a ® i ~ ItA. • ~ t~0.7p 1411 ~ - . ( C}•}, x•61 RtH ~ SITC~ PLAN •~°$~a Palmer, Croth & Pielka, Inc. t'6 UtuL' Z f-'HAGM a Site Plan by ` t '~1 HIM- M;l {i l I I ._l DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED EASE ENTa The proposed easements involve two contiguous easements which will occupy the most westerly portion of the subject. The first easement is a flood control easement which will encumber that area of the subject which lies below the top of the bank of F anno Creek. T!-is easea;~eII is 4,v'1",-0 - - square feet in size and lies entirely within the 100-year flood plain. The purpose of this easseement is to 1o@v rrsa_s~r:nr~~l znm ^h City Ar_d TTriSe11 Sewer Aoeslm to MAin9n ^h f- flr.,A carrying capacity of the creek. The second easement, a pedestrian and bike path easement, parallels the flood control easement and will generally be 15 feet in width, narrowing as it encounters a building footprint as proposed by the applicant. The easement is 3,159 square feet in size. The City of Tigard will assume responsibility for building the bike path, which will be designed at a later time. This easement will lie entirely within a landscaped area designated on the proposed site development plan. The combination of the Flood Control Easement (4,000 SF) and the Bike Path easement (3,159 SF) encumbers 7,159 square feet of the subject representing (7,159 SF/72,745 SF) 10 percent of the subject's gross site area. The easement area can be applied towards the 15 percent landscaping requirement; thus, there is no impact on the deeelopability of the subject property. Impact on Remainder With the easements in place, the highest and best use of the subject property is secondary commercial development land which is the same as unencumbered. Because of the logical inward orientation of the buildings, there will be no need for public access to the rear of the building which abuts the easements. With no openings to the rear of the buildings, there will be no additional security issues associated with public use of the bikeway. G`9S204A 13 PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA., INC. .a I 1111115H ;:11 R1,21ftil! !11§:Ii~ipi MENEM 1 I tl~®ta / ! SAL( ✓ Ell Aga T FI r6ANt.c. I~il? W C~L~7Cq FL •I-E.MV IS2.50 f506 / * lot) IN CST ct~) 1 Eo.9c a ti 1 PC lit 150.441 1 t 60. so s~163~0,94 -T L&Wtz) S .l `T F er, Groth & Pietka, Inc. ~ Easement PROPOSED rF ' SEEMS= ax VALUATION METHODS The appraisal process is designed to evaluate all factors which influence value. General neighborhood information has been presented to inform the reader of general outside influences ON which may affect value. In addition, the site and proposed improvements have been described. An analysis of the subject's highest and best use has been presented to evaluate the effects of legal, locational, physical, and market considerations which impact the use of the subject property. The next part of the appraisal process deals directly with the valuation of the proposed easements. In appraisal theory and practice, valuation of the easements can be accomplished in three ways. The first method would use a Sales Comparison approach to directly value the easements, Typically, easements similar to the proposed easements are negotiated under the threat of condemnation, and thus cannot be used as reliable indicators of what the market would be willing to pay for the easements. A direct sales comparison approach to value will not be used in this analysis. The second method is a "before and after" methodology wherein the subject is first valued unencumbered by the easements, and subsequently is valued with the easements in place. The difference between these two values indicates the estimated value of the easement. The difficulty with this second methodology is that the market is not sensitive enough to develop sales data which would be reflective of the minimal impacts associated with the proposed easements. As discussed earlier, the easements do not represent any change in the ability of the subject to develop commercially to its fullest extent; thus, the second methodology will not be used in this analysis. The third method uses general analysis to determine the impact that the easement will have on the owner's enjoyment or use of the subject property. The first step is to estimate the market value of the subject property unencumbered by the easement. Once the underlying unencumbered value of the land is determined, the value impact of a particular easement is determined basal on a combination of factors related to: (1) the rights taken; and (2) the utility of the remainder position. Easements can have a wide range of values. Nigh value impacts result when the remainder rights are limited to a significant degree, and the parcel is rendered unusable. Low value impacts result when the encumbered parcel can be used for a variety of purposes (landscaping, setback requirements, parking) in conjunction with the balance of the property or abutting properties. Examples of easements which fully restrict the use of the property are: (1) construction of a structure on the easement area (example: an electrical transmission tower); and (2) limitations on the highest and best use of the property (example: timber land crossed by power line easements with- a restriction that the timber may not exceed a certain height). These situations indicate near 100 percent value impact. At the other extreme are water and sewer line e=rnents which are non-visual, and the area encumbered car, be utilized for parking, density consideration, and landscaping, which are typically required by zoning. In these circumstances, the utility of the parcel is effectively unchanged, typically resulting in a :alue impact of 0 to 25 percent. C95204A PALMER, GROTH & PIETRA, INC. 15 r _ pills; Effile w SITE VALUATION The market value of the subject property will be estimated by comparing it with recent sales of vacant land located in the subject property neighborhood or in competing market areas. A detailed description of each comparable is presented on the following pages. The following narrative and Land Comparable Tabulation Chart summarize this analysis. A Land Sales Comparable Map is also provided. The comparable sales establish a range in value between $4.22 and $7.33 per square foot. In concluding a value for the subject property, the comparables are weighted with respect to the overall similarities as discussed on the individual data sheets. Paying particular attention to the subject's secondary commercial location and the issue of site utilization which must take into account the 30-foot wide sanitary sewer easement, a value below the upper end of the range is appropriate. Based upon the available market data, a value of $6.50 per square foot is conclud- ed for the subject property. Because the City of Tigard development standards allow the open creek area of Fanno Creek to qualify as part of the City's 15 percent landscaping requirement, a buyer will be willing to apply the unit value concluded above to the entire 72,745 square feet of the subject's gross site area. Given this analysis the estimated market value of the subject is (72,745 SF x $6.50/SF) $472,$42, rounded to: w $473 000 COMM PALMER, GROTH[ & PIETIA,'I1VC. 16 RON NO 11~1!!Ni i~ Jim a $ rf k. Comparable Lend Sales Tabulation Chart I < E/Side of SW Burnham St, S. of CBD 12/93 $175,000 41,382 $4.33 Tigard CBD property, in a location which Adam, Tigard relates to light manufacturing/services uses with some office potential. j 2 N/Side of Hwy. 99W, E. of GC 5/94 $480,000 101,059 $4.73 Property purchased for development of a build Hwy. 217, Tigard to suit furniture store. Property has limited visibility from Hwy. 99W. 3 NEC of Parkway and Harlow Comm. 1/95 $180,000 27,442 $6.55 Irregularly shaped comer parcel in close Avenue Cedar Hill proximity to the Cedar Hills Shopping Q. ter. 1 S/Side of Teal Blvd., Muriayhill NS 1/93 $258,900 43,124 $6.00 Sloping, irregularly shaped lake front District, Beaverton commercial site, which was purchased for construction of a bank branch office. S. of Scholia Ferry Rd. E. of N. CG 6193 $300,000 40,946 $7.33 Secondary commercial site in a recently Dakota, Tigard developed seater which is anchored by N;eDoa- alds and a Providence Clinic. y C95204A F. MORRIS t1 i 1. ~ l s 1 ~ V A ~t 9 ¢ ` o _ n 9 E 14500 P s ~ ~ 9q / M Y A t o m eo ~ 1 P ; a c~'~Aa e c AYE ~ ? to - ~ ~ ~ p Ft +N~• '1 11~ N t A p ~ 4 ~y~~ II 7 Y f n o (2A~~ rvex ca" ti l m i' r7tF y, tjS7M C w `n o -Am , 6 ,an ° A 2 II d.~° 4 L 0 D ~ c N» +N lun ~ ` ~ M 'fp q ue L~ ~ 9 s V,ytrs ..r z s ` Pp la.a ' laa ~ r to of 1 wN ~ ♦ g s ' ~ ~ ~ a hq 1 r 6 n artaa ♦ ~ a ~ 4 ~J i; sus aA c p 9 4 ~ Y ~p St 1' rn f ~ ~ s y~'• r '~~a` ~0 ~ h .a ~ ~~4 R E ~ • ~ 1 ow"I22tn 8 rpa~ y» < A 3 t w» ~ t pa E II 2 ~ .s>b a ~ II L A II II o f fi ® p 6 P 1W ~ s ~e ~ p 9 19 rn E u-- E ~ s 0 tt~, p s ~ i E ~ E ~ z w» t~ ~ t a 1 y f q 2~ o~ s ' O g z a Za► a~ ukA ~ nn $ an 2 ; ~ Ilium O E ~i n E a t • i ~ ; HD ~ ARBUR l y aen ~ a t i ~ 3,p m 7 m tSiH ,1 r ~x+ a~ ~ c 1 ` s 3 0Oy 9 t $ yy ~ s w a~ 9 pE II ~ ~ ' O 8 A n f 11'''N' woos AA '1 ~ LAND SALE 1 rM .•1900 _ •~.,/'F o 22 t6 JfY CIO ~0 20 ,s43 •y ~...x.o ° L r y 1900 / 21 A , _ X411 C00 J"A MOR1 N Pew Mr c.- ADP)J N. .1w woo woo tf ~ . . lrtm cp9 ~ VACATE 142/1 tAC ~ x~. • O a•.r•x 1700 ~ ✓,•L" / O " I J1Y 1fY / ~ xri ]000 pY p d ♦ / LOCATION: East side of SW Burnham Street, South of Main Street, Tigard, Oregon LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Lot 1400, Section 2AD, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County. SELLER: Rosemary Mi11er BUYER: Steven R. Gordon SALE DATE: 12/3/93 RECORDING: 93-10136C SALE PRICE: $175,000 CASH EQUIV.:- $175,000 FINANCING: Seller financed with $25,000 down, remainder to be paid in monthly ' installments of $1,200 until paid in full. Interest at 6.25 percent. LAND AREA: .95 Acres; 41,352 Sr ZONING: Commercial Business District; CBD LAND DESCRIPTION: Effectively level with unimproved frontage on SW Burnham Street. All utilities available. Surrounding uses are light manufacturing in character. Property adjoins a railroad. IMPROVEMENT: A single family residence which may have some interim rental value before the property redevelops. C95204A PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 19 m7l I!- UNIT PRICE: $4.23/SF VALUE INDICATOR: The property has no retail locational characteristics and is a low indicator - of value for the subject. CONFIRMED WITH: Steven Gordon (678-1331) CONFIRMED BY: Rick Walker Y C95204A PALMER, GROTH tic PIE'TKA, INC. 20 r LAND SALE 2 a yt SE 1/4 SW V4 SECiiON w 1 ~ ~13 a w~a♦a♦w♦awa `YIfRSt6t'/Sf001 f,~Nn 001E` . ♦feM 6EC ittA7 9.'A f" "--PFAFFLE sai•«a wa♦ J •♦s♦ ~u♦e♦ a01 w lot ar. CiI Aa 100/a 1 11 JA 300 200 ~ •♦cy, o. 1 J♦Aa P 402 sra♦ ~ E f b Y = .n a 1lt~ P. i TTL 2 ♦ t I ilea 4 'f 16( ? G l0ao . at/a a Q4'G`~` taco . ZKAa lit Ala 23-8t LOCATION: North aide of Highway 99W east of Highway 217, Tigard, Oregon LEGAL DESCRUMON: Portion of Tax Lot 500, 600 and 1,000 and all of 402, Section 36C, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County. SELLER: Chevron U.S.A., Norman and Roger Sorg, Alex Frink BUYER: Ted L. Nfillar, Trustee SALE DATE: 5/11/94 RECORDING: 94-046176 SALE PRICE: $480,000 CASH EQUIV.: $480,000 MNANCING: Cash ($400,000) and land trade worth $80,00. -LAND AREA: 2.32 Acres; 101,059 SF r ZONING: Commercial General; CG LAND DES ON: Irregularly shaped, sloping site with direct acces.Q to Highway 99W in the . vicinity of the Highway 217 interchange. Building site sits back from Highway 99W affording limited visibility. v UNIT PRICE: $4.73/SF C95204d PALMER, GROTII & PIETKA, INC. 21 a r y r LAND SALE 2 (continued) COMMENTS: Property was purchased for development of a Sears Doane Life Furniture Store. The buyer, a developer contractor, purchased the land for a build- to-suit project. VALUE ENDICATOR: Lack of road frontage, limited visibility and irregular shape are only partially off-set by this site's superior location, making this a low indicator of value. CONFIRMED WITH: Vicki Bayless, Westwood Construction (222-2000) CONFIIBMED BY: Rick Walker, 5/4/95 w P F-.Y t'. u' f: 2 F, C95204A PALMER; GROTH & PIETKA, INC. Elm= LAND SALE 3 / I v I I P I I foo~ KnY r.°Q9ne vmerY T`t4i • • ww p CPA RD 1 ' rrvri .•s+rrY a @{ f ' I 67 ppaw.c • i • I I ra.a r e 7 o i • 68 i i I.• e LOCATION: South side of SW Teal Boulevard, West of SW Murray Boulevard, Beaverton, Oregon. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Lot 400, Section 32AD, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County. SELLER: Columbia Willamette Development Co. BUYER: Dale Bernards and Joseph Wright. SALE DATE: 1/28/93 RECORDING: 93-6983 SALE PRICE: $258,900 CASK EQUIV.: $258,900 FINANCING: Cash to seller LAND AREA: .99 Acres; 43,124 SF ZONING: Neighborhood Service; NS LAND DESCRIPTION: Irregularly shaped, sloping property with frontage on the Murrayhill Center open space and lake tract. All utilities available. Property is in close proximity to the Murrayhill Shopping Center. UNIT PRICE: $6.00/SF C95204A 23 PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. LA114D SAILE .3 (conu-Inuedj COMMENTS: Property sold for asking price. The buyer is building a bank branch office. The seller was a former developer for a large utility. This sale may be slightly below market with the seller in a process of closing down activity and disposing of all properties. VALUE INDICATOR: This sale is a low indicator of value due to the motivation of the seller and an extended marketing period. CONFIRMED V=* Representative of seller (464-4141). CONFIRMED BY: Rick Walker, 5/4/95 C95204A PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 24 3 1 ~r x LAND SALE ~ Sm. V4 S.V4 V4 SECnON 2 TIS RIW WK IS I. 2 CC - waczwaM CGUM oc~oN T • a y 9euE P• f~' on as e n oM ~N 1~ a+~ aaa., \ 1 eoa C' ?V3 k -9 ~y 00 .T ILn'o samsr a '7~ °aa°aa 7~~1 44 v~ lcs.naq a r am no `FHB' a as 6eP moo •f!i °~L 161 CWJ +,~Qc case. % ~ ~ ° 9 Jyp• I a'0aaa 7 aLtu.a... a. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Parkway and Harlow Avenue, Cedar Hill District of Portland, Oregon. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Lot 1201, Section 2CC, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette :LL Meridian, Washington County. SELLER: ORE-Wilshire Park BUYER: Dong and Yong Baik SALE DATE: 1/13/95 RECORDING: 95-3035 SALE PRICE: $180,000 CASH EQUIV.: $180,000 FINANCING: Assumed cash to seller. LAND AREA: .63 Acres ZONING: Community Business District; CBD LAND DESCRIPTION: Irregularly shaped, effectively level corner commercial property. Property has all utilities available. The adjoining intersection is unsignalized. The property is in close proximity to the Cedar Hills shopping center. Surrounding uses are a professional office and auto service. Visibility from Sunset Highway, which is in close proximity, is poor. C95204A 25 PALMER, GROTII & PIETKA, INC. 5 1.ARiDCAF E 4 (continued) TTTeT" PRTr'P.- F SS/SF VALUE INDICATOR: This sale is a good indicator having a secondary location in an area of little change, and limited visibility. COId'FIRMED WITH: County assessor's records CONFIRMED BY: Rick Walker, 5/4/95 a C95204A PALMER, GROTTI & PIETKA, INC. 26 LA DD SALE 5 PLASTIC CAP MAJ00O ~ T- MI- if a€7:s ART9T60a PLAT I 1 C+1 (SEE NOTE ft 6) 0 P ao. I t < ¢ t ' x a. a. ' 8 - I e&17' n t 1 t f g ' 15.(70' ~ 'O~~ w t . 14138.00' - - - $ P! 89'54°18®E 191.17° P~vATE 53.t7' g GAS LINE E74UNG EASEMENT Zi 1S.O' SANITARY SEWER 5/r IJL VATH A YELLOW RENT EASEMENT - FEE NO. PLASTIC HARKED 'Wa ! ! (SEE NOTE NO. a) - V 90-06135 LS 1841. (SEE SA. 23338) t r PARCEL 2 PARCEL ~ ui 0 ~ - 1 AREA 16.308 SO. FT. o AREA 21,527 SO. FT. ; i0 w0 d i U L I SO. FT. u: t N N L 100.00° 138.00, S 89`52°27° W 443.92 478.97' (178.92 S.N. 23338) LOCATION: South of Scholls Ferry Road, east of North Dakota Street, Tigard, Oregon. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Lot 600 and 900, Section 34 BC, Township 1 South, Range 1 Nest, Willamette Meridian, Clackamas County, Oregon. SELLER: McDonald's Corporation BUYER: Dennis Thompson and William Davidson SALE DATE: 6/8/93 RECORDING: 93-45052 SALE PRICE: $300,000 CASH EQUIV.: $300,900 FINANCING: Assumed cash to seller. LAND AREA: .94 Acres; 40,946 SP ZONING: Commercial General; CG LAND DESCRIPTION: Rectangularly shaped, effectively level, fully served development site. Access is via a fully improved internal road system, and all utilities are available. Access form Scholls Ferry Road is for eastbound traffic only with westbound traffic entering from N. Dakota Street. A portion of the property has been improved as an OR Can Henry's. UNIT PRICE: $7.33/SF WK- C95204A PALM ER, ~GROT14 & PIETKA, INC. 27 231=ii f", 1111:~~ 13 Ig !1: 11115 s- EMU " L.AMQ SALE 5 (continued) COMMENTS: Secondary location with limited visibility to adjoining arterial street. The property is in an area of the city which is growing and is adjacent to a McDonalds's restaurant. This sale is a slightly high indicator, having superior locationai characteristics due to an expanding population base. W=: County assessor's records CONFIRIvIEI3 BY: Rick Walker, 515195 CY5204A PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 28 I'M 11 9 VALUES ®E 'rHE EASEMENTS The following is a discussion of easements and their value impacts. Mood Control Easement- * The easement area can only be used as a creek and is not considered by the market as adding value to the subject's fee simple ownership position other than its contribution to the 15 percent landscaping obligation. ® The easement area is typically perceived by the market as a liability, due to the possibility of flooding caused by debris buildup which can occur over time and the ongoing cost to maintain a stable bank to reduce erosion potential. ® With the proposed easement, the public will have access to the creek to assure continuing maintenance of the creek's flood carrying capacity while repairing any erosion damages. ® From an analytical perspective there is no logical loss in value to the fee simple ownership sition with imposition of the flood control easement because the same development could be placed on the subject property before and after the imposition of the easement. ® The easement will not alter the topography or visually impact the buildable area of the entire property. For these reasons the value of the easement is at the lowest value range for easements, between 0 and 10 percent. Given the public's obligation to maintain the creek banks to prevent any further erosion, 0 is most probable, but to recognize that rights have been ~"lo taken, a value of 5 percent of the underlying land value is concluded. Thus, the estimated value of the proposed flood control easement is [(4,000 SF x $6.50/SF) x .05]: $1.300 Bike Trail_ Easement- 0 The easement will not impact the ability of the subject to be developed. The easement does encumber a portion of the site which the market would expect to use for landscaping purposes and the bike trail qualifies as part of the 15 percent landscaping requirement. CY5204A 29 PALMER, G'ttoTll & PIE''KA, INC. 13: 111 11 rt .-ROOM i. y.- \/AWE Or 1 "r- GMa~c~~ra ~ ya.Vnauaac.ol t a The inward orientation of the buildings for a property which is encumbered by a central, 30-foot wide easement, makes the owner's proposed site plan the logical solution for maximum site utilization which includes placement of the 15 percent landscaping adjacent to Fanno Creek. ® The logical inward orientation of the buildings with no openings along the westerly walls, minimizes the visual and potential security impacts associated with the easement. For these reasons, it is reasonable to conclude that the bikeway easement will fall within the range of values associated with utility easements which are typically along property lines in landscaped areas; therefore, a value of between 10 and 20 percent is probable. The visual impact of the easement and public use offsets the advantage of having the ZO a/ 17 easement owner install and maintain the improvements within the easement; thus, a value at the high end of the range, 20 percent, is concluded. The estimated value of the proposed bike trail easement is [(3,159 SF x $6.50/SF) x :20] $4,106.70, rounded to: $4.100 ~i CY5204A PALM ER, GROTH do PIETKA, INC. 30 CERTIFICATION OF ,APPRAIS AI. i•_ We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: ® The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. :t. ® The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. ® We have no present or prospective personal interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or E direction in value that favor the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. H The appraisal assignment was not based upon a requested minimum valuation, or specific valuation, or approval of a loan. Employment of the appraisers was not contingent upon the appraisal producing a specific value, or a value within a given range. ® Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as adopted by the Appraisal Institute and the Appraisal Foundation, pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). ® We, Rick Walker, AICP, and David E. Pietka, MAI, have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. ® Except as noted herein, no one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, I, David E. Pietka, MAI, am currently, certified under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 4 lz~elelf Rick Walker, AICP David E. Pietka, MAI OR State Certified Appraiser OR State Certified Appraiser License No. 0000216 License No. C000180 -~0Y•i'OI L } 1 C95204i! PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 31 tf .Y f i QUALIFICATIONS OF PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. Palmer, Groth &c Pietka was established in 1978 as a Partnership, and Incorporated in 1993. Our primary goal is to serve our clients in an effective and timely manner by preparhig appraisal and feasibility reports which can be relied upon for decision-making purposes by our clients. Our reports utilize current analytical tools and recognized appraisal methods. The members of our firm adhere to the Code of Ethics established by the Appraisal Institute, and strive to maintain a high level of professional integrity. Services are provided throughout the United States with local offices in Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, California; Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, Washington. Professional Services Our firm offers a wide range of services in the evaluation of real estate: Real Estate Appraisals: Valuation estimates on all types of properties including residential, commercial, and industrial. Machinery and Equipment Appraisals: Valuations of all types of industrial and commercial equipment for financing, insurance, litigation, property taxation, fixed asset accounting, federal income taxation, . and other special studies. Consultation: Analysis of real estate regarding values, site development potential, market standard versus competitive edge ameni- ties, market conditions, etc.. Court Testimony: Professional opinions as expert witnesses regarding the valuation of real estate. Property Tax Analysis: Representation before government agencies regarding ad <.:x. valorem taxes, including preliminary value consultation, appraisals and Board of Equalization presentations. p,~r i 9. PALM ER, GROTH &c PIETKA, INC. c4i )ALI~ICATIONS OP PALNiEFI CLOTH & PIETKA. INC. (Continued) Important Assignments a 1776 Building - Portland, Oregon Albany Shopping Center - Albany, Oregon Bank of California Tower - Portland, Oregon Beaver State Bank - Beaverton, Oregon Bend Town Center - Bend, Oregon Benson Hotel - Portland, Oregon Berryhill Shopping Center - Oregon City, Oregon Builders Square - Portland, Oregon Capitol Plaza - Portland, Oregon T Cedar Pulls Shopping Center - Beaverton, Oregon Clackamas Promenade Shopping Center - Clackamas, Oregon Columbia Square II Retail Center - Vancouver, Washington Comfort Inn Motel - Vancouver, Washington Commercial Securities Building -.Portland, Oregon Commonwealth Building - Portland, Oregon Far Nest Insurance Building - Portland, Oregon G.I. Joe's - Portland, Oregon Holiday Inn Motel - Eugene, Oregon Inn at the Meadows Motel - Hayden Island, Oregon J. I{. Gill Building - Portland, Oregon Jake's Restaurant - Portland, Oregon K -MW Roseburg, Oregon Meadows I Office Building - Lake Oswego, Oregon Metropolitan Medical Clinic - Portland, Oregon Montgomery Park - Portland, Oregon Mountain View Medical Center - Bend, Oregon Murrayhill Marketplace - Beaverton, Oregon Multnomah Building - Portland, Oregon New Market Theater - Portland, Oregon One Pacific Square - Portland, Oregon Oregon State Bar Building - Lake Oswego, Oregon Organ Grinder Restaurant Portland, Oregon Packer Scott Building - Portland, Oregon Payless Northwest Corporate Office - Wilsonville, Oregon Ross Center - Portland, Oregon Rub-a-Dub Car Wash. - Portland, Oregon Sherwood Inn - Tigard, Oregon PAX MAR, GROTii & PtETKA, INC. 71 ~'-t': S .~14~ALI~ICATIORIS OF PALIV ER GROTH & PRETKA. INC. (continued) n Sunriver Mall - Sunriver, Oregon Surfsand 1-flotel - Cannon Beach, Oregon Willowbrook Business Center - Tigard, Oregon Yamhill Marketplace - Portland, Oregon Swan Island Retail. Center - Portland, Oregon Sylvan Youth Center - Portland, Oregon Teamsters Office Building - Portland, Oregon Tebo's Restaurant - Milwaukee, Oregon The George Lawrence Building - Portland, Oregon Tigard East Shopping Center - Tigard, Oregon Vineyard Shopping Center -Oak Grove, Oregon % Willamette Center - Portland, Oregon Residentfi~l Baycre ek Subdivision - Lake Oswego, Oregon Barrington Heights Subdivision - West Linn, Oregon Broadway Center Apartments - Eugene, Oregon Eldorado Mobile Home Park -Tigard, Oregon y Fairway Village Condominiums - Vancouver, Washington Hearthwood Mobile Home Park - Clackamas, Oregon Honeyman Loft Apartments - Portland, Oregon Hunters Highland Subdivision - Gresham, Oregon Mahee Apartments - Charbonneau, Oregon Mountain View Mobile Home Park - Tangent, Oregon Portland Center Apartments - Portland, Oregon - Riverplace Apartments - Portland, Oregon Riverview Apartments - Tualatin, Oregon Royal Oaks Mobile Home Park - Eugene, Oregon Sherwood Ridge Subdivision - Hazel Dell, Washington South Park Blocks Apartments - Portland, Oregon Summesplace Condominiums - Portland; Oregon The Meadows Apartments - Vancouver, Washington E University Park Apartments - Portland, Oregon Village on the Lake Subdivision - Lake Oswego, Oregon Wildflower Apartments -Lake Oswego, Oregon v~ ryh PALMER, GRO'FH & PIETKA, INC. QUALIFICATIONS OF PALMER. GROTH & PIETKA, INC. (Continued) Ind a Armstrong World Industries - St. Helens, Oregon Benaroya Business Park - Portland, Oregon Boise Cascade Distribution Center - Wilsonville, Oregon Broadbent Business Park - Boise, Idaho Caterpiller Plant - Dallas, Oregon Clackamas Business Center - Clackamas, Oregon Columbia Business Center - Vancouver, Washington Commerce Center South - Wilsonville, Oregon Freightliner Facility - Portland, Oregon Graphic Arts Building - Portland, Oregon Heinz Industrial Park - Portland, Oregon Norm Thompson Warehouse - Beaverton, Oregon Oregon Business Center - Tigard, Oregon Oregon Graduate Center - Beaverton, Oregon Pacific Northwest Bell Warehouse - Eugene, Oregon Payless Northwest Distribution Facility - Wilsonville, Oregon PortAir Business Park - Portland, Oregon rY F Soloflex Headquarters - Hillsboro, Oregon Swan Island Technology Center - Portland, Oregon United Grocers Distribution- Facility - Milwaukee, Oregon Valley Warehouse Cold Storage Facility - Forest Grove, Oregon ecBal 3'Ise 23-Mile Power Line Right-of-Way - Lewis County, Washington 1,300 Acre Resort Newport, Oregon 2,700 Acre Tree Plantation - Columbia County, Oregon 5,000 Acre Timberland - Central Washington 13,000 Acre Cropland - Patterson, Washington 16,000 Acre Ranch -Central Washington 65,000 Acre Ranch - Central Oregon Banfiield Light Rail Line - Portland, Oregon Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge - Klamath County, Oregon Columbia Gorge Hotel - Hood River, Oregon Eagle Crest Resort - Redmond, Washington Emerald Valley Golf Course - Creswell, Oregon Fire Station No. 44 - Gresham, Oregon Garland Mineral Springs - Central Washington General Telephone Microwave Site - Washington County, Oregon PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. .4' lilzgyplgg QUALIFICATIONS OP PALMER GROTfl & PIETKA. lNg. (Continued) Hayden Island Water & Sewer District - Portland, Oregon Lutheran Family Services Headquarters - Portland, Oregon Metro YMCA - Portland, Oregon Natural Wildlife Habitat - Columbia Gorge, Oregon New Hope Community Church - Portland, Oregon Oregon Bulb Farm - Aurora, Oregon Portland Traction Railroad Line - Portland, Oregon Rippling River Resort - Welches, Oregon Ross Island - Portland, Oregon St. Matthew's Church - Beaverton, Oregon San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge - San Francisco, California San Geronimo Golf Course - Marin County, California Southern Pacific Trail - Portland, Oregon Union Station - Portland, Oregon Wetland Mitigation Site - Portland, Oregon - Scappoose, Oregon Wildwood Landfill Cliei ,Served Lenders: Bank of California Canadian Imperial Bank Citizens Savings & Loan Clarkco Credit Union Community First Federal Savings Crossland Mortgage Equitable Life Assurance Society Farwest Federal Bank First Interstate Bank First Interstate Mortgage Great Western Savings Bank Harding Fletcher Co. Intervest Investment Company Ivey Bank National Mortgage Nonis, Beggs & Simpson West One Bank Pacific First Federal People's Savings & Loan Savings Bank of Puget Sound SeaFirst Security Pacific Bank x; PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 111 A LIFICA°TIORIS OF PALMER GRO'TH PIETKA INC (Continued) 71 P. The Benjamin Franklin United Savings Bank U.S. Bancorp Vancouver Federal Bank Wells Fargo tank Willamette Savings & Loan Corporations: Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon CH2M Hill Chevron USA Coldwell Banker Crown Zellerbach Equitable Real Estate Investment Corporation Fast Bank Development Company Exxon Fisher Broadcasting Company Floating Point Industries Forest Grove Industries Fred Meyer, Inc. Freightliner Graphic Arts Center Harsch Investments International Paper James River Corporation Mecca International Melvin Mark Properties Mentor Graphics Owens-Corning Fiberglass PacifiCorp Payless Drug Stores Portland Bottling Company Precision Castparts Reach Community Development Riedel ]resources, Inc. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Corp. SchnitWr Investment Spectrum Properties Standard Insurance Tumac Lumber Company United Grocers, Inc. Upland Industries PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. fiffi ^..Fn. 5- ~~Ild>(LII=IC~TIOt~IS OF I),ALMER. GROTH & PIETA. INC. (Continued) Zidell Companies Developers: Aircoa Belvedere Properties, Ltd. Carlson Real Estate Company Columbia Willamette Cornell Oaks Associates C.E. John Emkay Development Harcourt Development Hillman Properties Northwest Jerry Jones Kemper/Bedford Real Estate The Koll Company Lincoln Properties Company Mercury Development Bill Naito Pacific Development Corporation Preece and Floberg Prendergast & Associates (quadrant Corporation RREEF Funds Scherzer Partners The Schnitzer Group The Stalick Company Westwood Corporation WPL Properties Government: Alaska Department of Transportation { City of Beaverton City of Portland City of Tualatin i Clackamas County Gresham School District Department of Justice Multnomah County Oregon Department of Transportation Port of Portland Port of Vancouver Portland Development Commission PALINMR, GROTHi & PIETKA, INC. r LIF ATi iV F PALMER GR TH & PIETKA IN C. (Continued) State of Oregon Attorney General Tri-Diet U.S. Fish and Wildlife U.S. Forest Service U.S. Postal Service Washington County Washington Dept. of Transportation Other: Ball, 7anik and Novak Bullivant Wright Central City Concern Dunn, Carney, Allen, Higgins & Tongue Emanuel Hospital Healthlink Kaiser Permanente Knowlton Realty, Ltd. Lindsey, Hart, Neil & Weigler Nature Conservancy Oregon Graduate Center Providence Hospital St. Vincent Hospital Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke and Booth Utah State Retirement Board j YMCA { PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 1:111 Ism ill III; liggs; 17 Qualifications of RICK WALKER Commercial Appraiser ticic walker was born in Los Angeles, California in 1947. Rick received his Bachelor of Science degree Cum Laude from the School of Environmental Design at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona. During his formal education, he spent two years in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving over a year in Vietnam. Rick also lived in Oslo, Norway, for two years. A Portland resident since 1976, Rick enjoys hiking, baseball, and camping with his children. l y E02fessional Education California. State Polytechnic University at Pomona Bachelor of Science, Cum Laude, in Urban Planning - 1976 Portland State University Land Use Law and Transportation Planning Apvrai sal Institute Courses Course 1A-1, Real Estate Principles Course IA-2, Basic Valuation Principles Course 1B-A, Capitalization Theory & Techniques Part A Course 1B•-B, Capitalization Theory & Techniques Part B Course 2-2, Report Writing and Valuation Course SPP, Standards of Professional Practice Course 2-1, Case Studies Real Estate erience Consultant/Real Estate Appraiser - Palmer, Groih & Pietka, Inc. City of Gresham - Director of Community Development Planning Manager/Project Planner Central Area Development Plan Light Rail Station Area Master Plan, this plan received a citation for excellence in urban design presented by the American Institute of Architects. ~7s+fe„c~ins n„J 0=ffi :ai'svies g i a`csisvf. State Certified Appraiser - State of Oregon (CO00216) The American Institute of Certified Planners MAI Candidate - Appraisal Institute Board Member, Columbia Corridor Association PALM ER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. 1 MEN ~PZICK Wes, R (Continued) ' Past Board Member - Mountain View ~+'eAe-rat Credit Union Board of Directors _ Past Board Member of the Gresham Chamber of Commerce Past Member Transportation Planning Advisory Committee, Metro, representing the Cities of Multnomah County (1981-1985) Past Member Regional Transportation Funding Committee (1982-1985) rt 0 I PALMER, 'GROTH & PIETKA, INC. r Qualifications of DAVID E. PIE1Z MAI Principal _ David Pietka was born in Eugene, Ore on in 1951- Kp attended high E-1--n- -A garcigated in varsity sports at S i outh Eugene High School. David graduated from the University of Oregon in 1973, with a degree in Business Finance. He attended the University of Wisconsin and received a Masters degree in Real Estate Appraisal and Investment Analysis in 1974. David has laved in Portland since III he has taught real estate court - - es as a part-time instructor at hit. Hood Community College, Portland Community College, Portland State University and seminars for Northwest Center for Professional Education. As a past member of the Porch-v d Central City Pla*: 0tmring Committee, Portland Housing Advisory Committee, Chairperson of the City Demolition Delay and Density Task Force, Vice Chairman of the Mid County Sewer Project Cost Alternative Task Force, CSO Financing Alternatives Task Force, and DEQ Parking Ratio Technical Advisory Committee, David has been heavily involved in Portland planning and housing issues since 1985. David is the administrative officer for the firm and handles special/review assignments in the Portland Office. Education University of Oregon - Business Administration Bachelor of Science Degree - 1973 University of Wisconsin Graduate School - Business Administration Real Estate Appraisal and Investment Analysis Master of Science Degree - 1974 Real Estate E~2erience Principal - Palmer, Groth & Pietka, Inc. (since 1978) Appraiser - Brock H. Bresnan & Associates Teaching QuaLi cations &=VVE Foundation-of Real Estate Analysis Portland State University 1994 Real Estate Appraisal Portland State University, 1990-1994 Appraising, Income-Producing Properties NW Center for Professional Education, 1984-1986 ,r 30 Specialized Appraisal Issues Palmer, Groth & Pietka, Inc. 1992-1994 PALMER, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. MINOR IRS, ~'ietka.l~iA (Continued) ' ` Q Atio of Peal Estate Appraisal Applications Oregon Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 1991 T'rofessionul Organ.irations MAI - 'rhe Appraisal Institute State Certified Appraiser - State of Oregon; No. 0000180 PA]LMR, GROTH & PIETKA, INC. P OVIStON OF PUBL1C PEDESTRIAN 70 AND BIC'Y'CLE ACCESS. WA I Public Policy Rationale and the Nature of Private Benefits WORKING PAPER SERIES CENTER FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Professor Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., ASCE, AICP City Planning Program Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332 January 1994 3 rt. EXHIBIT .p i ' Mff NOVEMBER RISEN= livig i Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Ways II Congestion Reduction Pedestrians and bicyclists occupying dedicated spaces for walking and/or bicycling contribute nothing to street congestion and actually remove potential vehicles from streets, resulting in an overall improvement in total transportation system flow. On the other hand, forcing pedestrians and bicyclists on highways reduces highway capacity, as seen in Table 2. Where there is no facility for pedestrians and bicyclists, such as shoulders, highways are reduced to up to 70 percent of their capacity to accommodate vehicles. In contrast, providing pedestrian and bicycle access ways will help reduce highway congestion. :Wj TABLE 2 Effect of Pedestrian/Bicycle Clearance on 12-Ft Lane Capacity for Automobiles Usable Shoulder wi th ! Capacity Effect Where I.0. _ for 'Pedestrians and Maximum Lane Capacity Bicyclists Level oa!S2rvice Level of Service AfoL F. 6+ Feet 1.00 1.00 4 Feet 9.92 0.97 2 Feet 0.81 0.93 0 Feet 0.70 0.88 _ Source - Adapted from Highivay Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (1985). ?M T } s Center for Planning and Development Georgia Institute of Technology EPICIZIII 11,113 11 w i+Fs' 5 4 'F _ Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Ways 12 The effect of bicycles within travel lanes of otherwise free-flowing highways is shown in Table 3. By way of example, suppose an intersection has capacity for 500 vehicles per hour (vph). The effect of bicycles on the automobile capacity of travel lanes of less than 14 feet in width can be estimated using the following formula: VFHAu. = CapacityAu,,, - (Bicycles X Adjustment Factor). For example, suppose an intersection averages 100 bicycles per hour, one half of which are y^ opposed, and the travel lanes are 12 feet in width. The resulting vph for automobiles is calculated as follows: WHAum = 500 - ((100 X 0.5 X 0.5) + (100 X 0.5 X 0.2)) = 465. , TABLE 3 Effects of Bicycles on Lane Capacity for Automobiles ':Bicycle Direction Lane ;Width` (feet) (Tvloveznent).;. g;ess thane 11 11. to 14. IVIo e than 14 Opposed (Interferes with 1.2 0.5 0.0 traffic) Unopposed (Does not 1.0 0.2 0.0 interfere with traffic) Source - Adapted from Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (1985). Center for Planning and Development Georgia Institute of Technology y.r, Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Ways 13 While pedestrian and bicyclists can reduce highway capacity if not separated from vehicular traffic, separated pedestrian and bicycling facilities can induce drivers to walk or cycle thereby improving overall highway capacity.46 When one considers that at least 50 percent of all automobile trips including a large share of work trips are less than five miles, it should become obvious that there is great potential for pedestrian and bicycle access ways to reduce congestion of highway facilities.' Suppose a lengthy but no unreasonable walk or a moderate bicycle trip is 2.5 miles, which is equivalent to roughly a quarter of all automobile trips.48 Since for each mile during commuting periods, the congestion cost savings can be up to $0.32 per 2.5 mile urban commute trip and $0.03 per 2.5 mile urban noncommute trip.49 Air and Noise Pollution Reduction Walking and bicycling produce virtually no air or noise pollution. Because walking and bicycling replaces short haul trips which are the most polluting when done by automobile, pollution savings can be especially large. Cost savings attributable to walking and bicycling are estimated to be in the range of $0.40 per 2.5 mile urban commute trip and $0.24 for all other urban trips.50. Noise pollution savings are also possible and range from $0.02 per 2.5 mile urban commute trip and $0.01 per 2.5 urban noncommute trip.51 46 Michael Cameron, 1991, Transportation Efficiency: Tackling Southern California's Air Pollution and Congestion, Environmental Defense Fund (Oakland, CA); Brian Ketchum and Charles Komanoff, 1992, Win-Win Transportation, Transport Alternatives (New York); Douglass B. Lee, 1989, An Efficient Transportation and Land Use System, Transportation Systems Center (Cambridge, MA); Peter Miller and John Moffet, 1993, The Price of Mobility, NRDC (San Francisco). r 47 Op Cit. Koch. 48 Federal Highway Administration, 1992, Nationwide Personal Transportation Study, U.S. Department of Transportation (Washington, DC). 490p Cit. Litman. 500p Cit. Litman; Ketchum and Komanoff; Miller and Moffet. See also Theodore Keeler and Kenneth Small, 1975, The Full Costs of Urban Transport: Intermodal Comparisons, Monograph # 21, Institute of Urban and Regional Development (Berkeley, CA). ~s SIId. Ketchum and Komanoff; Lee; Keeler and Small. Op Cit, Litman. See also James MacKenzie, Roger Dower, and Donald Chen, 1992, The Going Rate: What It Really Costs to Drive, World Resources Institute (Washington, DC). ~'1s Center for Planning and Development Georgia Institute of Technology .b . IN, Bill -Y MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING e TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT 0690 SW BANCROFT STREET • P.O. BOX 69039 PORTLAND. OREGON 97201.0039 • (503) 224.9560 • FAX (503) 228-1285 I June 16, 1995 O4`Donnell Mr. Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach _ Attention: 1',PIr. Frank 11arnmond 1727 N.W. Hoyt Portland, OR 97213 RE: Dolan - A-Boy - Transportation MEEI Project Number 195159 Dear 1&. Hammond: As you requested, we analyzed the impacts the proposed expansion of the Tigard A-Boy will have on the City's transportation system. We also familiarized ourselves with the bicycle/pathway easement the City is proposing to require as a condition of approving the expansion. We determined the cost new trips generated by the expansion will impose on the City's transportation system, and we fixed the value of the mitigation that the proposed bicyclelpedestrian pathway will cause. 1. flnntWgated Impact of the Expansion Expansion of the Tigard A-Boy will generate an increase in automobile and truck traffic of approximately 404.17 trips. Each of those new trips will take up capacity on the City's street system, which must be accommodated in infrastructure improvements. To estimate the cost of increasing the system's capacity to accommodate the A-Boy trips, we relied on a cost methodology derived from the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, Washington County Code Chapter 3.17, as updated in Washington County Ordinance 379 § 3 (Exhibit A (part), 1990) the "TIF Ordinance"). We believe our reliance on the F` TIF Ordinance is justified, given its purpose and methodology. The TIF Ordinance provides for assessment of traffic impact fees on new development to "ensure that new development contributes to extra capacity transportation improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by such development." The TIF Ordinance uses a methodology that imposes fees equal to 21 percent of the $465 million baseline value the County has established to meet the need for all highway improvements through the year 2005 in all of Washington County. In estimating the $465 million number, the County assumed that it would be necessary to build all infrastructure to support full buildout through 2005. Its capital improvements plan, on which the TIF Ordinance is based, therefore, includes an assumption that the A-Boy property would build <<' out to its full potential through that date. Therefore, in our professional opinion, the trip valuation method in the TIF offers a valid method for measuring the impact of the A-Boy expansion. F.\WPDATA\95406195159\16L1.KC Irmo Frank Hammond MEI Project Number 195159 June 16, 1995 Page 2 Tigard will receive a higher share of the TIF Ordinance dollars than the average in Washington County. There, Sending will cover 32 percent of the City's roadway improvement needs. Another way to look at that statement is to recognize that in Tigard, the traffic impact fee applied to any new development is mitigating only 32 percent of the required improvements. Therefore, the actual cost of system improvements per trip generated by new development on the Tigard street system can be determined by applying the following equation: $39 0.32 = $121.87 Where $39.00 is the commercial per trip TIF assessment. Using this formula, the unmitigated impact of the A-Boy expansion is as follows: Full impact: 404.17 x $121.87 = $49,258.22 (Less TIF Assessment: 404.17 x $ 39.00 + $15.762.00) Unmitigated Impact: $33,496.22 r~ 2. Value of the Mitigation You also asked that we determine the amount by which the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway will reduce the impact of the A-Boy expansion. Fortunately, a comprehensive study is available that we have used to answer your request. In 4A, The Pedestrian Environment, 1993 ("LUTRAQ" Parson Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., in cooperation with Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Calthorpe Associates, all recognized experts in this field, carefully analyzed the effect of, among other things, pedestrian and bicycle ways on automobile trips in the Portland Metropolitan area. This detailed and careful study can be used here, and it shows that the proposed bicyclelpedestrian path will reduce automobile trips, increase system capacity, and therefore mitigate for the additional trips the A -Boy expansion will generate. LUTRAQ established pedestrian environment factors to evaluate the effects of a given area on the choice to make an auto trip versus some other mode of transportation. Pedestrian/bicycle ways were among the factors considered. The factors were analyzed to give different parts of the Portland Metropolitan area rating numbers, referred to as a PEF factor. The higher the factor, the more friendly the area to alternative modes of transportation. Figure 3 to LITTRAQ shows the area of the A-Boy expansion to currently has a PEF of 4-6. According to LUTRAQ's results, in such an area approximately 94 percent of all trips are by automobile; LUTRAQ at page 17. LUTRAQ also established that by increasing the PEF number, a city will also reduce the number of automobile trips. Therefore, if the bicyclelpedestrian path under consideration here will increase the City's PEF, it will also reduce the number of automobile trips. FAVYPDATA\95-06V5159116L1.KC Ii REM u i' a1r Frank Hammond NISI Project Number 195159 June 16, 1995 Page 3 We have carefully reviewed the factors in the LUTRAQ study and the City's bicycle/pedestrian pathway plan. Based on that review, it is our professional opinion that the pathway system, including the segment at issue in the proceedings, will increase the PEF in Tigard from its current 4-6 to 9-10. It will therefore significantly reduce the number of automobile trips on Tigard's streets. LUTRAQ found that in zones with PEF values of 9-10, automobiles accounted for between 83.3 percent and 86.7 percent of all trips. Based on a comparison of Tigard's pathway system and other factors relevant to LUTRAQ with areas in the study having a similar PEF rating, we expect Tigard to achieve similar results from its proposed pathway system. Therefore, we calculate the benefit of the proposed pathway easement as follows: Using a conservative figure, Tigard can expect to reduce reliance on the automobile from 94 percent to 85 percent by building the pathway system, a nine percent improvement'. This yields a mitigation value using the formulae developed above as follows: 404.17 trips x 0.09 x $121.87 = $4,433.06 Therefore, if the A-Boy expansion is conditioned to provide the pathway easement, nine percent of the new trips the project will generate will be mitigated, a value equaling $4,433.06. Although the easement does not provide the complete facility, the City is not requiring the applicant to build or fund construction of the pathway. The City will bear that cost from other municipal funds. ' In our expert opinion, a nine percent improvement in traffic capacity is reasonable to expect from the proposed pathway system because LUTRAQ estimates that construction of pedestrian friendly environments will generally result in system-wide improvements of about ten percent; LUTRAQ at page 3. E If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 0505 David G. Larson, P.E. Vice President ~v< v 1S, 'O1 c. LPji'mo _ DGL/kc G. FAWPDATAW54)"5159\16L1.KC r^ - 11105 11 P tli~ll Washington County Code 3.17.010 Chapter 3.17 this chapter and on file in the department of land use and transportation. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE* D. "Board" means the board of county commissioners of Washington County, Oregon. E. "Building official" means that person, or his des- ! Sections: ignee, Hcensed by the state and designated as such to ad- Short title. minister the State Structural Speciality Code for the county 317.020 Purpose and scope. or city. 3.17.030 Definitions. F. 'Building permit" means that permit issued by the 3.17.040 Imposition and exceptions. county or city building official pursuant to the Uniform 3.17.050 Amount. Building Code. In addition, "building permit" means the 3.17.060 PayrmenL mobile home placement permit issued by the director, or 3.17.070 Credit. his representative, on a form approved by the Department 3.17.080 Offset alternative for certain of Commerce of the state and relating to the placement safety improvements. of mobile homes in the county. For those uses for which 3.17.090 Dedicated fund. no building permit is provided, the final approval granted 3.17.100 Use of TIF revenues.* by the jurisdiction approving the use shall be deemed a 3.17.110 Refunds. building permit for purposes of this chapter. 3.17.120 Administration. G. "Business and commercial" means that land use :3.17.130 Collection.' category as identified by those structures as shown in 3.17.140 Annual review. Appendix A attached hereto, or any other structures as 3.17.150 Review of decisions. determined by the director pursuant to Section 3.17.050. 3.17.160 Transition. H. "City council" means the governing body of each incorporated city having jurisdiction over property within " Prior history: Ords, 310, 319, 328, 325 and Ballot Meas= adopted the boundaries of the county. 1104/96. 1. "Collector" means a nonarterial road or street des- ignated on the base report adopted as Appendix D of the 3.17.010 Short title. ordinance codified in this chapter, as amended. This chapter shall be known, and may be pleaded as, "Comprehensive plan" means the comprehensive the Washington County traffic impact fee ordinance. (Ord. plan, transportation plan, capital improvements plan, public 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) facilities plan or equivalent plan adopted by ordinance by ' the applicable jurisdiction. 3.17.020 Purpose and scope. K. "Construction cost index" means an annual construc- A. This taxis adopted to ensure that new development tion cost estimate based on a composite of the unit costs contributes to extra capacity transportation improvements for specified construction components of all accepted corn needed to accorrmodate additional traffic generated by stmction contracts entered into by the Oregon Department such development. of Transportation during a single year indexed to the B. • This tax shall provide funds for extra capacity quantity and total cost of such items for the years 1960 improvements to county and city arterials and certain col- through 1962, inclusive, and computed using the formula lectors or state facilities. It applies throughout the county, set forth in Appendix B attached hereto, attached and by including within incorporated cities. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit this reference incorporated herein. A(part)), 1990) L. "County" means Washington County, Oregon. M. "Deparnnent' means the county department of land • 3.17.030 Definitions. use and transportation, or, in those cid s that. have opted As used in this chapter unless the context requires to collect and administer this tax, the department charged otherwise: with the duties. A. "Applicant" means the person seeking to obtain N. "Director" means the director of the department a building permit, of land use and transportation, or in those cities that have B.• "Arterial" means that term as defined in the com- opted to collect and administer this tax, the person desig- prehensive plan. nated by the city to so act. C: "Base report'riteans the report dated August 1990 O. "Extra capacity facilities or improvements" means ! and adopted as Appendix D to the ordinance codified in th-M. transit, arterial and collector improvements that are , ! 55 (WwWagton County 8.92) _ I .=01~ a 3.17.030 Washington County Code ' necessary in the interest of public health, safety and welfare on the wunty's major roadway system, as approved by to Increase traffic capacity to address new development. the director. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) Such improvements include, but are not limited to, signaliza- •3....'..I.......~i%+nt~n., ,,,iAen:na 19rpin~oP Wynrti, peAest_inn 3-17.050 Ar'10Unt. i ......:.~.0, _ _,_o.: . _ safety, lighting, acquisition of right-of-way and necessary A. The amount of the tax due shall be determined by easements, street extensions, railroad crossing protective multiplying the following applicable dollar amount, adjusted devices, bridges and bike paths, and transit. as provided in subsection E of this section, by the number P. "Fee" shall mean the traffic impact tax adopted of average weekday trips generated by the new development herziu. in accordance wit;Y the basis for trip determination set forth Q. • "Industrial" means that land use category as ident- in Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein. ified by those structures as shown in Appendix A, attached hereto, or any other structures as determined by the director Residential use $135 per average weekday trip pursuant to Section 3.17.050. Business and IL'' "Institutional" means that land use category as commercial use S 34 per average weekday trip identified by those structures shown in Appendix A, attached Office use $124 per average weekday trip hereto; or any other structures as determined by the director Industrial use $130 per average weekday trip pursuant to Section 3.17.050. Institutional use $ 56 per weighted average daily trip S. "Occupancy permit" means the occupancy permit provided for in the Uniform Building Code or other ordi- The amount of the traffic impact fee for institutional nance of the applicable jurisdiction. If no occupancy permit uses shall be based on the weighted average daily calculated is provided for a particular use, the final inspection and as follows: approval sball serve as the occupancy permit: T. "Offices" means that land use category as identified ' - (average weekday trip rate x 5) + (average weekend trip x 2) by those structures as shown in Appendix A, attached 7 hereto, or any other structures as determined by the director pursuant to Section 3.17.050. B. In the event an identified use does not have a basis U. "Residential" means that land use category as ident- for trip determination stated in Appendix A, i.e., not avail- ified by those strumdires as shown in Appendix A, attached able, the director shall either hereto, or any other structures as determined by the director 1. Determine the trip generation based on the use listed pursuant to Section 3.17.050. in Appendix A most similar in traffic generation; or V: "Road" means a county road or city street. 2. At the election (and expense) of the applicant, W. "Traffic impact fee" means the tax imposed and consider actual trip generation of a same or similar use required to be paid pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 379 § verified by a registered traffic engineer. In the event actual 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) trip generation is utilized, the director may make such r, . , • adjustments as he deems applicable in consideration of 3.17.040 Imposition and exceptions. location, size and other appropriate factors in determining : A.' A.traffic impact tax is imposed on all development the average weekday trip. . in the county, including inside cities, as provided for herein. C. It is recognized that single structures may include B:' The following development is exempt from the tax: more than one use. In such event the director for purposes 1. Remodeling or replacement of any single-family of establishing the traffic impact fee sha11 proportion the structure (including mobile homes); uses accordingly. 2. Multifamily structure remodeling or replacement D. The applicant shall, at the time of application for except to the extent of addition of dwelling units; a building permit, provide the department with necessary 3. Remodeling of office, business and commercial, and applicable information, such as the type of use, number industrial or institutional strictures except to the extent of employees or square footage of structures, necessary it generates additional average weekday trips as determined to calculate the traffic impact fee. in !the manner set forth in Appendix A or as provided by E. Notwithstanding any other provision, the dollar 3A7.050(B) whichever is applicable; amounts set forth in subsection A of this section shall on 4. Development not subject to this chapter pursuant May 1st of each year be computed to increase automatically to Section 3.17.150; by six percent unless the board of commissioners of the '5. A transit improvement which bas the impact of county first determines that the construction cost index removing vehicle trips or reducing vehicle miles of travel is a more accurate estimate of the increase or decrease in r (wahiag1on County 8.92) 56 11 1 HIM J; 1 i Y t= Washington County Code 3.17.050 construction costs. Upon such a determination, the amounts lion C unless so requested at the time of application for set forth in subsection A of this section shall be increased deferral. Selection of the credit or offsee option must be or decreased by the average percentage fluctuation of the made at the time of application for deferral. Failure to construction cost index over the previous ten years. In no specify shall be deemed to be selection of the credit option. event, however, shall there be an annual increase in we ire scluc ilo„ ;s b. able. excess of six percent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all C. Any traffic impact fee may be eligible for internal calculations shall be carried out to the hundredths place, financing or a bancrofting agreement pursuant to ORS. A. final product ending in $0.49 or less shall be rounded 223.205 through 223.785, the Bancroft Bonding Act or down to the nearest dollar, $0.50 or more up to the next any adopted city process. Bancrofting and installment dollar. payment agreements, as allowed herein, shall be limited F. The construction cost index for 1986 and subsequent in term in the following manner years shall be prepared by an Oregon registered professional engineer employed or retained by the county. The index Traffic impact fee through 51,000 3 years shall be prepared in accordance with the formula set forth Traffic impact fee from $1,001 in Appendix B and generally accepted construction cost through $5,000 5 years indexing standards. The Oregon Highway Composite Traffic impact fee $5,001 and more 10 years Construction Cost Index for the fourth quarter of 1985, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and by Any inziHmentorbancroftagreement provided by this this reference incorporated herein as Appendix C, is adopted section shall have an interest rate as determined, at the as the, composite index for the years 1975 through 1985 time of the application, by the chief county or city financial to be used in computing the average percentage increase officer and in recognition of the then current market rates or decrease over the previous ten years. and costs associated with the administration of such agree- G. Washington County promptly shall notify each city meets. Applications for an agreement, as provided in this in writing of the increase or decrease. The adjustment to chapter, must be made at the time of building permit the dollar amount as described above apply to all building application, or occupancy permit if permitted pursuant to permit applications accepted for review on or after July subsection B of this section. 1st, by the county or city having jurisdiction over the No applications made subsequent to issuance of the development. building permit, or occupancy permit if allowed by sub- H. The decision of the board, including the accuracy section B of this section, shall be considered. Any traffic of the construction cost index and its application, shall be impact fee using an agreement shall be a lien pursuant to reviewable solely under ORS 34.010 through 34.100, ORS 223.230 or city provision. No offset shall be allowed relating to writs of review, in the Circuit Court in the for any tax satisfied through use of an agreement provided county. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) in this section. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exbibit A(part)), 1990) 3.17.060 Payrnent. 3.17.070 Credit. A. Unless deferred, the tax imposed is due and payable An applicant for a building permit, or occupancy permit at the time of issuance of a building permit by the county if deferral has been granted, shall be entitled to a credit or city. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no against the tax for constructing eligible capital improvements building permit shall be issued for a development subject as defined herein. to this tax unless the tax is first paid in full. A. -An extra capacity road or transit improvement is B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, in eligible for credit provided it meets all of the following: those cases where the amount due for any one building 1. With the excepdon of P!t&ble -.4wit iu_ p-ov-nents, permit exceeds five thousand dollars, the applicant may the improvement must be on a facility designated as an request a payment deferral. The request must be made in arterial or collector facility in the base report, adopted as writing to the director no later than the time of application Appendix D as part of the ordinance codified in this chapter, for a building permit. The director shall grant deferral to and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. the traffic impact fee, however, any traffic impact fee shall 2. The improvement must be designed and constructed be paid in full prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. to provide additional capacity to meet projected future The amount of TTF due on deferred obligations shall be transportation needs. Improvements that address capacity the amount in effect at the time of issuance of the occupan- deficiencies existing at the time of development are not cy permit. Deferred TIF obligations shall not be eligible eligible. In the case of improvements addressing both, only for internal fi,-tancing or bancrofung as provided i:, subset - that portion providing future capacity is eligible; and A, 57 (Washington County 9.92) 3.17.070 Washington County Code 3. The director determines that the timing, location, through road only. One-third shall be eligible in the case design and scope of proposed improvement is consistent of a T-intersection involving a noneligible through road. with and furthers the objectives of the capital improvements 7. Transit extra capacity or safety capital improvements pr•ogiam of the jurisdiction and, either, such as bus shelters, turnouts, park and ride lots may be 4 -lions cl:gibic : if ap;ro..ed by V-Prenrinte . a. The improvement is requrrea w ,tu,t,. . -~irarlcit authority. of development approval issued by the.jurisdiction with No transit credit sball exceed ten percent of the TIF due. land use decision making authority; or 8. No credits shall be issued for landscaping, street b. The improvement is within the impact area of the fighting, storm sewers, sidewalks, and erosion control; or development. For purposes of this section, impact area is sound walls, berms or other such mitigation devices. that geographic area determined by the director in which 9. Road right-of-way required to be dedicated pursuant the estimated traffic to be generated by the development to the applicable comprehensive plan or development exceeds ten percent of the existing average daily traffic. condition is not creditable. The reasonable market value Eicisting traffic volumes shall be those observed within of land purchased by the applicant from a third party to six months prior to filing the development application, complete a required off-site improvement is creditable. adjusted for daily and seasonal traffic variations using 10. No credit sballgranted for utility relocation except factors provided by the director. for that portion which otherwise would have been the legal i B. A road or transit improvement constructed to address obligation of the jurisdiction pursuant to a franchise, ease- a,safety hazard is eligible for credit if it meets the follow- ment or similar relationship. 11: No credit shall be granted for minor realignments 1: With the exception of eligible transit improvements, not designated on the comprehensive plan. the improvement must be on a facility designated as an 12. No more than 13.5 percent of the total eligible aiterial or collector in the base report; and construction cost shall be creditable for survey, engineering, 2. The improvement must have been mandated as a and inspection. condition of development approval and be located within D. All credit requests must be in writing and filed with the impact area of the development, as determined pursuant the director not more than ninety days after acceptance to subsection (A)(4)(b) of this section. of the improvement. Improvement acceptance shall be in C.• Credit eligibility shall be determined by the director. accordance with the practices, procedures and standards In addition to meeting the standards of subsections A and of the applicable jurisdiction. The amount of any credit B 'of this section, the following shall control: shall be determined by the director and based upon the 1.' There shall be no credit for improvements to the subject improvement construction contract documents, or center twenty-eight feet of an existing road, except safety other appropriate information, provided by the applicant improvements creditable under subsection B of this section. for the credit. Upon a finding by the director that the 2. New roads are eligible projects as long as they meet contract amounts exceed prevailing market rate for a similar the remaining project eligibility criteria. An existing dirt project, the credit shall be based upon market rates. The of gravel road is deemed new if its daily traffic volume director shall provide the applicant with a credit, on a form is below two hundred vehicles per day. For new facilities, provided by the department. The original of the credit form TIF credits may be i-.sued.for the entire roadway width. shall be retained by the department. The credit shall state 3. - Improvements which primarily function as access a dollar amount that may be applied against any traffic to a private street or driveway are not eligible, impact fee imposed against the subject property. In no event r ."k Improvements, including travel lanes and bike lanes, shall a subject property be entitled to redeem credits in must be at ultimate alignment, line and grade except that excess of the traffic impact fee imposed. said improvements need notbe atultimate alignment, line E. Credits shall be apportioned against the property and grade if the improvement is a safety improvement as which was subject to the requirement to construct an im- -provided in subsection B of this section. provement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested, 5. Bike lanes are eligible only if required pursuant apportionment against lots or parcels constituting the prop- 'r to an adopted comprehensive plan. city shall be proportionate to anticipated average weekday 6.' For intersection signals and related devices, only. trips generated by the respective tots or parcels except for fifty percent of extra capacity or safety intersection improve- institutional which shall be based on a full week. Upon ments shall be eligible if the intersection involves one written application to the director, however, credits shall eligible and one noneligible road. Two-thirds shall be be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any other lot eligible in the case of aT-intersection involving an eligible or parcel within the confines of the property originally eli- , -ot. (Washington County 8-92) 58 a.; Washington County Code 3.17.070 gible for the credit. Reapportionment shall be noted on reimburse the developer for the full amount of eligible im- the original credit form retained by the department. provement costs. No interest shall be due or payable on F. Any credits as provided in this chapter are assign- the funds in the account. Traffic impact feet moneys paid able. however, they shall apply only': at property subject in excess of the offset amount shall be deposited in the to the original condition for land use approval upon which traffic impact fee fund. No ottset binds s'nall be manic aVaa_ the credit is based or any partitioned or subdivided parcels able for traffic impact fees satisfied by use of credits or or lots of such property to which the credit has been made subject to a bancroft agreement appmticme& Credits shall ordy apply agai^.st traffic impact E. Beginning January 2, through and including five fees, are limited to the amount of the fee attributable to pm., January 31st of each year, the developer who actually the uevelopluerat of the ,r.,.ific lot of parcel for which incurred eligible traffic safety improvement costs may file FE the credit is sought and shall not be a basis for any refund. a wri tten claim for offset moneys placed in the account G. Any credit must be submitted not later than the for the subject development during the preceding calendar issuanc of the building permit or, if deferral was permitted year. The claim shall be on a form approved by the director. pursuant to Section 3.17.060, issuance of the occupancy No claim for offsets shall be accepted or processed after permit. The applicant is responsible for presentation of this deadline. For purposes of this section, an offset request any credit and no credit shall be considered after issuance is timely filed if postmarked January 31. of a building permit or, if deferral was granted, issuance F. Within thirty days of receipt of a claim for offset, of an occupancy permit. the director shall verify eligibility and issue payment to A. Credits shall not be allowed more than seven years the claimant for the eligible amount expended as of De- after the acceptance of the applicable improvement by the cember 31 of the previous year, less an administrative fee appropriate jurisdiction. No extension of this deadline shall of three percent of the offset amount to a maximum admin- be granted. istu ativo fee of two thousand dollars per account per year. 1. Upon annexation, credits previously issued by the In no event shall the payment exceed the amount of traffic countyy shall be honored by the jurisdiction collecting the impact fee moneys actually received during the previous tax. (Ord, 379 § 3(Fxhibit A(part)), 1990) year from the development conditioned to make the eligible safety improvement. In no event shall payment exceed the 3.17.080 Offset alternative for certain safety approved cost of eligible safety improvements. Any un- improvements. claimed balance remaining on February 1st shall not be A. In lieu of a traffic improvement credit from the eligible for offset and shall be transferred to the traffic director, a developer may choose to receive a impact fee fund. dollar=for-dollar cash offset. This offset shall be available G. Traffic safety improvement costs shall be eligible only against the cost of traffic safety improvements which for offset for up to seven years after the assurance is pro- would otherwise be eligible for a credit as provided in vided. Offsets can no longer be claimed after January 31st Section 3.17.070. If TIF deferral is sought pursuant to of the seventh year following acceptance of the assurance, 3.17.060(B), the offset option must be selected at the time regardless of whether TIF revenues may continue to be of application for deferral. Failure to do so means the offset generated by the development of whether the improvement option is waived. has been completed. Remaining revenue shall be deposited B. To obtain offset payments, the developer shall file in the TIF fund. a written request, on a form approved by the director, for FL Offsets are nontransferable and nonassipable. They • an offset in-lieu of credit This request must be filed within shall apply only to that property subject to the original 'p > ninety days of acceptance of the improvement by the district condition for land use approval upon which the offset is and include the cost information required by Section based. Offsets shall only apply against traffic impact foes, 3.17.070(D). Eligible traffic safety costs of a development are limited to the amount of the tax attributable to the may be subject to offset or credit, but not both. development for which the offset is sought and shall not C. The amount of cash offset shall be calculated by be a basis for any refund. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), the director in the same manner as provided in Section 1990) 3.17.070(D) for a credit. i . D. The director shall establish an offset account suf- 3.17.090 Dedicated fund. fuciently identifying each developer and development for A. The county and each city shall create a dedicated which an offset has been requested. As cash taxes are col- fund entitled "traffic impact fee fundherein "fund." All lected for the development, the taxes shall be deposited moneys derived from this tax shall be placed in the fund. into the' account until sufficient funds are deposited to Traffic impact fee revenue, including interest on the fund, 59 t i s f` _ . fen 41 ~ ._fit.` 3.17.090 Washington County Code shall be used for no purpose other than those activities collected by the county building permits issued by the cities bed as, or for the benefit of, extra capacity facilities shall be spent only on county arterials and major collectors defirned herein, within or directly benefiting the city until such time as r ~A..". .,.,.PIVM f;T M payment of iratffc impact the county certifies that all extra capacity needs on such fees subject to offset shall be placed in an amount identify- facilities have been assured. Upon certification, ine coo. Ityj ing the developer and development conditioned to make may spend the funds on any county arterial or major the eligible safety improvement. Moneys received in excess collector. Taxes collected by the county from properties of that rc$uirA to hotor offsets shalt be placed directly within an acknowledged urban planning area shalt be spent _ in the fund. In addition, funds remaining dire to unclaimed by the county only within that area or to di,•-ectty benefit offsets shall be deposited in the find upon expiration of that area until the county formalty, cert-ifie_s that all county tee claim. period. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) arterial and major collector needs have been met, at which time the funds may ba spent on any county arterial or major 3.17.106 Use otTIF revenues. collector. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) A. TIF revenues may be spent to provide new or expanded arterial and collector projects as shown in the 3.17.110 Refunds. base report and extra capacity transit projects including Refunds of traffic impact fees may be made upon all related improvements necessary to meet adopted Stan- initiation of the director or upon written application filed lards: In addition, the reasonable and customary costs of with the director. Refunds shall be allowed upon a finding administering this tax and projects funded hereunder, by the director that there was clerical error in the calculation including repayment of debt, may be paid from TIF reve- of the traffic impact fee. Refunds shalt be allowed for nues. failure to claim a credit or offset provided the claim for B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, the refund is in writing and actually received by the appropriate following limitations apply: jurisdiction within thirty days of the date of issuance of 1. For expansion of existing roads, except realignments the building permit or occupancy permit if deferral was of existing roads to fulfill an adopted transportation or granted. No refund shall be granted for any reason other capital improvements map, no TIF revenues shall be ex- than those expressly provided for herein. (Ord. 379 § pended on the center twenty-eight feet; 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) 2. The sum of ten dollars per trip generated from development of properties inside the jurisdiction of a transit 3.17.120 Administration. district, increased annually as provided in Section 3.17- . A. Except as provided in subsection B below, proof .0500, shall be reserved for extra capacity transit improve- of payment of the tax to the county shall be required prior meats; and to issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit if 3. Except as provided in subdivision 4 of this subecc- deferred, for any development in the county, including any tion, fifty percent of all revenues, net of credits and the incorporated city. transit apportionment, annually collected by each jurisdiction B. Each city shall be entitled to collect the tax and shall be reserved for use only for arterials designated in administer this chapter within its city limits provided it the bass report adopted herein. Such funds may be used files with the board of county commissioners a resolution for collectors only if the county certifies that all necessary or ordinance approved by the city council and containing t extra capacity improvements to arterials in the base report the following: have been assured. "Assured" means completed or that 1. Agreement to administer the tax in full compliance funds have been set aside in the form of cash, cash- with its terms; in-escrow, letters of credit or similar binding obligation 2. Acceptance of full and sole responsibility for proper acceptable to county. administration in accordance with the chapter, including 4. Notwithstanding subdivision 3 of this subsection, for any fund deficiencies notwithstanding termination; the county and a city may by inWgovemmental a agreement 3. A provision for ninety days notice of termination allow TIF funds to be spent on a specific collector project by city and an agreement to transition administration to within the city or which directly benefits the city regardless the county in a reasonable and good faith manner.' of whether nonassured arterial needs exist. C. Upon filing the ordinance or resolution, the city C. TIFrevenues shall be spent on improvements within shall be entitled to retain one hundred percent of all tax the boundaries of the jurisdiction in which the tax was revenues it collects to be used pursuant to this chapter. collected or which directly benefit the jurisdiction. In those (Ord. 379 $ 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) cities which have not opted to administer this tax, taxes O 60 4 Washington County Code 3.17.130 3.17.130 Collection. 1. Any citizen or other interested person may challenge A. Notwithstanding ng issuance of a building or oocupancy an expenditure of TIE' revenues as being in violation of permit without payment, the tax liability shall survive and this chapter provided a written petition for review is filed M " p=,znol ebli'g ien .1F the permi{tnn with- the. board of commissioners of the, county within twn B. Intentional failure to pay the tax within sixty days years of the expenditure. The petition shall identify with of the due date shall result in a penalty equal to fifty percent reasonable certainty the expenditure, the relevant facts and _ of the tax. Interest shall accrue from the sixty-day point the specific provision alleged to have been violated. at the legal rate established by statute. 2. The board shall order an investigation and direct C. In addition to an action at law and any statutorythat within sixty days of receipt of the petition a written rights, the jrui3rii%iiv?. uoa u,c ...--y report be filed recommending appropriate action. Within 1. Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the thirty days of receipt of the report, the board shall conduct delinquent party for any development; a hearing to determined whether the expenditure was proper. 2. Refuse to honor any credits held by the delinquent At least ten days notice of the hearing, including a copy party for any development; of the report, shall be mailed to the petitioner. Petitioner 3.' Condition any development approval of the de- shall have a reasonable opportunity to present his or her linquent party on payment in full, including penalties and position at the hearing. interest; 3. The board may by resolution and order adopt rules 4. Revoke any previous deferrals issued to the delin- of procedure governing the bearing including that the quent party, in which case the-amount immediately shall hearing may be continued if necessary to further address be due, and refuse to issue any new deferrals; the issues. 5. Withdraw the amountdue,.including penalties and 4. The petitioner shall have the burden of proof. interest, from any offset account held by the jurisdiction Evidence and argument shall be limited to grounds specified for the delinquent party. in the petition. The board shall issue a written decision D. For purposes of this section, delinquent party shall stating the basis for its conclusion and directing appropriate include any person controlling a delinquent corporate action be taken. v- permittee and, conversely, any corporation controlled by 5. Review of the board decision shall be as provided a delinquent individual permittee. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exbibit in ORS 34.010 to 34.100. A(part)), 1990) 6. For purposes of this section, "city council" shall be substituted for "board of commissioners" if the petition 3.17.140 Annual review. arises from expenditures made by a city which opted to A. The county annually shall review the traffic impact collect and administer this tax as provided in Section fee to determine whether additional tax revenues should 3.17.110. be generated to provide extra capacity improvements needed B. Review of decisions of the director to address new development or to ensure that revenues 1. Discretionary decisions of the director shall be in due not exceed identified demands. In so doing, the county writing and mailed by regular mail to the last known address shall consider. of the applicant. 1. Construction of facilities by federal, state or other 2. Any person aggrieved by a discretionary decision revenue sources; of the director may appeal the decision to the county hear- 2. Receipt of unanticipated funds from other sources ings officer. The appeal shall be in writing and must be for construction of facilities; ' filed with the director within fourteen days of the date the '3. New information provided by the Institute of Trans- director's decision was mailed. portation Engineers adjusting trip rates; and 3: The appeal shall state the relevant facts, applicable 4. The impact of credits and offsets for safety improve- ordinance provisions and relief sought. The appeal shall ments. be beard by the county bearings officer in the same manner B. Upon completion of this review the county shall as provided for development permit applications. The county consider such amendments, including adjustment to the may by resolution establish a reasonable appeal fee. tax imposed herein, as are necessary to address changing 4. The appellant shall have the burden of proving that conditions. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), `1990) an error was committed resulting in substantial prejudice. 5. The decision of the bearings officer shall be review- 3.17.150 Review of decisions. able solely tinder ORS 34.010 through 34.100 in the Circuit A. Review of Expenditures. Courtof the county. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exhibit A(part)), 1990) 61. (<vmwogtoo county 9.92) IF3.17.160 Washington County Code 3.11.160 Transition. "A:''-Tliis chapter shall apply to issuance of building permits for all development for which a building permit application is received by the county, or any city, on or after the etfective date. This shall nui iueiudd iesubiydital of building permit applications previously deemed incom- pletd if the requested information is submitted within one ' hundred eighty days of the date the application was first submitted.- ~ ' ' . 9. • Ndtwithstanding repeal of Card. 310, as amended by Orct 319 and 328 and codified at Chapter 3.17; the ord- inances shall continue to be fully applicable and shall govern all building permit applications received by the coune'y prior to the effective date of this chapter. This shall include building permit applications previously deemed incomplete if the requested information is submitted within one hundred eighty days of the date the application was first submitted: C: All deferrals; credits, offsets or similar grants shall cdntinue and be administered under the terns hi existence when issued. Repeal and enactment shall in no way impact ariy budget or appropriations, contracts, permits, condemna- tion proceedings or any other formal actions after pursuant to, Ord. 310, as amended. Repeal and enactment shall in no way impact any systems development charge, fee, or tax imposed by any city. This provision does not preclude any city from repealing or amending any such program, except that no credit or offset from TTF shall be granted against any credit or amount due city under a preexisting program. (Ord. 379 § 3(Exbibit A(part)), 1990) (W&SWOMOU Connty 8.92) `T 62 1, Jill lipp'lll NINE MW EM MOM. ti, ? i ~ • • : ' !I IIIN !Vashingtnn County Cad, 3.17 Appx. A APPENDIX A WEEKDAY WEEKEND LAND USE BASIS FOR TRIP AVERAGE AVERAGE I; A nETE!LM!NAT!ON TRIP 1RATF TRIP RATE Y G~s V pI/ v Ej%ner Residential 210 -Single-Family Detached Housing Number of Units 10.0 220 -Apartment 5.10 221 -Low-Rise Apartment " 6.60 222 -High-Rise Apartment 4.20 230 -Residential Condominium " ` " 5.85 231-Low-Rise Condominium Not Available 232 High-Rise Condominium Number of Units 4.18 240 -Mobile Home . " " " 4.81 250 Retirement Community 3.30 260 -Recreational Home " " " 3.15 270 Planned Unit Development (Residential) 7.44 Institutional 010 Waterports Ship Berths 100.003 ' 020 Airport Not Available s ` 021--Commercial Airport Avg. Flights/Day 11.83 022 --General Aviation Airport " " " 3.06 030 Truck Terminals T.G.S.F. 9.86 040 -Railroad Terminal Not Available ` 410 Parrk Parking Spaces 7.58 11.82 411-City Park' Acres 3.66 3358 412 -County Park Acres 2.11 2.26 413 -State Park Acres 1.05 1.78 , 420 Marina Boat Berths 3 ,00 5.55 430 wolf Course Parking Spaces 6.62 5.95 440 Theater Not Available " 441 -Live Theater 442 Music Theater 443 Movie Theater (sit down) Parking Spaces 6.19' 7.181 444 Drive-In Theater Not Available 450 -Stadium Parking Spaces 0.55 ' 451 Baseball/Football Not Available 452 -Horse Race Parking Spaces 1.08 ` 453 Auto Race Not Available 454 -Dog Race 460 -Camp 491 Tennis Courts T.G.S.F. 32.93 23.80 492 -Racquet Clubs 15.94 23.85 501 -Military Base Number of Einployees 1.78 510 -Preschool Not Available " 520 -Elementary School Number of Students 1.03 ° 530 High School " 1.39 540 -Junior/Community College 1.55 ° } (Washington County 8-92) iljjgi~i MEW` 11 3.17 Appx. A Washington County Code WEEKDAY WEEKEND LAND USE BASIS FOR TRIP AVERAGE AVERAGE CATEGORY/DESCRIPTION DETERMINATION TRIP RATE TRIP RATE 550 -University Number of Students 2.41 560 --Church T.G.S.F. 7.70 18.18 565 -Day Care Center 67.00 6.15 570 --Court Not Available 580 -Museum/Gallery 590 -Library' T.G.S.F. 45.50 2539 610 -Hospital T.G.S.F. 16.69 11.29 620 -Nursing Home Number of Beds 2.60 2.26 Business and Commercial 310 -Hotel Number of Rooms 8.70 320 -Motel " " " 10.19 330 Resort Hotel " " " 18.40 810 -Retail-General Not Available Merchandise 811 -Speciality Store " 812 -Building Materials/Lumber T.G.S.F. 30.56 813 -Lumber Not Available 814 -Speciality Retail Center T.G.L.S.F. 40.6& 815 -Discount Stores 70.16 816 -Hardware/Paint Store T.G.S.F. 53.21 817 -Nursery 36.17 820 -Shopping Center under • 50,000 Gr•.Sq.Ft. T.G.L.S.F.. 94.71' 821-Shopping Center 50,000- 99,999 Gr.Sq.Ft. T.G.L.S.F. 84.512 822 -Shopping Center 100,000- 199,999 Gr.Sq.Ft. 66.622 823 -Shopping Center 200,000- 299,999 Gr.Sq.Ft. 53.62'- 824 -Shopping Center. 300,000- 3D,999 Gr.Sq.Ft. 45.662 825 -Shopping Center 400,000- 499,999 Gr.Sq.Ft. 41.41'- 826 -Shopping Center 500,C00- 999,999 Gr.Sq.Ft. 36.632 827 -Shopping Center 1,000,000- 1,200,000 Gr.Sq.Ft. 32.822 828 Shopping Center Over 1,200,000 Gr.Sq.Ft. 32.382 831-Quality Restaurant T.G.S.F. 95.622 832 -High-Turnover, Sit-Down Restaurant " 100.W3 833 -Drive-In Restaurant 100.003 834 -Drinking Place Not Available 841 -New Car Sale T.G.S.F. 47.52 842 -Used Car Sate Not Available (Washington Bounty 8-92) 4 n' ;843 `'~~ashington County Code 3.17 Appx. A WEEKDAY WEEKEND USE BASIS FOR TRIP AVERAGE AVERAGE GORY/DESCRIPTION DETERMINATION TRIP RATE TRIP RATE uto Parts Sale Not Available " 844 -Service Station No. of Pumps 100.00 845 Tire, Battery and Accessory Not Available 846 -Car Wash Not Available 847 Auto Repair Not Available 848 -Highway Oasis (including truck fuel, minimal trucker and mechanical services) " 849 Truck Stop (including food, auto and truck mechanical services, trucker supplies and trucker overnight sleeping accommodations) Not Available 850 -Supermarket T.G.S.F. 100.003 851-Convenience Market 100.003 870 Apparel 333 890 -Furniture Store 4.35 895 Video Arcade 9.60 911-Bank (walk-in) 100.003 912 -Drive-In Bank 100.003 913 -Savings and Loan (walk-in) 61.00 914 -Drive-In Savings and Loan 100.003 Office 630 -Clinic T.G.S.F. 23.79 711-General Office, Under 100,000 Gross Square Feet (G.S.F.) 16.31 A- 712 -General Office, 100,000- 199,000 G.S.F. 12.40 713 --General Office, 200,000 G.S.F. and Over 1154 720 -Medical Office Building 34.17 730 -Government Office Building T.G.S.F. 68.93 731-State Motor Vehicles Department 16.60 732 -U.S. Post Office 86.78 740 -Civic Center 25.00 750 -Office. Park USE General Office 760 -Research Center T.G.S.F. 6.09 + 770 -Business Park " 12.42 910 -Financial Not Available " 915 -Stockbroker " 916 -Lending Agency " 920 -Real Estate ' 930 -Insurance T.G.S.F. 11.45 (Washington County 8-92) lig, ~y LimF} . r;'y 1 t. 3.17 Appx. A Washington County Code WEEKDAY WEEKEND LAND USE BASIS FOR TRIP AVERAGE AVERAGE CATEGORY/DESCRIPTION DETERIviINATION TRIP RATE TRIP RATE Industrial 110 --General Light Industrial T.G.S.F. 6.97 120 --General Heavy Industrial 1.50 130 -Industrial Park 6.97 _ 140 -Manufacturing 3.85 150 Warehouse " 4.88 151 -Mini-Warehouse 2.61 170 Utilities Employees 1.07 180 Agricultural Not Available 860 -Wholesale T.G.S.F. 6.73 NOTES Not Available - Indicates that the IM manual does not contain information for this use. Therefore, the basis for trip determination shall be as set forth in Section 3.17.040(D). t 1 Without Matinees 2 Note: Rate obtained by taking average of maximum and minimum rates of range V 3 Note: Rate capped at 100.00 TGSF - Thousand Gross Square Feet " TGLSF - Thousand Gross Leasable Square Feet (iWashingtori County 8-92) °=a I- ' Washington County Code Ord. 319 Appx. APPENDIX TO ORDINANCE NO. 319 FORMULA. FOR PREPARING ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX COST'!N'DEY FORIM.JLA . . 0 CATEGORY BASE QUANi ' PRESENT YEAR PRESENT YFAR BASE S AMOUNT Pll YEAR (1960-1962) AVG. UNIT COST TOTAL COST (1960-1962) INDEX EXCAVATION 46,430,832 x S PER CUBIC YARD / 5100,754,905 x 100 - CRUSHED AGGREGATES 12,344,064 x S PER TON S 64,929,777 x 100 - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE . PAVEMENT 2,334,371 x S PER TON - f S 34,618,722 x 100 = STRUCTURE CONCRETE 301,496 x S PER CUBIC YARD S 41,769,256 x 100 = BAR REINFORCING STEEL 63,950,648 x S PER POUND / S 15,667,909 x 100 = STRUCTURAL STEEL 38,791,720 x S PER POUND S 32,313,503 x 100 = COMPOSITE / 5290,054,072 x 100 EXAMPLE FOR APPLICATION OF INDEX FORMULA FOR ESTABLISHING THE 1985 INDEX 1/1/1 1/1/85- CATEGORY BASE QUANTITY 12/31/85 12/31/85 BASE S AMOUNT 1985 (1960 -1962) UNIT COST TOTAL COST (1960 - 1962) INDEX - EXCAVATION 46,430,832 x 53.24 = 5150,435,895.68 / 5100,754,905 x 100 = 149.3 'CRUSHED AGGREGATES 12,344,064 x 5121 S 89,000,701.44 / S 64,929,777 x 100 = 137.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT 2,334,371 x 51.6.47 = S 61,790,80037 / S 34,618,722 x 100 - 1785 STRUCTURE CONCRETE 301,496 x 5201.78 = S 60,835,862.88 / S 41,769,256 x 100 = 145.6 BAR REINFORCING STEEL 63,950,648 x 50.43 = S 27,498,788.64 / S 15,667,909 x 100 = 1755 STRUCTURAL STEEL 38,791,720 x $0.88 = S 34,136,713.60 / S 32,313,503 x 100 = 105.6 COMPOSITE $423,698,752.61 / 5290,054,072 x 100 146.1 Constant- For Application in 1986 to Dollar Amount Set Forth in Section 3.17.040. (Washington County 8-92) ~ n r Ord. 319 Agpx. Washington County Code APPENDIX B OREGON SrAT13 HIGHWAY D1VIMN CONSMUMON COSTS TRENDS macaw= FOURTH QUARTER 1585 C. O. Fredrickson, P.E., Construction Engineer The Oregon Highway Composite Construction Cost Index for the 4th Quarter of 1985 stands at 150.6 percent of the 1977 average, a decrease of 10.8 point:, or 6.7 percent below the 3rd Quarter of 1985. The excavation index decrtaied 25.4 percent. The surfacing index increased 3.8 percent. The structures index increased 15.4 percent. The composite index graph of the four-quarter moving average shows an upward trend increasing 12.0 percent above the prior four-quarter average. The project values which provide the data for preparation of this quarters index are distributed as follows: Biddeas Project No. cf Value of No. of Per Value Projects Projects Bidders Project Under S 50,000 3 S 115,860.00 14 4.6 S 50,000 to S 100,000 12 S. 860,018.75 82 6.8 S 100,000 to S 250,000 12 S 2,008,891.39 95 7.9 S 250,000 to. S 500,000 4 S 1,370,019.25 24 8.0 S 500,000 to 51,000,000 0 S 00.00 0 .0 S110001000 to 55,000,000 9 S 20,827,807.80 56 6.2 Over 55,000,000 3 S 21,457,619.90 18 6.0 Totals 43 S 46,640,217.09 289 6.7 The six items used in this index represent 32.7 percent of the total cost of all items bid this period, The number of bidders per project during this quaridir averaged 6.7,•up 1.7 from the previous quarter. Excavation - S3M per cubic yard The average unit price for this item decreased from 54.53 per cubic yard bid previously. Bid prices influencing this item range from 5255 to 521.00 per cubic yard. Sixteen projects were bid for a total of 324,299 cubic yards. Base Aggregates - 5736 per ton. The average unit pace for this item increased from 56.99 per ton bid previously. Bid prices influencing this item ranged from S4.65 to 520.00 F - per ton.-Twenty-eight projects were bid for a total of 280,215 tons. Asphaltic Concrete Pavement - V-8.84 per ton. The average unit bid price for this item increased from 528.33 per ton bid previously. Bid prices influencing this item ranged from 513.00 to 55250 per ton. Twenty-five projects were bid for a total of 180,569 tons, Portland Cement Concrete in Structures - $199.45 per cubic yard. The average unit price forthis item decreased from S243.78 per cubic yard bid previously. Bid prices influencing this item ranged from 0103.73 to 5515.79 per cubic yard. Twenty projects were bid with a total of 19,993 cubic yards of concrete. Bar Reinforcing Steel - $0.43 per pound, The average unit pace for this iteni decreased from SO50 per pound bid previously. Bid prices influencing this item ranged from $0.29 to 52.82 per pound. Twenty projects were bid with a total of 3,433,860 pounds. Structural Steel - 0.88 per pound. (Washington County 8-92) Washington County Code Ord. 319 Appx. The average unit price for this item increased from 50.67 per pound bid previously. Bid prices influencing this item ranged rrom 50.77 to $1.56 per pound. Four projects were bid with a total of 1,633.130 pounds. Kenneth D. Karnosh Chief Cost Engineer DANO\CH317\DEE\5-13-93 (Washington County 8-92) --jIm tip • R! IS 11201 m a APPENDIX "D" TRAFFIC Cu" U 1\~ I D% E IMPACT BASE PEPORT i WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION AUGUST, 1994 i COUNTIrlaVE BASF- vapop-T W?-SB-j:gGTO3i COUNTY S.Pop DSO AOD T, RAll TXTI09 DgPA T OF D G DlviSlOu p~ ADGuST, 1990 j 1 f:_a 10 ~ii I. INTRODUCTION .This report is an appendix to the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Ordinance. It provides a detailed listing of arterial and collector roadways eligible for improvements through the countywide TIF. It.also provides a list of identified future _ transportation projects on the arterial and collector roadway system. The. arterial projects have. significance within the TIF program as.they•they are prioritized for improvements in relation to improvements earmarked for the-collector roadway system. r The following sections of this Base Facilities report provide information on the eligible facilities.and the eligible TIF highway „ improvement projects. II. ELIGIBLE FACILITIES II.A ARTERIAL FACILITIES Provided in Table 1 are a listing of arterial roadways on which certain improvements are eligible for funding, for credits or for offsets through the countywide Traffic Impact Fee program. The determination of-whether a specific improvement on these facilities is eligible is governed by the TIF ordinance. The arterial roadways listed were primarily identified through the Washington County Transportation Plan and have been reviewed by city representatives serving on the Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee - Technical Group. The list of arterials may only be modified by the Board of County Commissioners based on amendments to the Washington County .Transportation Plan. _k. I'JgJ r,' MINE 1=0 M-M&MIUMMEMMa, w-'w I 11111 =MEMNON= TABLE 1 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE 1 ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL FACILITIES ,r ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FUNC. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES 10TH BASELINE TO CORNELL MAJOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 4 5 Y. 65TH BORLAND TONYBERG MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 N 65TH CLACKAMASCO L TO ELLIGSEN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3' N 72ND 99W TO BRIDGEPORT T7 TIGARD 2 3 Y 92PID GARDEN HOME TO ALLEN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y 110TH CANYON TO E(W ARTERIAL LOCAL MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 2 3 Y 112TH EXT. SUNSET TO CORNELL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 5 N 119TH BARNES TO CORNELL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 5 N 121ST EXTENSION 121ST TO 125TH MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 0 3 N 124TH TUALATIN•SHRWDTOHIGHWAY99W MINOR ARTERIAL TUALATIN 0 3 N 125TH BROCKMANTO SCHOLLS FERRY MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 3 3 N 1257H HALL TOBROCKMAN MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 0 3 N 153RD TV HIGHWAY TO JENKINS MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 3 3 N 158TH BRONSON TO WEST UNION MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y 158TH CORNELLTO BRONSON (REALIGNED) MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 5 Y 158TH MERLO TO WALKER MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 3 5 Y 158TH WALKER TO CORNELL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 Y 158TH WEST UNION TO KAISER MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 3 Y 170TH BANY TO BASELINE MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y 170TH RIGERT TO BANY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N 185TH CORNELL TO HWY 26 MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 7 Y 185TH FARMINGTONTO TV HWY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y 185TH GERMANTOWNTO CORNELIUS PASS MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 2 N 185TH. HWY 26 TO ROCK CREEK MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y. 185TH ROCK CREEK TO SPRINGVILLE MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y 185TH SPRINGVILLE TO GERMANTOWN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 2 N 185TH TV HWY TO WALKER MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 Y 165TH WALKER TO CORNELL MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y 198TH KINNAMANTO TV HWY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 N 209TH FARMINGTON TO TV HWY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N 216TH 219TH TO CORNELL(W) MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 N 219TH TV HWY TO 216TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 N ALLEN HALL TO LOMBARD MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 N ALLEN HWY 217 TO WESTERN MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 N ALLEN LOMBARD TO HWY 217 MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 N ALLEN MURRAY TO HALL MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 N ALLEN WESTERN TO 92ND MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 N BARNES 119TH TO SALTZMAN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y BARNES 84TH TO HWY 217 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 3 5 Y i I floom TABLE 1 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EMST FUTURE BIKE FUNC. CLASS FUNC, CLASS LANES LANES LANES BARNES BURNSIDE CO L TO 84TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y BARNES CEDAR HILLS TO 119TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 ? N BARNES HWY 217 TO 119TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 5 Y BASELINE 158TH TO 170TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 ? N BASELINE 170TH TO 219TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y BASELINE 219TH TO 40TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y BASELINE/JENKINS EXT 158TH TO 170TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 5 Y BEAV-HILLS HWY 110TH TO FARMINGTON MAJOR ARTERIAL STATE 5 5 N BEEF BEND ELSNER LANE TO SCHOLLS FERRY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N BEEF BEND EXT. ELSNER (N-S) TO SCHOLLS•SHERWOOD MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 3 ' N BEEF BEND EXT. ELSNER LANE TO ELSNER (N-S) MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 3 N BOONES FERRY 1-5 TO CLACKAMASCOUNTY LINE MINOR ARTERIAL WILSONVILLE 2 3 . N BOONES FERRY LOWER BOONES FY TO NORWOOD MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 3 Y (WESTERN BYPASS) ' BROCKMAN MURRAY TO GREENWAY MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 2 3 Y BROOKWOOD PARKWK, AIRPORT TO EVERGREEN MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 0 5 Y BROOKWOOD PARKWAY CORNELL TO AIRPORT MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 0 5 Y BURNSIDE BARNES TO MULTNOMAH CO L MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y CEDAR HILLS BEAVERTON CL TO WALKER MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 Y CEDAR HILLS HWY 26 TO BEAVERTON CL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 4 5 Y *CEDAR HILLS JENKINSTO WESTGATE MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 N CEDAR HILLS WALKER TO JENKINS MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 N CEDAR HILLS WESTGATE TO FARMINGTON MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 N COMPTON WALKER TO CORNELL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 ? N CORNELIUS PASS CORNELLTO SUNSET HIGHWAY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y CORNELIUS PASS SUNSET HWY TO WEST UNION MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y CORNELIUS PASS WEST UNION TO MULT CO L MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 2 Y CORNELIUS-SCHEFFLIN CORNELIUS CL TO ZION CHURCH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N CORNELL 185TH TO STUCK[ MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 7 Y CORNELL ARRINGTON TO MAIN MAJOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 4 .5 Y i CORNELL CORNELIUS PASS TO RAY CIRCLE MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 7 Y CORNELL HWY 26 TO 185TH MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 3 5 Y CORNELL MULTNOMAH CO L TO SALTZMAN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y CORNELL RAY CIRCLE TO ARRINGTON MAJOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 5 5 Y CORNELL SALTZMAN TO HWY 26 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y CORNELL . STUCKI TO CORNELIUS PASS MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 ? Y CORNELL STUCKI TO CORNELIUS PASS MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0- 7 Y DENNEY BEAVERTON CL TO SCHOLLS FY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y DENNEY HALL TO HWY 217 MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 3 3 Y p DENNEY HWY 217 TO BEAVERTON CL MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 2 3 Y 2 t'Lh C G TABLE 1 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE ' FUNC. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES DURHAM HALL TO UPPER BOONES FERRY MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 3 Y DURHAM HIGHWAY 99W TO HALL TIGARD 2 3 Y DURHAM UPPER BOONES FERRY TO 72ND MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 0 3 N E PACIFICTO GALES CREEK MAJOR ARTERIAL FOREST GROVE 2 2. Y E/W ARTERIAL HOCKENTO 110TH NEW MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 0 5 N ELLIGSEN 65TH TO WILSONVILLE CL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N ELLIGSEN WILSONVILLE CL TO 1-5 MINOR ARTERIAL WILSONVILLE 2 3 N ELSNER BEEF BEND EXT TO BEEF BEND EXT MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N ELSNER SCHOLLS-SHERWOOD TO BEEF BEND EXT. MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N EVERGREEN 25TH TO GLENCOE MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y EVERGREEN CORNELIUS PASS TO SHUTE MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 5 Y EVERGREEN' SHUTE TO 25TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y EVERGREEN PARKWAY 165TH TO CORNELIUS PASS MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 Y FARMINGTON 185TH TO 209TH MAJOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 3 Y FARMINGTON 209TH TO RIGGS MAJOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 2 Y FARMINGTON BEAVERTON CL TO 185TH MAJOR ARTERIAL -STATE 2 5 Y FARMINGTON HOCKENTO BEAVERTON CL MAJOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 Y FARMINGTON HOCKENTO WATSON MAJOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 Y FARMINGTON RIGGS TO HIGHWAY 219 MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 2, Y FARMINGTON WATSON TO B-H HWY MAJOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 N FIRST HAREWOOD TO LINCOLN MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 2 3 Y FIRST LINCOLN TO BASELINE MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 4 4 Y FOREST GROVE BYPASS HWY 47 TO'GALES CREEK MINOR ARTERIAL FOREST GROVE 0 3 Y GALES CREEK E TO THATCHER MAJOR ARTERIAL FOREST GROVE 2 3 Y GALES CREEK FOREST GROVE CL TO HWY 6 MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 2 Y GALES CREEK THATCHER TO FG CL MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y r GARDEN HOME MULTNOMAHTO 92ND MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y GLENCOE HAREWOOD TO HILLSBORO CL MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 2 3 Y _ GLENCOE HILLSBORO CL TO HILLSBORO CL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y GLENCOE HILLSBORO CL TO HWY 26 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y GREENBURG HWY 217 TO HALL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 3 5 Y GREENWAY BROCKMANTO HALL MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 2 2 Y HALL ALLEN TO GREENWAY MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 2 5 Y HALL CEDAR HILLS TO CENTER MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON - 5 5 Y HALL CENTER TO WATSON MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 Y HALL GREENWAY TO HWY 217 MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 Y HALL HWY 217 TO OLESON MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 5 Y HALL OLESON TO DURHAM MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 3 Y HALL WATSON TO ALLEN MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 Y HALL WATSON TO WATSON MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 Y 3. um Rmm ,a P f t TABLE 1 COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FUNC. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES HELVETIA HWY 26 TO WEST UNION MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N JENKINS BEAVERTON CL TO 158TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y JENKINS CEDAR HILLS TO BEAVERTON CL MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 5 5 Y LOMBARD CANYON TO ENV ARTERIAL NEW MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 0 5 N LOMBARD FARMINGTONTO CANYON MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 0 2 N LOWER BOONES FERRY BRIDGEPORT TO BOONES FERRY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N MAIN . 40TH (HILLSBORO CL) TO CORNELL MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 2 2 Y MARTIN FOREST GROVE BYPASS TO VERBOORT MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N MERLO 158TH TO 170TH MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 3 3 Y MIDDLETON EXTENSION WILSONVILLE TO 99W NEW MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 0 3 Y, MILLIKAN MURRAY TO HOCKEN MINOR ARTERIAL PRIVATE 2 5 Y MILLIKAN . TV HWY TO MURRAY MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON .4 4 N MULTNOMAH MULT CO L TO GARDEN HOME MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y MURRAY ALLEN TO MILLIKAN MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 Y MURRAY HWY 26 TO CORNELL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y MURRAY JENKINS TO HWY 26 MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY .5 5 Y MURRAY MILLIKANTO JENKINS MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y MURRAY OLD SCHOLLS FRY TO ALLEN MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 3 5 Y NIMBUS HALL TO SCHOLLS FERRY MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 3 3 N '.NYBERG 65TH TO 1-5 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 N NYBERG 1.5 TO TUALATIN-SHERWOOD MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 N OLD SCHOLLS FY SCHOLLS FERRY TO SCHOLLS FRY (V) MAJOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y OLESON HALLTO BEAV-HILLS HWY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y PACIFIC 8 TO E MAJOR ARTERIAL FOREST GROVE 2 2 Y PARKWAY BARNES TO HIGHWAY 217 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N PARKWAY LOOP ELLINGSEN TO CLACKAMASCO L MINOR ARTERIAL WILSONVILLE 2 3 N RIVER HILLSBORO CL TO HWY 210 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 2 Y RIVER ROOD BRIDGE TO WITCH HAZEL MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 2 3 Y RIVER TV HWY TO ROOD BRIDGE MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 3 3 Y RIVER WITCH HAZEL TO HILLSBORO CL MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 2 2 Y SALTZMAN BARNES TO COLEMAN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y SALTZMAN BURTON TO COLEMAN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 3 Y SALTZMAN BURTON TO COLEMAN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 ? Y SALTZMAN BURTON TO LAIDLAW MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y SCHOLLS FERRY 121ST TO OLD SCHOLLS FERRY MAJOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 5 Y SCHOLLS FERRY . 121ST TO SPRR MAJOR ARTERIAL STATE 5 .7 Y SCHOLLS FERRY B-H HWY TO MULTNOMAH CO L MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N SCHOLLS PERRY HALL TOB-H HIGHWAY. MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 3 Y SCHOLLS FERRY HILLSBORO HWY TO RIVER MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 2 N SCHOLLS FERRY OLD SCHOLLS FY TO TILE FLAT (BYPASS) MAJOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 5 Y i .4- i . tr TABLE 1 I COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL FACIUSIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE: BIKE FLING. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES SCHOLLS FERRY RIVER TO TILE FLAT (BYPASS) MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 2. Y SCHOLLS-SHERWOOD BEEF BEND EXT TO HWY 210 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 2 N SCHOLLS-SHERWOOD BEEF BEND EXT TO HWY 99W MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY '0 3 N ! SHUTE CORNELLTO BROOKWOOD PARKWAY MINOR ARTERIAL HILLSBORO 5 5 N SHUTE EVERGREEN TO HWY 26 MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 N STUCKI CORNELLTO EVERGREEN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 N STUCKI WALKER TO CORNELL MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 5 N SUNSET BLVD. SHERWOOD BLVD TO BAKER MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N THOMPSON MULT CO L TO SALTZMAN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N THOMPSON NJS LEG TO 143RD MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N THOMPSON . SALTZMAN TO NJS LEG MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 3 N THOMPSON SALTZMANTO NJS LEG MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 ? N TUALATIN-SHERWOOD BOONES FERRY TO TETON MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y TUALATIN•SHERWOOD LANGER TO HWY 99W MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 0 3 Y TUALATIN-SHERWOOD NYBERG TO BOONES FERRY MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 5 5 Y TUALATIN-SHERWOOD TETON TO LANGER MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y UPPER BONNES FERRY DURHAM TO LOWER BOONES FERRY MINOR ARTERIAL STATE 2 3 Y UPPER BOONES FERRY 1-5 TO DURHAM MINOR ARTERIAL TIGARD 2 3 N VERBOORT MARTIN TOCORN-SCHEFLN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N WALKER BEAVERTON CL TO WESTFIELD BEAVERTON 2 3 Y WALKER HIGHWAY 217 TO BEAVERTON CL COUNTY 2 3 Y WALKER MURRAY TO STUCKI MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 5 Y WALKER STUCKI TO COMPTON MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 ? N WALKER WESTFIELD TO MURRAY COUNTY 2 3 Y WATSON HALL TO HALL MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 2 2 Y WEST UNION 143RD TO HELVETIA MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y WESTERN B-H HIGHWAY TO ALLEN MINOR ARTERIAL BEAVERTON 4 5 N WILSONVILLE OLD 99W TO HWY 99W MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 0 3 Y WILSONVILLE SHERWOOD BLVD TO SHERWOOD CL (W) MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 2 3 Y WILSONVILLE SHERWOOD CL TO OLD 99W MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y ZION CHURCH GLENCOETO CORN-SCHEFLN MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N 5- II.B. COLLECTOR•FACILITIES The countywide Traffic Impact Fee is also intended to fund improvements on the collector system. As is the case for arterials, only selected collector improvements, as governed by the TIF Ordinance, are eligible for funding, for credits or for u. offsets. 9a . Provided in Table•2 of this report is a listing of collector facilities. These facilities have been identified through the Washington County Transportation. Plan and through individual city transportation plans.- The list of collectors includes major collectors as identified in the Washington County Transportation Plan and certain other collectors as identified in various city Transportation Plans. In cases where a city transportation plan does not differentiate between a major-and minor collector, individual cities have determined which of the identified- collectors should be included on the TIF eligible collectors list. The list of collectors shown in Table 2 may be modified based on individual city or county actions. To modify the list of collectors a city or the county may request a change to the TIF collector list. These changes should be based on amendments to city or County Transportation Plans. a. M rg 1, TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTY TPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION' BUST FUTURE: BIKE FLING. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES 4TH CORNELIUS CL (N) TO HEATHER COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N 4TH HEATHER TO CORNELIUS CL (S)' LOCAL COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N 5TH ERICKSON TO HALL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N 5TH GRANT TO OAK COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N . 5TH HALL TO WESTERN MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 Y 6TH MURRAY TO ERICKSON MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2" N 10TH CORNELIUS CL (S) TO CORNELIUS CL (N) COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 3 N 12TH EXTENSION N. SHERWOOD TO TUALATIN•SHERWOOD NEW MAJOR COLLECTOR SHERWOOD 0 3 Y 13TH TV HWY TO MAPLE COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N 14TH DOGWOOD TO DAVIS COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N 15TH SUNRISE TO HILLSBORO CL COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N 17TH ERICKSON TO 130TH LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N 17TH SUNRISE TO CORNELL COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 17TH WALNUT TO BASELINE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N 18TH ELM TO MAPLE COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N 18TH MAPLE TO OAK COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 19TH BASELINE TO CORNELIUS CL (N) COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 3 N 20TH CORNELIUS CL TO ADAIR (V HWY) COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N 21ST CYPRESS TO MAPLE COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 23RD E TO MAIN COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N 23RD SUNSET TO HAWTHORNE COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N 23RD/24TH HAWTHORNE TO QUINCE COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 0 2 N 24TH MAPLE TO MAIN COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 25TH CORNELL TO COUNTY JURIS. COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 Y 25TH HILLSBORO JURIS. TO EVERGREEN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y 25TH EXTENSION 28TH TO CORNELL COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 Y 26TH BASELINE TO CORNELIUS CL (N) LOCAL COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N 26TH CORNELIUS CL TO BASELINE (W HWY) COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N 26TH SUNSET TO HAWTHORNE COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N 26TH UGB TO CORNELIUS CL (S) LOCAL COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N 28TH MAIN TO 25TH EXTENSION COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 29TH TV HWY TO CORNELIUS PASS COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N 32ND MAIN TO CYPRESS COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 37TH BROGDEN TO MAIN COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 50TH/NYBERG CONNECTION COLLECTOR TUALATIN 0 2 Y 53RD ELAM YOUNG TO BASELINE COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 Y 65TH ELLIGSEN TO 1-205 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N 65TH LAKE VIEW TO CHILDS COLLECTOR LAKE OSWEGO 2 2' N 65TH SAGERT TO BORLAND MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY. 2 2 N _1_ TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE I FUNC. CLASS FUNC.CLASS LANES LANES LANES 68TH DARTMOUTH TO HAMPTON MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 N 68TH HWY 99W TO DARTMOUTH MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 . 3 N 69TH 99W TO PINE MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y 71ST PINE TO OAK MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y 78TH PFAFFLE TO HWY 99W NEW MINOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 3 3 N 80TH OAK TO OLESON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y 84TH NYBERG TO BOONES FERRY LOCAL COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 2 N 87TH BIRCHWOODTO CANYON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 90TH LEAHY TO OAK MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 90TH TUALATIN-SHERWOOD TO TUALATIN NEW MAJOR COLLECTOR TUALATIN 0 2 N 91ST BH HWY TO CANYON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 92ND DURHAM TO COOK PARK MINOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 2 Y 97TH MCDONALDTO MURDOCK MAJOR COLLECTOR' TIGARD 2 3 Y 98TH MURDOCKTO DURHAM MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y 107TH CORNELL TO LEAHY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 110TH CANYONTO BEAV-HILLS HWY MINOR COLLECTOR MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y 116TH 99W TO BEEF BEND LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR KING CITY 2 2 N 117TH CENTER TO CANYON MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N 119TH CORNELL TO MCDANIEL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 :3 N 121ST SCHOLLS TO WALNUT MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y 121ST WALNUT TO GAARDE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y 130TH 17TH TO HART MINOR COLLECTOR MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N 130TH HAYSTACK TO SCHOLLS FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N 130TH SCHOLLS FERRY TO SUMMER CREEK NEW MINOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 0 2 N r 131ST FISCHER TO BEEF BEND MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 135TH BROCKMANTO HAYSTACK MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 Y 135TH MORNING HILL TO MURRAY EXT MINOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 Y 135TH MURRAY TO WALNUT COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 Y 135TH SCHOLLS DERRY TO MORNING HILL MINOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 2 Y 141ST MILLIKANTO TV HWY LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N 142ND TV HWY TO FARMINGTON LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N _ 143RD CORNELLTO THOMPSON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 1 SOTH BEEF BEND TO BULL MTN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 155TH 0. SCHOLLS FERRY TO DAVIS MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N 160TH DAVIS TO TV HWY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 169TH WEST UNION TO LAIDLAW MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N 170TH EXTENSION BASELINE TO 173RD MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N 173RD 170TH EXTENSION MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N _ 173RD WALKER TO CORNELL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 174TF4 BRONSON TO MEADOWGRASS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 2- I. ~ lism i , TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUIURE BIKE FUNC. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES WIES LANES 174TH MEADOWGRASSTO WEST UNION MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N 174TH MEADOWGRASSTO WEST UNION MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 7 N 185TH BANY TO FARMINGTON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y 185TH GASSNER TO BANY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 1917H ROCKTO BASELINE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 198TH FARMINGTONTO KINNAMAN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 ' N 198TH TV HWY TO ROCK MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 205TH BASELINE TO QUATAMA MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 206TH QUATAMA.TO EXISTING CORNELL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y 206TH ROCK TO BASELINE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 209TH TV HWY TO JOHNSON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 229TH CORNELL TO EVERGREEN MAJOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 0 3 N 229TH HILLSBORO CL TO ROSEDALE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 229TH JOHNSON (N) TO JOHNSON (S) MINOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 9 2 N 229TH TV HWY TO HILLSBORO CL MAJOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N 229THJ231ST BASELINE TO CORNELL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 239TH FRANCIS TO LOIS MINOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N 239TH GOLDEN TO FRANCIS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 239TH T.V. HIGHWAYTO GOLDEN MINOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N 268TH AIRPORT TO EVERGREEN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N 281ST HILLSBORO CL TO EVERGREEN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N' AIRPORT COUNTY JURIS TO SHUTE . MAJOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N AIRPORT HILLSBORO CL TO 268TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY- 2 3 N ALEXANDER 170TH TO 209TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N B PACIFICTO DAVID HILL COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N BAKER SUNSET TO CLACKAMASCO L MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N BALD PEAK HWY 219 TO LAURELWOOD MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N BANY 166TH TO 185TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y BEARD 155TH TO MURRAY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 3 3 N BEEF BEND HWY 99 TO ELSNER LANE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y BENTLEY BROOKWOOD TO HILLSBORO CL COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N ' BENTLEY HILLSBORO CL TO 32ND COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N BIRCHWOOD LAURELWOOD TO 87TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N BLOOMING FERN HILL GOLF COURSE TO FERN HILL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N BONITA HALL TO CLACKAMASCO L MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y BORCHERS EDY TO SCHOLLS-S'HERWOOD MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N BORLAND/WILKIE INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 2 Y BRIDGEPORT 72ND TO UPPER BOONES FY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y BROGDEN 28TH TO 43RD COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N BRONSON EXISTING 158TH TO REALIGNED 158TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 7 N 3_ r I RIO! UNION milli= B a 1 ~'s~#* rl:r ~ ~:a ~ „ire ,s` g~ ~y . x i c~~z,.~ ~ §fi,~•r rrr ~ 1! C a'1i'J..• - I TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FUNC. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES BRONSON REALIGNED 158TH TO 185TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N BROOKWOOD BASELINE TO CORNELL COUNTY 0 3 Y BROOKWOOD HILLSBORO CL TO BASELINE COUNTY 2 3 Y BROOKWOOD TV HWY TO HILLSBORO CL HILLSBORO 2 3 Y BULL MOUNTAIN 99W TO BEEF BEND MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y. BURNHAM MAIN TO HALL MAJOR COLLECTOR 2 3 Y z BUTLER AIRPORT TO CORNELL COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 0 3 N BUTNER CEDAR HILLS TO MURRAY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N CASCADE GREENBURG TO SCHOLLS MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 N CASCADE HALL TO SCHOLLS FRY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N b I CEDAR 19TH TO 23RD COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N CEDAR PEARSON TO 32ND COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N CENTER BEAVERTON CL TO 117TH MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N CENTER BEAVERTON CL TO BEAVERTON CL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N CENTER HALL TO BEAVERTON CL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N CIPOLE TUALATIN-SHRWD TO HWY 99W MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N CLAPSHAW HILL HILLSIDE TO GALES CREEK MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N CLARK HILL SCHOLLS FERRY TO FARMINGTON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N CLUTTER GARDEN ACRES TO GRAHAMS FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N COMMERCIAL GORDON TO GLENCIOE MAJOR COLLECTOR NORTH PLAINS 2 2 N CONESTOGA SCHOLLS FERRY TO 125TH MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2. 3 N CONNELL HILLSBORO C.L. TO HORNECKER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N CONNELL MAIN TO HILLSBORO CL COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N CROENI CORNELIUS PASS TO WAGON WAY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 ? N CRONE[ WAGON WAY TO JACOBSON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N CYPRESS 32ND TO TV HWY COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N DAIRY CREEK MOUNTAINDALETO BACONA MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N DARTMOUTH 69TH TO 1-5 MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 0 3 N DARTMOUTH HWY 99W TO 69TH MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 0 3 N DAVID HILL UGB TO THATCHER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N DAVID HILL EXTENSION THATCHER TO HWY 47 COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 0 2 N DAVIES OLD SCHOLLS FERRY TO BROCKMAN MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N DAVIES SCHOLLS FERRY TO OLD SCHOLLS FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 0 2 N `x DAVIS 10TH TO 19TH COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N DAVIS BEAVERTON CL TO 164TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N DAVIS NEW ALIGNMENTTO BEAVERTON CL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N DAVIS EXT. DAVIS ROAD TO MURRAY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 0 3 N DAY BOONES FRY TO GRAHAMS FRY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N DENNIS WALNUT TO MAIN COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N DERSHAM HARRINGTON TO MOUNTAINDALE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N .4- 111: it !I I is 1. k TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDE?RAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROADNAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CRY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FUNC, CLASS FUNC. CLASS LAMES LANES LANES DIXON MILL 1/2 MILE FROM UNGER TO UNGER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N DOGWOOD 26TH TO 28TH LOCAL COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N DOGWOOD 4TH TO WEBS COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 3 N DOWNING GREENWAY TO CONESTOGA MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N EDY BORCHERS TO ELWERT MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N EDY BORCHERS TO HWY 99W MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 Y ELAM YOUNG CORNELL TO CORNELL (1N) COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N ELM TV HWY SPUR TO PACIFIC COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N ELSNER BEEF BEND TO BEEF BEND EXT MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N } ELWERT KRUGER TO SCHOLLS-SHRWD MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N ERICF,SON . ALLEN TO 17TH LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N <<i. ERICKSON FARMINGTON TO ALLEN MINOR COLLECTOR MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N ` F GOFF TO PACIFIC COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 0 2 N FERN HILL SPRNGHL TO RR TRACKS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N FISCHER 99W TO 131ST MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y FOREST GALE DE (FOREST GALE) TO DAVID HILL COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 0 2 N FOREST CALE GALES CREEK TO DE COLLEC TOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N FRANCIS 219TH TO 239TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N GAARDE 99W TO TIGARD CL MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y GAARDE TIGARD CL TO 121ST MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y ' GAARDE CONNECTION WALNUT TO GAARDE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 0 2 Y GALES WAY 23RD TO GALES CREEK COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N GARDEN ACRES CLUTTER TO RIDDER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GARDEN HOME MULTNOMAHTO COUNTY L LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR PORTLAND 2 2 N GARIBALDI 10TH TO FIRST COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N 13ASSNER 185TH TO GRABHORN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GASTON SPRINHILL TO HWY 47 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GERMANTOWN MULTNOMAH CO L TO CORN PASS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GLENCOE HWY 26 TO NORTH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GOFF F TO E COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N GOFF F TO WILLAMINA COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 0 2 N GOFF GALES CREEK(W) TO EXISTING (WILLAMINA) COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 0 2 N GOLDEN 239TH TO 52ND MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N GOLDEN 52ND TO BROOKWOOD MAJOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N GOLF COURSE TONGUE TO CORNELIUS CL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GO90ON VADIS TO NORTH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GRABEL MINTER BRIDGE TO HWY 219 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GRABHORN FARMINGTONTO TILE FLAT MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GRAHAMS FERRY AT 103RD - INTERSECTION MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GRAHAMS FERRY AT IBACH - INTERSECTION MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 1 5- ,y y_ rd :11 ~mmim TABLE 2 GOUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FLING. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES GRAHAMS FERRY CLACK CO L TO DAY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GRAHAMS FERRY DAY TO HELENIUS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N GRANT 1ST TO 28TH COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N GREENBURG HWY 217 TO 99W MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y GREENVILLE-ROY HWY 47 TO ROY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N GRIFFITH (EAST LEG) B-H HIGHWAY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N HAMILTON MULT CO L TO SCHOLLS FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR PORTLAND 2 3 N HAMPTON 72ND TO 66TH MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 3 3 Y HAREWOOD OE TO JACKSON SCHOOL COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N HAREWOOD GLENCOETO EXISTING COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 0 2 N HART 166TH TO BEAVERTON CL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY • 2 3 Y HART BEAVERTON CL TO MURRAY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 Y HART MURRAY TO HALL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 Y HAWTHORNE 12TH TO FOREST GROVE BYPASS COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N HAYSTACK 135TH TO 130TH MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N HEATHER 4TH TO 10TH COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N HEATHER CORNELIUS CL TO 4TH COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 0 2 N HEATHER MOUNTAIN VIEW TO CORNELIUS CL COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 0 2 N HELVETIA WEST UNION TO JACKSON QUARRY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N HIGHLAND EXTENSION OREGON TO 12TH STREET EXTENSION NEW MAJOR COLLECTOR SHERWOOD 0 3 N HILLSIDE KANSAS CITY TO CLAPSHAW HILL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N HOCKEN FARMINGTONTO MILLIKAN MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 - 3 N HOCKEN MILLIKANTO KARL BRAUN MAJOR COLLECTOR PRIVATE 2 3 N HOLLADAY 10T TO 4TH MINOR COLLECTOR CORNELIUS 2 2 N HORNECKER CONNELLTO SUSBAUER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N HUNZIKER HALL TO 72ND MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 N IBACH GRAHAMS FERRY TO BOONES FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 2 N IOWA HILL DIXON MILL TO GOLF COURSE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N JACKSON 317TH TO FIRST COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N JACKSON QUARRY WEST UNION TO HELVETIA MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N JACKSON SCHOOL EVERGREEN TO WEST UNION MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 - 2 N JACKSONSCHOOL GRANT TO HAREWOOD COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N JACKSON SCHOOL HAREWOOD TO EVERGREEN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N JACOBSON CROENI TO CORNELIUS PASS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N JACOBSON CROENI TO WEST UNION. MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 ? N JACOBSON HELVETIA TO CROENI MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N JAMIESON B-H HWY TO PINEHURST MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N JAMIESON PINEHURST TO SCHOLLS FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y JOHN OLSEN EXISTING CORNELL TO EVERGREEN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 3 3 N JOHNSON 170TH TO 174TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N S 7 TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNIYTPU CRY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FLING. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES JOHNSON 174TH TO 175TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N JOHNSON 175TH TO 219TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N JOHNSON 219TH TO 229TH MINOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N JOHNSON 229TH TO 234TH MINOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N JOHNSON 234TH TO 239TH MINOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N JOHNSON SCHOOL •SIMPSON TO TONGUE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N KAISER 143RD TO BRONSON CREEK MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N KAISER BRONSON CR TO SPRINGVILE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N KAISER BRON80N CREEKTO WEST UNION MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 ? N KAISER SPRINGVILLE TO MULT CO L MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N KEMMER REUSSER TO GASSNER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N KEMPER HWY 47 TO THATCHER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N KERKMAN CORN-SCHEFFLIN TO HARRINGTON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N KINNAMAN FARMINGTON TO 209TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N LADD HILL CLACKAMASCO L TO CLACKAMASCO L MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N LADD HILL WILSONVILLE RD TO CLACKAMASCO L MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 2 3 N LAIDLAW KAISER TO 169TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N LAIDLAW MULT CO L TO KAISER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N LANGER SHERWOOD TO TUALATIN-SHERWOOD MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N LAURELWOOD BALD PEAK TO SPRING HILL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N LAURELWOOD (82ND) SCHOOL$ FERRY TO BIRCHWOOD MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N LEAHY 107TH TO 90TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N LEAHY 90TH TO BARNES MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N LOCUST GREENBURG TO HALL MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y LOCUST HALL TO GOTH MAJOR COLLECTOR, COUNTY 2 3 Y LOIS 219TH TO 239TH MINOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N LOMBARD DENNEY TO FARMINGTON MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N LOOP MARTINAZZITO BOONES FERRY LOCAL COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 3 N MAID! 10TH TO 317TH COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N MAIN 19TH TO FOREST GROVE CL COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N MAIN 99W TO 99W MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 2 Y MAIN EXTENSION OAK TO MAIN COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N MAPLE 9TH TO 13TH COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N MAPLE 13TH TO 24TH COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N MAPLE RR TRACKS TO PACIFIC MAJOR COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 3 N MARTINAZZI TUALATIN-SHERWOOD TO BOONES FERRY LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 2 N . MARTINAZZI TUALATIN-SHERWOOD TO SAGERT MAJOR COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 3 N ' MCDANIEL 119TH TO MULTNOMAH CO L MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N MCDONALD 99W TO HALL MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y MEINECKE COUNTY JURIS TO HWY 99W MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 N 7 a ' ,is , % fig" S I p 4 rT TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FUNC. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES MEINECKE LEE TO COUNTY JURIS MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 2 3 N MILLER BARNES TO MULT CO L MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N MILLER HILL GASSNER TO FARMINGTON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N MINTER BRIDGE GRABELTO HILLSBORO C.L. MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N MINTER BRIDGE HILLSBORO CL TO RIVER MAJOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N MINTER BRIDGE RIVER TO TV HWY COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 3 3 N MOUNTAIN VIEW FOREST GROVE CL TO TV HWY COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N MOUNTAINOALE NORTH TO HWY 26 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N MURDOCK 97TH TO 98TH MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y MURDOCK BAKER TO SHERWOOD CL MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 2 Y MURDOCK SHERWOOD CL TO OREGON MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 2 2 Y MURRAY CONNECTION OLD SCHOLLS TO SCHOLLS COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 0 2 Y NICHOLS THATCHER TO DE MAJOR COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N NIMBUS CIRRUS TO DENNEY LOCAL MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 0 3 N LOCAL' MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 3 3 N >>?'A NIMBUS HALL TO CIRRUS T` NORA DE TO 155TH MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N NORA WEIR TO EXISTING MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N NORTH GLENCOE TO GORDON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N NORTH SHERWOOD LANGER TO 99W MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 0 3 N NORTH SHERWOOD LANGER TO PINE MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 2 3 N NYBERG C.L. TO 50TH CONNECTION (FLOODWAY COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 2 Y q: SECTION) NYBERG MARTINAZZI TO BOONES FERRY LOCAL COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 3 N OAK 10TH TO 18TH COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N OAK 164TH TO 167TH MAJOR COLLECTOR PUBLIC 2 3 N OAK 167TH TO 170TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N OAK 71ST TO 72ND MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 N OAK 72ND TO HALL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y OAK PACIFICTO N. BYPASS COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N OLD CORNELIUS PASS GERMANTOWN TO PHILLIPS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N OLD TV HWY PATTON VALLEY TO HWY 47 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N OREGON HIGHLANDTO MURDOCK MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 2 3 Y OREGON PINE TO HIGHLAND MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y OREGON TUALATIN•SHERWOOD TO MURDOCK MAJOR COLLECTTR MINOR ARTERIAL COUNTY 2 3 Y PACIFIC (RITCHEY) E TO UGB MINOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N PARKWAY HWY 217 TO CEDAR HILLS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N PATTON VALLEY HWY 47 TO CHERRY GROVE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N PEARSON CEDARTO HILLSBORO CL COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 2 N PEARSON HILLSBORO C.L. TO BROOKWOOD COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N PFAFFLE HALL TO 99W MINOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 2 N 8 13 :1 ligioll I IN, PRA 11 1 111 arm= TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD IJAME SECTION COUIJIYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FLING. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES n PHILLIPS. OLD CORN PASS TO HELVETIA MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N PINE 71ST TO 69TH MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y QUATAMA 206TH TO 216TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N REUSSER SCHOLLS TO RIGERT MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N RIDDER BOONES FERRY TO GARDEN ACRES MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N RIGERT 170TH TO REUSSER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N ROCK 197TH TO 219TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N ROCK CREEK 185TH TO CORNELIUS PASS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N ROOD BRIDGE FARMINGTONTO HILLSBORO CL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N ROOD BRIDGE HILLSBORO CL TO RIVER MAJOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N ROSA FARMINGTONTO 209TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N ROSEDALE 209TH TO RIVER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N ROY CORN-SCH TO WILKSBOR-MTNDL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N SCHOLLS FERRY DAVIES EXT TO SCHOLLS REALIGN (W) MAJOR COLLECTOR STATE 'L' 2 N SCHOLLS FERRY OLD SCHOLLS FERRY TO DAVIES EXT MAJOR COLLECTOR STATE 2 7 N SCHOLLS FERRY OLD SCHOLLS TO REALIGNED SCHOLLS MAJOR COLLECTOR STATE 2 ? N SCHOLLS FY REALIGN (M SCHOLLS FERRY TO OLD SCHOLLS FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR STATE 0 2 N SCOGGINS VALLEY HWY 47 TO STEPIEN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 Y i SENECA MARTINAZZITO BOONES FERRY LOCAL COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 3 N SEXTON MOUNTAIN 155TH TO MURRAY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 0 3 N SHADYBROOK NORTH TO DIXIE MTN MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N SIMPSON HILLSBORO HWY TO RIEDWIG MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N SORRENTO HART TO BROCKMAN MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N v SOUTH SHERWOOD RAILROAD ST. TO WILSONVILLE RD. MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR ARTERIAL SHERWOOD 2 3 N SPRINGHILL YAMHILL CO L TO HIGHWAY 47 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N SFRINGVILLE KAISER TO 185TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 Y SPRINGVILLE MULTNOMAHCO L TO KAISER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N - SUNRISE JACKSON SCHOOL TO 25TH COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N SUSB.AUER CORNELIUS C.L. TO ZION CHURCH. MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N TAYLORS FERRY BOTH TO OLESON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 0 3 N TAYLORS FERRY MULTNOMAH CO L TO 80TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y TEAL 155TH TO MURRAY MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 2 N THATCHER DAVID HILL TO HILLSIDE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N THATCHER GALES CREEK TO DAVID HILL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N TIEDMAN GREENBURG TO WALNUT MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 Y TILE FLAT GRABHORN TO SCHOLLS FERRY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N TIMBER WILSON RIVER HWY TO HWY 26 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N TONGUE HILLSBORO HWY TO GOLF COURSE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N TUALATIN BOONES FERRY TO JUGGENS MAJOR COLLECTOR TUALATIN 2 3 N UNGER HILLSBORO HWY TO DIXON MILL MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N 9 s.. TABLE 2 COUNTYWIDETRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR FACILITIES ROAD NAME SECTION COUNTYTPU CITY PROPOSED JURISDICTION EXIST FUTURE BIKE FUNC. CLASS FUNC. CLASS LANES LANES LANES UNIVERSITY COLLEGE WAY TO MAIN COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N UNIVERSITY SUNSET TO CEDAR COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N VERBOORT MARTIN TO H%qY 47 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N VERMONT MULTNOMAH CO L TO OLESON MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N -VERNONIA HWY 26 TO COLUMBIA CO L MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N WAGON WAY CROENI TO CORNELIUS PASS MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 3 3 N WALKER CANYON HO TO 217 MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y WALNUT 17TH TO FIRST COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 .2 N WALNUT TIGARD CL TO 135TH MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 Y WALNUT TIGARD CL 99W MAJOR COLLECTOR TIGARD 2 3 N WALNUT CONNECTION SCHOLLS FY TO 135TH COLLECTOR TIGARD 0 2 Y WATERCREST FOREST GALE TO THATCHER COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N I WEIR E!W SECTION TO REUSSER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY • 0 3 N WEIR MURRAY TO 165TH (BEAVERTON CL) MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N WEIR/170TH BEAVERTON CL TO KEMMER MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 3 N WEST UNION HELVETIA TO GLENCOE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 Y WESTSHORE STEPIEN Tp SCOGGINS VALLEY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 Y WILKESBORO-MTNDALE HWY 26 TO AOY MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N WILLAMINA BALLAD TO DE COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N WILLAMINA GALES CREEK TO MAIN COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N WILLAMINA MAIN TOHAWTHORNE MAJOR COLLECTOR COUNTY 2 2 N WILSON ALLEN TO HART MAJOR COLLECTOR BEAVERTON 2 3 N WITCH HAZEL RIVER TO TV HWY MAJOR COLLECTOR HILLSBORO 2 3 N YEW BASELINE TO FOREST GROVE CL COLLECTOR FOREST GROVE 2 2 N 10- Y III. (ELIGIBLE PROJECTS III..AARTERIAL PROJECTS.. This section of the Base Facilities Report describes the Arterial projects that are eligible for funding through the countywide Traffic Impact Fee program. -The projects were identified through a cooperative effort conducted among Washington County and the cities of Washington County. This work was coordinated through the Washington County Transportation.Coordinating Committee - Technical Group. The primary basis for the identification of projects was the recently adopted Washington County Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan was developed by the County after extensive input and.review by Washington County cities. The projects were identified based on transportation modeling performed utilizing the Metro Service District's EMME 2 Transportation Model. As part of the modeling process an indication was provided regarding: 1) Whether the project is intended to address an existing transportation improvement need; 2) Whether the project is intended to solely address a projected future need; or 3) Whether the project is intended to address an existing need as well as provide additional capacity to accommodate future growth. Based on TIF project eligibility criteria, only projects meeting conditions 2 and 3 above are eligible for funding through the TIF. Arterial projects meeting the eligibility criteria are identified in Table 3. Only projects with an identified future cost are eligible. In cases where an existing need is also identified, only the future improvement is eligible. The list of arterial projects identified in Table 3 may be modified by the Board of County Commissioners based on amendments to the Washington County Transportation Plan. SEMINARS 22 MIN t ' x'' - 1. 4 mmm f TABLE 3 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL PROJECTS ` FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED JURISDICTION COUNTY 65TH- NYBERG TO BORLAND 1340 NO EXISTING NEED 92ND - GARDEN HOME TO ALLEN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 764 RECONSTRUCTTO'EXISTING DESIGN 110TH - E-W ARTERIAL TO CANYON RECONSTRUCT TO ARTERIAL STANDARDS 350 NO EXISTING NEED 112TF1 EXTENSION - CORNELL TO BARNES CONSTRUCT EXT FROM BARNES TO 112TH . 2276 NO EXISTING NEED 15STFI - BRONSON TO WEST UNION BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1809 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 158TH - JENKINSTO RR CROSSING BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 201 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 158TH - LAIDLAW TO KAISER CONSTRUCT3 LANE ROAD 2251 NO EXISTING NEED 158Th! - WALKER TO JENKINS WIDEN TO 5 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 1112 NO EXISTING NEED 158TH - WEST -UNION TO LAIDLAW BUILD 3 LANE ROAD 3672 NO EXISTING NEED 170TH - BANY RD TO OAK BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1568 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 170TH - FARMINGTONTO TV HWY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1608 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 170TH - OAK TO FARMINGTON RD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 965 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 170TH - RIGERT TO BANY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 764 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 170TH - TV HWY TO BASELINE RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 4650 NO EXISTING NEED 170TH/RIGERT BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1367 NO EXISTING NEED 185TH - FARMINGTONTO TV HWY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2600 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 185TH.- GERMANTOWN TO CORNELIUS PASS BUILD NEW ROAD CONNECTION 670 NO EXISTING NEED 185TH - ROCK CREEK TO WEST UNION BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1621 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 185TH - SPRINGVILLE TO GERMANTOWN BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 1340 NO EXISTING NEED 185TH - WEST UNION TO SPRINGVILLE BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 576 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 185TH/WEST UNION - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION 168 NO EXISTING NEED 198TH - BLANTON TO TV HWY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 255 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 196TH - KINNAMANTO BLAN I -ON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 201- RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 209TH - FARMINGTONTO KINNAMAN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 3350 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 209TH - KINNAMANTO T.V. HIGHWAY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 938 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 216TH/219TH PHASE i - T.V. HIGHWAY TO CORNELL BUILD TO 3 LANES 8442 NO EXISTING NEED BARNES - LEAHY TO 88TH BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1139 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BARNES - MILLER RD TO LEAHY. BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 195ei RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN s BARNES EXTENSION - HWY 217 TO CEDAR HILLS CONSTRUCTS LANE EXTENSION WITH BIKE LANES 5166 NO EXISTING NEED BARNES/BURNSIDE - MULTNOMAH CO. L. TO MILLER RD BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1856 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BARNES/SALTZMAN CORNELL TO BARNES EXT BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 4583 NO EXISTING NEED BASELINE - BROOKWOOD TO 170TH RECONSTRUCT TO 5 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 27818 NO EXISTING NEED BASELINEIJENKINS EXT - 158TH TO 170TH CONSTRUCT5 LANE CONNECTIONWITH BIKE LANES 2506 NO EXISTING NEED BEEF BEND - BEEF BEND EXI' TO SCHOLLS FERRY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 391:3 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BEEF BEND EXT - BEEF BEND TO ELSNER CONSTRUCT 3 LANE ROAD 336:3 NO EXISTING NEED BEEF BEND EXT - ELSNER TO WESTERN BYPASS CONSTRUCT3 LANE ROAD 1675 NO EXISTING NEED BEEF BEND EXT -WESTERN BYPASS TO SCHOLLS•SHERWOOD CONSTRUCT 3 LANE ROAD 1528 NO EXISTING NEED -1- i Vill 111111i: I if It u I, TABLE 3 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL PROJECTS FUTURE: PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED CEDAR HILLS/HUNTINGTON - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 134 ADD TURN LANES CORNELIUS PASS - HWY 26 TO WEST UNION BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2332 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN CORNELIUS PASS - WEST UNION TO GERMANTOWN BUILD TO 2 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2720 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN CORNELIUS PASS/GERMANTOWN - INTERSECTION ADD LEFT TURN LANE ON 1 APPROACH 20 NO EXISTING NEED CORNELIUS-SCHFLNNERBOORT - INTERSECTION INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 147 ADD LEFT TURN LANES ON 2 APPROACHES CORNELL - 158TH TO SALTZMAN RECONSTRUCTTO 5 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 7095 NO EXISTING NEED CORNELL - 185TH TO 158TH WIDEN TO 5 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 3484 NO EXISTING NEED CORNELL - CORNELIUS PASS TO 185TH RECONSTRUCT TO 5-7 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 10452 NO EXISTING NEED CORNELL - SALTZMAN TO COUNTY LINE RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 9125 NO EXISTING NEED DENNEY - HIGHWAY 217 TO SCHOLLS FY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 295 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN EVERGREEN - 25TH TO JACKSON SCHOOL BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1300 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN EVERGREEN - CORNELIUS PASS TO DAWSON CR BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1336 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN EVERGREEN - DAWSON CREEK TO SHUTE ROAD BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2408 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN EVERGREEN - JACKSONSCHOOLTO GLENCOE BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1434 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN EVERGREEN - SHUTE TO 25TH BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 5500 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN GALES CREEK - THATCHER TO FOREST GROVE C.L. ADD TURN LANES AT 5 INTERSECTIONS 1000 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GARDEN HOME - MULTNOMAHTO OLESON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 402 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GARDEN HOME - OLESON TO 92ND BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1300 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GLENCOE- HILLSBORO CL TO EVERGREEN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 683 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN GLENCOE/EVERGREEN - INTERSECTION ADD LEFT TURN LANES ON 2 APPROACHES 147 NO EXISTING NEED GREENBURG - TIEDMANTO HALL RECONSTRUCT TO 5 LANES 4958 NO EXISTING NEED HELVETIA - HWY 26 TO WEST UNION ROAD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1260 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN JENKINS - MURRAY 70158TH WIDEN TO 5 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 1554 NO EXISTING NEED JENKINS - MURRAY TO CEDAR HILLS RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES 1367 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LOWER BOONES FERRY - N CITY LIMITS TO S CITY LIMITS BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1179 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MULTNOMAH- MULTNOMAHCO L TO GARDEN HOME BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 683 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MURRAY - ALLEN BLVD TO T.V. HWY TSM IMPROVEMENTS 1340 NO EXISTING NEED MURRAY - MILLIKAN TO JENKINS WIDEN STRUCTURE TO 4 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 7102 NO EXISTING NEED MURRAY - SUNSET HWY TO CORNELL RECONSTRUCT TO 5 LANES 898 NO EXISTING NEED NYBERG - 1.5 TO 65TH RECONSTRUCT TO 5 LANES 1889 NO EXISTING NEED OLD SCHOLLS FERRY/SCHOLLS FERRY - MURRAY TO BUILD TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 3792 NO EXISTING NEED WESTERN BYPASS ssn OLESON - HALL TO B-H HWY RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 10063 NO EXISTING NEED RIVER/ROSEDALE - INTERSECTION ADD LEFT TURN LANES ON 2 APPROACHES 147 NO EXISTING NEED SALTZMAN - BURTON TO THOMPSON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2050 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN SALTZMAN- CORNELLTO BURTON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2801 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN SALTZMAN - THOMPSON TO LAIDLAW BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1085 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN SCHOLLS FERRY - B-H HWY TO MULTNOMAH CO. L. BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 590 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN { - 2- - I F v.:- I d 1 TABLE 3 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING 3MPROVEMENT NEED THOMPSON - MULT CO L TO 143RD AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 4167 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WALKER - HWY 217 TO MURRAY RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 3216 NO EXISTING NEED WALKER/STUCKI - 185TH TO CORNELL WIDEN 2680 WALKER/STUCKI - MURRAY TO CORNELL RECONSTRUCTTO 5 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 9380 NO EXISTING NEED WEST UNION - 143RD TO KAISER BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 375 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN WEST UNION - CORNELIUS PASS TO HELVETIA BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2948 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WEST UNION - KAISER TO CORNELIUS PASS BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 6459 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WEST UNION/158TH - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION 168 NO EXISTING NEED WEST UNION/C.P. - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION 168 NO EXISTING NEED WILSONVILLE - S. SHERWOOD TO OLD 99W BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2184 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WILSONVILLE (SUNSET) - S. SHERWOOD BLVD TO BAKER BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 281 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN "*Subtotal" 226403 "JURISDICTION STATE B-H HWY - 110TH TO S/B HWY 217 RAMPS ADD DUAL LEFT TURN LANES 400 BOONES FERRY - TUALATIN TO DURHAM RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 5360 NO EXISTING NEED BOONES FERRY/ALSEA - INTERSECTION ADD TURN LANES, SIGNALIZE 250 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BOONES FERRY/AVERY - INTERSECTION ADD TURN LANES, SIGNALIZE 250 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BOONES FERRY/IBACH - INTERSECTION ADD TURN LANES, SIGNALIZE 250 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BOCNES FERRY/SAGERT - INTERSECTION ADD TURN LANES, SIGNALIZE 250 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BOONES FY/TUALATIN-SHRWD - INTERSECTION ADD TURN LANES, MODIFY SIGNAL 250 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FARMINGTON/CLARK HILL - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 134 NO EXISTING NEED FARMINGTON/RIVER - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 168 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS HALL/BONITA- INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 134 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS HWY 2101SCHOLLS-SHERWOOD - INTERSECTION ADD LEFT TURN LANES ON 2 APPROACHES 147 NO EXISTING NEED. HWY 2191FARMINGTON - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 168 NO EXISTING NEED - MURRAY/FARMINGTON - INTERSECTION ADD DUAL LEFT TURN LANES 489 NO EXISTING NEED SCHOLLS FERRY - AT OLD SCHOLLS (W) 1072 NO EXISTING NEED fs, SCHOLLS FERRY - HALL TO B•H HWY RECONSTRUCTTO 3 LANES 9099 NO EXISTING NEED s SCHOLLS FERRY - HWY 217 TO 121ST RECONSTRUCT TO 7 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 1997 NO EXISTING NEED SCHOLLS FERRY/CLARK HILL - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 134 NO EXISTING NEED SCHOLLS FERRYIRIVER - INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 134 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS SCHOLLS FERRYJTILE FLAT- INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 134 NO EXISTING NEED "Subtotal" 20820 3- fit, { s> TABLE 3 COE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ E}~ISTING IMPFIOVE1utENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED - NO EXISTING NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2680 NO EXISTING NEED STREET 1698 NO EXISTING NEED BUILD NEW 49 .,.JURISDICTION BEAVERTON CONSTRUCT NEW 3 LANE ROAD 297 NO EXISTING NEED 125TH - BROCKMANTO HALL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 800 NO EXISTING NEED 121ST - CONNECTION LEFT TURN LANES Al NO EXISTING NEED 125THI ALLEN - FALLBROOK TO 92ND ADD ADC TURN LANES AT INTERSECTIONS 305 INERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ALLEN - HYVY 217 TO WESTERN IMPROVE TO ARTERIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 70 ADD TURN LANES LEN HURRAY TO MAIN RECONSTRUCT TO 5 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION NO EXISTING NEE AL D ION NALIZE NO EXISTING NEED BROCKMANIGREENWAY INTERSECT 100 CEDAR HILLS - TV HWY TO HALL SIGWIDEN AND ADD BIKE LANES 106000 00 NO EXISTING NEED CEDAR HILIStFAiRFIELD - INTERSECTION CONSTRUCT NEW ARERIAL STREET 00 NO EXISTING NEED DENNEY - HALL TO HWY 217 ADD LEFT TURN LANES 3147 50 NO EXISTING NEED E.W ARTERIAL - 110TH TO MURRAY SIGNALIZE 2040 NO EXISTING NEED FARMINGTON- MURRAY TO HOCKEN CONSTRUCT NEW ARTERIAL STREET 2 134 NO EXISTING NEED - INTERSECTION' I-IALLICREEKSIDE TO E-W ARTERIAL NTO CONSTRUCTS LANE EXTENSION ! LOMBARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 19201 LOMBARD CANYON NINTERSECTION CANYON LOMBARDI *"Subtolal" NO EXISTING NEED 2476 CONSTRUCT NEW ARTERIAL ROAD 2467 FG N. ARTERIAL L - GALES CR TO HWY 47 N. % "'Subtotal" 248 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN t4,0 EXISTING NEED BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 1340 422 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN --JURISDICTION H{LLSBORO ADD LEFT TURN LANES SECTION 516 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN AST - GRANT TO GLENCOE BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE 135 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CORNELL - MAIN T0 ARRINGTON BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION GLENCOE S OF SHANNONTO N CITY LIMITS SIGNALIZE 2661 RIVER - ROOD BRIDGE TO S. CITY LIMITS RIVER(WITCHHAZEL - INTERSECTION -Subtotal"" 281 NO EXISTING NEED BUILD 3 LANE CONNECTION 201 WILSONVILLE *"JURISOICTIO OLD 99W TO 99W - " -Subtotal" 4- giall {E' .j f t a -`-,.e _ h TABLE 3 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE ARTERIAL PROJECTS i FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED "JURISDICTION TIGARD 072ND- HAMPTON TO HWY99W BUILD TO ULTIMATE3 LANE SECTION 930 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN *"Subtotal*" 93@ "•JUF:SDICTION TUALATIN 124TH - HIGHWAY 99W TO TUALATIN-SHRWD BUILD NEW ROAD 931 NO EXISTING NEED 124THITUALATIN - INTERSECTION REALIGN INTERSECTION 200 NO EXISTING NEED "Subtotal" 1131 "'"Total**• 274071 .4 Y 5- N S imam ~r 111. B. COLLECTOR PROJECTS This section of the Base Facilities Report describes the Collector projects that are eligible for funding through the countywide Traffic Impact Fee program. As was the case for the arterial projects, the collector projects were identified through a _ cooperative effort conducted among Washington County and the cities of Washington County. The primary basis for the identification of projects was the recently adopted Washington County Transportation Plan. In addition, the collector projects were identified by various cities through their City Transportation Plans and through more recently completed traffic analyses. only those projects meeting TIF eligibility criteria may-be funded through the TIF:' Collector projects meeting the eligibility criteria are identified in Table 4. only projects with an identified future cost are eligible. In cases where an existing need is also identified,. only the future improvement is eligible. The list of collector projects shown in Table 4 may be modified based on individual city or county actions. To modify the list of collectors a city or the county may change the TIF collector project list based on amendments to the applicable city or County Transportation Plans. F i -22- M, t r 9•i 1' y~ e ~ r .4 Elm 1 TABLE 4 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST IN 1990 $ FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED JURISDICTION COUNTY 25TH - HILLSBORO JURIS. TO EVERGREEN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 590 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 80TH • OAK ST TO TAYLORS FERRY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 442 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 80TH - TAYLORS FERRY TO OLESON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 764 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 87TH - BIRCHWOODTO CANYON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 442 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN BOTH - LEAHY TO LEAH`! BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 375 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 91ST - BH HWY TO CANYON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 737 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 107TH - CORNELL TO LEAHY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 201 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 119TH - CORNELL RD TO MC DANIEL BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 911 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 121ST - GAARDE TO WALNUT BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 911 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 131ST - FISHER RD TO BEEF BEND BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 536 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 143RD - BURTON TO THOMPSON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 603 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 143RD - CORNELL.TO BURTON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 429 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 150TH - BEEF BEND TO BULL MT RD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1018 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 155TH - WEIR TO BEARD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 402 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 160TH - BLANTON TO TV HWY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 107 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 160TH - DAVIS TO DIVISION BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 456 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 160TH • DIVISION TO FARMINGTON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 214. RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 160TH - FARMINGTON TO BLANTON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 214 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 169TH • WEST UNION TO LAIDLAW BUILD 3 LANE ROAD 858 NO EXISTING NEED 170TH • WEIR TO NORA RECONSTRUCTTO STANDARD 380 NO EXISTING NEED 170TH EXTENSION - BASELINE TO WALKER CONSTRUCTS LANE STANDARDS WITH BIKE LANES 2707 NO EXISTING NEED 174TH - BRONSON TO WEST UNION BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1353 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 185TH - BANYTO FARMINGTON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 657 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 185TH - BANY TO GASSNER RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 930 REBUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION k 197TH - ROCK RD TO BASELINE BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 804 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 198TH - ALEXANDER TO JOHNSON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 295 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 198TH - FARMINGTONTO ROSA BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 683 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 198TH - JOHNSON TO ROCK RD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 496 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 198TH - ROSA TO KINNAMAN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 871 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 198TH - TV HWY TO ALEXANDER BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 147 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 205TH - BASELINE TO QUATAMA BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 616 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN - ? 206TH - QUATAMATO CORNELL BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 938 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 209TH - ALEXANDER TO JOHNSON BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION ' 214 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 209TH - TV HWY TO ALEXANDER BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 308 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 229TH - JOHNSON TO JOHNSON RECONSTRUCT TO ULTIMATE3 LANE SECTION 185 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 229TH/231ST - BASELINE TO CORNELL REBUILT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1313 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 239TH - FRANCIS TO GOLDEN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 67 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN -1- jjffl-I ~ t• r TABLE 4 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED 268TH - AIRPORT TO EVERGREEN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 643 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN AIRPORT - GRAVEL TO 268TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1219 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN ALEXANDER- 170TH TO 209TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2023 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN, BAKER - MURDOCKTO COUNTY LINE 250 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BANEY - 170TH TO 179TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 509 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN BANEY- 179TH TO 185TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 348. RECONSTRUCT 1'0 EXISTING DESIGN BEEF BEND i50 T H TO BEEF BEND EXT. BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1085 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BEEF BEND - HWY 99 TO 150TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2278 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BEEF BEND/ELSNER - INTERSECTION ADD LEFT TURN LANES ON 2 APPROACHES 80 NO EXISTING NEED BIRCHWOOD - LAURELWOOD AV TO 67TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 322 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BRIDGEPORT - BOONES FERRY TO 72ND BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 442 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BRONSON - CORNELLTO 185TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1849- RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN BROOKWOOD - BASELINE TO BRIDGE BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2291 RECONSTRUCT'(0 EXISTING DESIGN BROOKWOOD - CORNELL TO BASELINE CONSTRUCT 2 LANE ROAD 3082 NO EXISTING NEED BULL MOUNTAIN - 150TH TO HWY 99W BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2144 - RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN y BULL MOUNTAIN - BEEF BEND TO 150TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1032 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN BUTNER - CEDAR HILLS TO MURRAY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1461 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN »'„F CIPOLE - HERMAN TO HWY 99W RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 750 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN CIPOLE - TUALATIN•SHERWOOD TO HERMAN RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 456 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN CLUTTER - GARDEN ACRES TO GRAHAMS FERRY BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 201 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN CROENI - JACOBSEN TO WAGON WAY CONSTRUCTTO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 308 REBUILD TO EXISTING DESIGN • DAVID HILL - THATCHER TO UGB BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 844 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN DAVIS - BEAVERTON CITY L. TO 160TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 858 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN DAY - BOONES FRY TO GRAHAMS FRY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 576 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN EDY - HIGHWAY 99W ELWERT BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2064 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN _ FISCHER - 99W TO 131ST AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 750 RECONST'AUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN FRANCES - 219TH TO 239TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1260 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GAAROE CONNECTION- 135TH TO 121ST EXTENSION - 3 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 2126 NO EXISTING NEED GARDEN HOME- MULTNOMAHTO COUNTY LINE RECONSTRUCT/INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 350 NO EXISTING NEED GASSNER - 185TH TO KEMMER BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 268 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN GASSNER - KEMMER TO MILLER HILL BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 295 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GASSNER - MILLER HILL TO GRABHORN BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 509 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN GRAHAMS FERRY - CLACK CO L TO HELENIUS RD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1581 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN GRAHAMS FERRY/103RD - INTERSECTION REALIGN AND CONSTRUCT NEW INTERSECTION 250 NO EXISTING NEED GRAHAMS FERRY/IBACH - INTERSECTION REALIGN AND CONSTRUCT NEW INTERSECTION 250 NO EXISTING NEED JACKSON SCHOOL - HAREWOOD TO EVERGREEN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 402 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN JACOBSEN- CROENI TO HELVETIA BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1059 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN JACOBSEN - CROENI TO WEST UNION BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1005 NO EXISTING NEED JOHNSON - 170TH TO 172ND AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 241 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 2 $ A 3 mill'" RUN TABLE 4 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED JOHNSON - 172ND TO 174TH CONSTRUCT 3 LANE ROAD 938 NO EXISTING NEED ` JOHNSON- 174TH TO 185TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 375 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN JOHNSON - 185TH TO 192ND AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 415 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN JOHNSON- 192ND TO 198TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 308 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN JOHNSON- 196TH TO 209TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 549 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN JOHNSON - 209TH TO 219TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 549 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN y :a JOHNSON - 219TH TO 229TH RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 750 NO EXISTING NEED KAISER - LAIDLAW TO SPRINGVILLE BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION/REALIGN 764 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN KAISER - WEST UNION RD TO LAIDLAW BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION111EALIGN TO 898 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 143RD fi KAISER - WEST UNION/143RD TO 158TH REALIGN ROADWAY 2680 NO EXISTING NEED KEMMER- REUSSER TO GASSNER BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1300 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN KINNAMAN- 185TH TO 198TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 884 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN KINNAMAN- 198TH TO 209TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 549 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN KINNAMAN- FARMINGTON TO 105TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 724 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LAIOLAW - 158TH TO 169TH CONSTRUCT 3 LANE ROAD 2077 NO EXISTING NEED 1 . LAIOLAW - KAISER TO 158TH CONSTRUCT 3 LANE ROAD 1447 NO EXISTING NEED LAIDLAW-•MULT CO L TO SALTZMAN RD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 147- RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LAIDLAW - SALTZMAN TO KAISER BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1045 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LAURELWOOD (82ND) - BH HWY TO BIRCHWOOD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 456 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LAURELWOOD (82ND) - SCHOLLS FRY TO BH HWY BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 456 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LEAHY - 84TH TO' BARNES BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 226 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LEAHY - 107TH TO 90TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 2600 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LEAHY - 90TH TO 84TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 228 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN LOCUST - HALL TO 80TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 362 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MCDANIEL- MULT CO L - 119TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 858 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MILLER - BARNES RD TO MULT CO L BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 295 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MILLER HILL - GASSNER TO FARMINGTON BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 844 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MURDOCK- BAKER TO SHERWOOD C.L. BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 375 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MURDOCK- OREGON TO CITY LIMITS BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 556 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN NORA - DE TO 155TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 402 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN NORA - KEMMER TO EXISTING BUILD 3 LANE ROAD 697 NO EXISTING NEED NORTH - GLENCOE TO GORDON BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 1032 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN OAK - 170TH TO 160TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 549 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN OAK - 71ST TO 80TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 415 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN OAK- BOTH AV TO HALL BV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 348 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN OREGON (fUALATIN-SHERWOOD) - TUALTN-SHER. (EDY) TO BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 871 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN. MURDOCK PARK WAY - HWY 217 TO CEDAR HILLS BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 698 RECONSTRUCTTO rxisTING DESIGN r - 3- Y - t TABLE 4 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED PINE- 71 ST TO 69TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 107 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN QUATAMA- 206TH TO 216TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 549 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN REUSSER - SCHOLLS TO WEIR BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1943 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN REUSSER - WEIR TO RIGERT RD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 817 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN RIGERT - 170TH TO REUSSER BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 228 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTINGDESIGN ROCK - 197H TO 198TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 67 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN ROCK - 198TH TO 206TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 415 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN ROCK - 206TH AV TO 219TH BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 670 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN ROSA - 185TH TO 192ND AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 415 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN ROSA - 192ND TO 198TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 346 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN ROSA - 198TH TO 209TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 710 RECONSTRUC T TO EXISTING DESIGN ROSA - FARMINGTON TO 185TH BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 415 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN TAYLORS FERRY - MULTHOMAH CO L TO BOTH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 791 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN TAYLORS FERRY - BOTH TO OLESON CONSTRUCT NEW 3 LANE SECTION 1566 NO EXISTING NEED THATCHER - DAVID HILL TO PURDIN BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 576 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN THATCHER - GALES CREEK TO DAVID HILL BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 777 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WAGON WAY - CORNELIUS PASS TO JACOBSEN BUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 831 BUILD NEW ROAD WALKER - HWY 217 TO CANYON- RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 670 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WALNUT - 121ST TO 135TH AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 898 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WALNUT - TIEDMAN TO 121 ST AV BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 94 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WALNUTfrIEDMAN- INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION 134 NO EXISTING NEED WEIR - BEAVERTON C.L. TO REUSSER BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 536 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WEIR EXTENSION - REUSSER TO WEIR BUILD NEW CONNECTION 549 NO EXISTING NEED Subtotal 103700 JURISDICTION STATE 20TH - ADAIR TO BASELINE RECONSTRUCT/INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 100 NO EXISTING NEED Subtotal 100 JURISDICTION BEAVERTON ` 110TH - CANYON TO 8-H HWY REALIGN AND RECONSTRUCT TO 5 LANES 870 NO EXISTING NEED _ 155TH - DAVIS TO HART RECONSTRUCTTO 3 LANES 469 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 155TH - HART'f0 SEXTON MTN. RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES, ADD 2 SIGNALS 903 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 155TH - SEXTON MTN. TO BEARD RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES, INT. IMPROVE. 591 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN DAVIES EXTT=NSION - OLD SCHOLLS FERRY TO SCHOLLS FERRY CONSTRUCT NEW STREET CONNECTION 450 NO EXISTING NEED 4. n • CABLE q Gt FEE IDE 'JOV IM OJECTS FUIURE PROJECT MENT NEED GOUNTYW COLLECTOR PR 1990 S ©6StiNG IMPROVE ELIGIBLE `OSS FINDS) NO EX1s UCT t0 F.X15tING DESIGN ~rEMENT NEED 1809 RE ,OtAs t0 EXtsTING FUTURE IMPRO NES 1340 N0 EX1Sn N KeED TO 3 LA SECTION 100 NO EX NG NEED RECONcoTRUCT ULTIMA 1o5a NO ~CtST1 NEED F TO ULTIMA.m i34t ENE sEGTl4N IpT10N BUILD NO Ey°1ST1NG PROJECT DESCR ON G L BUN) TO 3 D ADD BIKE TLANES g1KE LANES 791 YidIOEN AN LANES~►tH MURRAY TO gEAVERT EX1ENgI0N - 3 NE STREET 10933 DAMS BANEY 3 E SECTION HART - 155TH TO i55TH pLLS FERRY SCROLLS gU1L0 NEW 3 x'10 N REGONSTR GT DESIGN ESIGN HARt - MURR~Yp~GSS t0 gGH pLLS FERRY (.TO U UGt TO E as TING D DESIGN JAMIESON EGTION- OLD SGH 0 tAS1, -SIGVA BRAYGONN 556 UGT TQ EXIS UMURTOOERAYNt0NEY 155 422 REGO ~ TN REGON UGt •10 c NIMBUS • GIRR tN. 583 A;,TR SEX10N M N G NEED CUGT t0 3 LANES 603 tO EXiS" G NEED sUblotat REGONS R NES 858 NO EXISt1N G 11 UGT TO , LANES TItAG EXISTIN REG4NSTR TO 3 L 858 N0 EX1S NEED DESiGN ELIUS RECONSTRUCT 0 31ANES 938 tAO EXIS~NUGT t0 EXI~,TINC3 "t DOGNLIMitS REGONSTRUGTT ES 856 t t0 21 ONES RECONS 0 JURISDICTION REGONST Ur, 295 REGONST NES 10YH AADAI t0 RTO TO S SBAU scyEf ER SELINE GONSTRUGt t0 2 LANES 5971 BA HIGHWAY g RE T 10 19TH WEg010 T V. TO HOBBSIUG VIECO14S11RJ CT TO 3 LANES 26tH' TV HI'aHWAY REGDNSTRU 29TH t019TH FED' DAVIS _ 14TH ,ITH tO 14TH 300 U8 Ex 5T1NG NEED TO 10TH G NEED pflGVjp40 0E lV~ 2667 NO EXtST1N NEED DESIGN NEATHGaY _ ,1TH TO 10TH D 552 Np EXISttNGGt TO EXISTING HOLLA UGTToSTANDAR 1219 •1RU 0 DESIGN O N SOtrtotal REGOh1S 3 LANE ROAD 'M 31ANE SEC"A 1072 Sp EXS ACT t0 EX}'~NG BUILD t4~~ SIG VE ULTIMA NEED Df EC NSMUG-TTp 3296 REC0t1 N NSION LANs SECTION 261 Np EXIStIN~Gt TO EXl'T1NG ST GRO R WAY TO flUMCE gU1L0 E LTt MAtE 3 951 RECONS G NEED JURIS0IGTIONFORE MAI N GALE KAY ORNETO BUILD TO ENSION NE sECtION 302 NO EXtSTiN G NE1_D DESIGN 2 TH?4HA HORITY UM1T NSET t47) 80u1, DSO ULTIMATES 1500 EXISTi- 4SttNG 140 26 c; TO G LLD NEW 2 ~NE1E g LANE SECTION X500 aE~pN ~UGt t0 ExtST4NG DESIGN B . BYPAS 0 OYPASSRtO MAIN BUILD ULTIMA g . PPGIF1Gt BUILD t0 ROAD 281 DAVLD HILL. tH GIFIGE OF EXISTING BUILD N ROADIE S LANE SECTION GOFFGAA DAVIQ HILLXTO~ 2D BUILD jp ULTIMA 3 ENE SEGtION ULtIMA~ FORESt GALES GREE gU1L1) r GALE ON . LAMNA VtIUAMttNA X BUILD -TO GOFF E-TOWIL EEK o 5 GOFF GALES GR 23RD BYPASS r 2rav HA`NSHORNE 26tH TO B 4 1; R TABLE 4 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED HEATHER - MOUNTIAN VIEW TO 4TH BUILD NEW ROAD 1213 NO EXISTING NEED MAIN - WILIAMINATO CITY LIMITS BUILD EXTENSION 1394 NO EXISTING NEED NICHOLS LANE - THATCHER TO DE REBUILD TO ULTIMATE SECTION 630 NO EXISTING NEED OAK- PACIFICTO BYPASS - BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 382 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WATERCREST- THATCHER TO KNOLL RECONSTRUCT TO CURRENT DESIGN 959 NO EXISTING NEED WILLAIv71NA- MAIN TO HAWTHORNE RECONSTRUCT TO STANDARD 800 NO EXISTING NEED Subtotal 19597 k. R° JURISDICTION HILLSBORO 5TH - GRANT TO OAK RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 405 NO EXISTING NEED 15TH - SUNRISE TO EVERGREEN BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 938 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN t " .17TH - BARBERRY TO SUNRISE BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 409 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 18TH - MAPLE TO OAK BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 275 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 21ST - CYPRESS TO MAPLE BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 1387 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 24TH - MAPLE TO BASELINE BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 422 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 28TH - BASELINE TO GRANT BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 683 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 32ND - BASELINE TO CYPRESS BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 724 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 37TH - BASELINE TO BROGDEN BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 302 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 239TH - FRANCES'TO LOIS RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 380 NO EXISTING NEED 239TH - TV HWY TO GOLDEN RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 070 NO EXISTING NEED AIRPORT - SHUTE TO GRAVEL BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 201 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BENTLEY - 32ND TO BROOKWOOD BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 456 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BROGDEN - 28TH TO 43RD BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 804 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BROOKWOOD - BRIDGE TO T.V. HIGHWAY BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 1139 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN BUTLER - SHUTE TO CORNELL CONSTRUCT 3 LANE ROAD 2533 NO EXISTING NEED CEDAR - 32ND TO BROOKWOOD BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 516 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN CORNELL- GARIBALDITO HILLSBORO C.L. 1300 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN DENNIS- WALNUT TO MAIN BUILD TO ULTIMATE3 LANE SECTION 362 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GARIBALDI - 10TH TO 1ST RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 600 NO EXISTING NEED GOLDEN - 239TH TO BROOKWOOD BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 302 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GRANT- 5TH TO DELSEY BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 402 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN JACKSON- 317TH TO DENNIS BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 663 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN JACKSON SCHOOL - 5TH TO HAREWOOD BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 764 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN JOHNSON - 229TH TO 239TH RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE SECTION 750 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MAIN/ EXTENSION - 1 ST TO BASELINE (W) BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 965 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MAPLE - 13TH TO 24TH BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 764 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN MINTER BRIDGE - MEADOWLARKTO S. CITY LIMITS BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 382 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 6- MOEN= rl TABLE 4 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING !MPROVEMENT NEED ROOD BRIDGE - RIVER TO S. CITY LIMITS BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 342 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN SUNRISE - JACKSON SCHOOL TO 25TH BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 911 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN WITCH HAZEL - T.V. HIGHWAY TO RIVER BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 871 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN Subtotal 22022 JURISDICTION KING CITY 116TH/BEEF BEND - INTERSECTION ADD LEFT TURN LANE 70 NO EXISTING NEED 116TH/HWY 99W - INTERSECTION LEFT TURN LANE 70 NO EXISTING NEED Subtotal 140 JURISDICTION SHERWOOD 121'H ST EXTENSION - N. SHERWOOD TO EDY CONSTRUCT NEW STREET 1450 NO EXISTING NEED HIGHLAND EXTENSION CONSTRUCT NEW STREET 610 NO EXISTING NEED MEINECKE- HIGHWAY 99W TO LEE BUILD 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1997 NO EXISTING NEED OREGON - MURDOCK TO HALL BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 201 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN OREGON - PINE TO RR RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 250 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN OREGON - RR TO HALL BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 281 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN SOUTH SHERWOOD - RAILROAD ST 10 SUNSET BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 570 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN " Subtotal 5359 JURISDICTION TIGARD 69TH - 99W TO PINE BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 214 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN t 71ST - OAK TO PINE BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 107 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 97TH - MURDOCKTO MCDONALO BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 395 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN 98TH - MURDOCKTO DURHAM BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 636 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN i 121ST - SCHOLLS FERRY TO WALNUT BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 1139 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN 130TH - SCHOLLS FERRY TO SUMMER CREEK BUILD NEW ROAD AND BRIDGE 1000 NO EXISTING NEED s BONITA- HALL TO 72ND BUILD TO ULTIMATE3 LANE SECTION 1099 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN BURNHAM • MAIN TO HALL BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 402 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN CASCADE- SCHOLLS TO GREENBURG BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 697 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN DARTMOUTH - 1-5 70 HIGHWAY 99W BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 670 CONSTRUCT NEW ROAD GAARDE- 121ST TO HIGHWAY99W RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANES W/ BIKE LANES 2126 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN GREENBURG - HIGHWAY 217 (TIEDMAN?) TO HIGHWAY 99W BUILD TO ULTIMATE 3 LANE SECTION 1072 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN - 7- K~ a ~1 d-i i TABLE 4 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE ELIGIBLE COLLECTOR PROJECTS FUTURE PROJECT COST IN 1990 $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUTURE IMPROVEMENT NEED (IN THOUSANDS) EXISTING IMPROVEMENT NEED LOCUST- HALL BV- GREENBURG BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 724 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING DESIGN MCDONALD- HIGHWAY 99W TO HALL BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 1166 RECONSTRUCTTO EXISTING.DESIGN NORTH DAKOTA/121ST- INTERSECTION SIGNALIZE 134 NO EXISTING NEED PFAFFLE - HALL TO HIGHWAY 99W RECONSTRUCT INTERSECTIONS W/ TURN LANES 563 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN TIEDMAN- GREENBURG TO WALNUT BUILD TO ULTIMATE3 LANE SECTION 643 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WALNUT- TIEDMAN TO HWY 99W RECONSTRUCT TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE 100 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN WALNUT CONNECTION- SCHOLLS FERRY TO 135TH EXTENSION - 3 LANES WITH BIKE LANES 1050 NO EXISTING NEED Subtotal " 13937 JURISDICTION TUALATIN 90TH - TUALATIN-SHERWOOD TO TUALATIN CONSTRUCT NEW 3 LANE ROAD 725 NO EXISTING NEED 50TH/NYBERG - CONNECTION CONSTRUCT NEW 2 LANE ROAD WITH BIKELANES 1500 NO EXISTING NEED 84TH - NYBERG TO BOONES FERRY IMPROVEMENTS 200 NO EXISTING NEED BORLANDIWILKIE - INTERSECTION REALIGN INTERSECTION 500 NO EXISTING NEED HERMAN/TUALATIN- INTERSECTION REALIGN 200. NO EXISTING NEED LOOP ROAD - MARTINAZZITO BOONES FERRY IMPROVEMENTS 523 NO EXISTING NEED MARTINAZZI - BOONES FERRY TO SAGERT ADD SIB LANE 750 NO EXISTING NEED ° NYBERG - CITY LIMIT TO 50TH CONNECTION RECONSTRUCT TO 2 LANE ROAD WITH BIKELANES 300 NO EXISTING NEED NYBERG - MARTINAZZI TO BOONES FERRY IMPROVEMENTS 670 NO EXISTING NEED SAGERT/65TH - INTERSECTION INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 200 NO EXISTING NEED SAGERT/MARTINAZZI - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS/SIGNAL 201 NO EXISTING NEED SENECA MARTINAZZI TO BOONES FERRY IMPROVEMENTS 402 NO EXISTING NEED TUALATIN - BOONES FRY TO CHINOOK ST BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 214 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN TUALATIN - CHINOOK ST TO HERMAN BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 549 RECONSTRUCTTTO EXISTING DESIGN TUALATIN - HERMAN TO JURGENS BUILD TO 3 LANE ULTIMATE SECTION 564 RECONSTRUCT TO EXISTING DESIGN Subtotal 7498 "'Total 169257 8- DOLAN HEARING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FOR E 6/27/95 PUBLIC HEARING O'DO WELL RAC US CREW C®RRIGM & BACH CH ATTOItNM AT LAW 1737 N.W. Hayt stOnt Pofdand. Omgon 97309 TFl IPHONE. (505) =-"02 MX- (503) 343-29" DATE: June 27, 1995 To: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder FROM: Ty Wyman, City Attorney's Office VIA FACSMILE RE: Ra%-6ion to Std" Report on SDR 91 05 and VAR 91 10, Dolasa Aa nahcd please End an updated trap of the arca subject to tha proposed dedication condition in the redereaced matter. This map stets the narrowing of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway easement dedication caused by the placement of the applicant's proposed building. The squa= footage of the proposed dedication (3,159 sq. ft.) is accurately reflected in the staff report and the appraisal. Therefore, the valuation of the easement set forth in that appraisal does not change. However, the proposed condition must be zavised as follows to reflect this change: The applicant shall dedicate by easement to the City all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain of F'anno Creek (i. e., all portions of the ply below elevation 130.0) (the "Drainage Area"), and all property 13 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary except for the area encroached upon by the building depicted in the site plan (the "I31kc -c destdan Path The Drainage A=& and the B*e/PedesU= Path A= are each depicted on the attached map, and shall be collectively referred to as the "Easement Area". The easement =quiarad by this Condition shall allow the City to undertake only the following uses in the Easement Area: A. The easement will allow the City access to the Drainage Area only for the purpose of conducting or constructing flood and drainage controls, repairs and improvements for the purposes of reducing or preventing flooatng and erosion ana for lmprovmg arainage within the City. The. easement will not allow the Sexwral public.. to access the Drainage Area. E. The easement will allow the City access to the SiWPedesnian Path Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a bicycle and yedesuian path and to use as necessary for ac ivities allowed in the Drainage Area. The easement will allow the ZRnArnl rnhlir. Arrper to thw RikPJPPRa_atrisw Arun nrly for the. } lill~~~il~~i~~~~l~~~~~~~~~~~~i~ -j KPM71 v - F.'T taw _ C:`DONNELL RAMIE CREW CORRIG" & EAC'MEACH Memo re: Amendment to >wpose d Condition of Approval AIRL tune 26, 1995 Page Z purpose of walking and using ummotoriaed forms of trannspextatioa such as bicycles. The applicant shall not construct or maintain any building or other structure in the Easement Area. Should you have any questions about this mater, please feel free to contact me. Attachment cc: John. W. Sho r, Attorney for Applicant (via fax) ]Dorothy Cofiield (via fax) C:\ORCCIT1GARDIDOLAPt M M4 ~a r S S:vt`~ ± ' Ti~F:NCQ: :dti°t • bv'] .c. Lc ~irll' BERM • fem. S ° / ,Q / 'S .10 PAT 1 FLOOD \ a In'5RE VS if ~ ate JUN-27-95 TUE 11:48 FAX NO. 5036242735 P.01 DAVID B. SMITH Anowny AT lAw 6975 S.W. Sandburg Road, Suite i30 Iligard, Oregon 97223 (503) 624-9352 Fa:: (503) 624-2715 June 27, 1995 Mayor and City Council - City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 By FAX: 694-7297 Re: Site Development Review (SDR) 91-0005 / Variance (VAR) 91- 0010 (Tr s s for John T Dolan) Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: on behalf of the applicant in the above-referenced matter, the following matters are offered in response to the Staff Report furnished for the hearing on this matter before you on this date. EKplan.ation of Evi Pnce--Drainage The Staff Report misconstrues the applicable law and is not based on substantial evidence when it concludes "The Easement Dedication Requirement [for access to the Fanno Creek floodway] * * is Roughly Proportional in Nature and Extent to the impacts of the Proposed Development." Staff Report at 9. The calculation of costs attribuable to the subject proposed use - violates the city's Master Drainage Plan. The city's Master Drainage Plan establishes that cost shares costs for floodway improvements are to be calculated on the basis of the increase in impervious surface for specific developments. Each development's increase is to be calculated, as a fraction of the area's total increase in impervious surface at build out. Cost estimates for floodway improvements are furnished therein, and each developlment's proportionate cost share thus may be calculated. The Staff Report instead looks at the relative costs of on-site water detention, on-site percolation, and floodway improvements increasing creek volume to accomodate the increase in runoff from the subject proposed development. Staff Report at 10. Thus, the Staff Report disregards the proportional methodology of the Master Drainage Plan, adopting instead a methodology which has no zs;Y basis in either the city's Code or Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, the Staff Report should have made findings of why it selected' the methodology it did, and why it did not comply with the Master Drainage Plan. uy' JUN-27-95 TUE 11:48 FAX NO. 5036242735 P.02 Aftb, Finally, the staff Report's calculation of storm water drainage costs is not based on substantial evidence. There is no evidence of the amount of the payment required of the applicant for the fee-in-lieu for water duality to the United Sewerage Agency. There is no evidence or finding of how payment of that fee affects or will affect the actual costs of storm water runoff caused by the proposed development.' In view of the above, the Staff has failed to properly, consistent with the Master Drainage Plan, and by substantial evidence, demonstrate that the storm drainage easement is roughly proportional in both nature and extent. The applicant respectfully urges the Council to reject the Staff's finding. Famlanation of Evidence--Transportation The Staff Report misconstrues the applicable lain and is not based on substantial evidence when it concludes "The Easement Dedication Requirment * * * [for a pedestrial/bicycle pathway] is Roughly Proportional in Nature and Extent to the Impacts of the Proposed Development." Staff Report at 12. In reversing and remanding the City's decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the City had the "burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicle and biayc a ripsgenerated by the petitioner$ ~ocosed deveTo mint reasonably relate to the city's requirement for a pedestrian/bicylle pathway easement," T_~g y. City o£ Tigard , Us , 114 Sct 2309, 2321 (1994) (emphasis added). Additionally, the Washington County Code, in establishing policy and procedures for traffic impact fees, specifies that where "an identified use does not have a basis for trip determination stated in Appendix A, i.e., not available, the director shall either: * * * * * 2. At the election (=!d -expense) of the n, licant cons'der actual trig generation verified by a registered traffic engineer." WCC § 3.17,050.5. The Staff Report fails to demonstrate that any bicycle trips will be generated by the subject proposed development, thus misconstruing the court's holding, moreover, the Staff Report's determination of the additional number of vehicle trips generated by the subject proposed development is not supported by substantial evidence and misconstrues the applicable law of WCC § Ba& Final Order 91-09 PC at 26 "[T]he applicant shall submit details and calculations that show the change in the amount of impervious surface area created by this development. In addition, the fee-in-lieu for water quality shall be paid." OM- This fee is described as off-setting the requirement for "on-site water quality facilities." Id. at 7. 2 d. + 3 JUN-27-95 TUE 11:49 FAX K 5036242735 P.03 a - 3.17.050.B. The staff Report uses the county's traffic. impact fee ordinance to infer the number of vehicle trips assum d to be generated by the proposed development which could be offset by the building of a bicycle pathway. That inference does not satisfy the, Court's mandate. The Staff rust dewtonstrat~ the number of bicycle trips that will be generated by the subject proposed development. It may not infer that number by use of a methodology best described _ as "build it and they will come." The Staff Report also violates the command of the Washington County Code; Chapter 3.17. The proposed development, as well as the current use of the subject property is for a "plumbing and electric supply store." QQlan, 114 SCt at 2313. As Appendix A of Chapter 3.17 shows, there is no listing of such a store. In Final Order 91-09, the City, based on the application before it, assumed the proposed use was "Retail Sales, ITE Category 816." Final Order 91-09 at 7. Appendix A of Chapter 3.17 shows "Retail-General Merchandise" as "Not Available." Appendix A also shows ITE Category 816 as being "Hardware/Paint Store." The proposed development, as a plumbing and electric supply store, does not have a specific basis for trip determination listed in Appendix A. The City already has determined that the trip generation characteristics of the proposed site (as manifested through parking at the site) are not similar to other specific uses, and are, in fact, more appropriately characterized as "general retail sales.112 Thus, the Staff's finding that the subject proposed site, based on the Washington County TIF Ordinance, would generate 404 automotive trips per day misconstrues the applicable law and is not based on substantial evidence. The trip generation basis for the very use the city, in 1991, found this use to be, "general retail sales," is "not available," The Washington County Code requires the applicant to be given the "election" to determine "actual trip determination." Based on the foregoing, it is apparent the Staff has not complied with the applicable law found in WCC Chapter 3.17. Additionally, it based its vehicular trip determination on ITE Category 816, Hardware/Paint Store, when it already had found the use to be in a "The City agrees that the present use is-similar to a "general retail sales, bulky merchandise" use." Final order 91- 09 at 18. Thus, the City allowed a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces to be furnished as part of the proposed development. -r r,` 3 JUN-27-95 TUE 1150 FAX NO. 5036242735 P-04 a ITE Category 810, Retail.--General Merchandise. In Category 810, it was required to afford the applicant the election to determine actual trip generation. Having failed to do so, and lacking that data, it made a decision not supported by substantial evidence. In view of the above, the Staff has failed to properly, consistent with the decision of the US Supreme court, the Washington County Code and its. o -,r prior fi*±dincxg; and b substantial evidence, demonstrate that the pedestrian/bicycle pathway easement is roughly proportional in both nature and extent. The applicant respectfully urges the Council to reject the Staff's finding. Very truly yours, David B. Smith Of Attorneys for Florence Dolan cc: Mfr. Dan Dolan (by FAX 221-1962) Mr. Timothy V. Ram's, Esq. (by FAQ 243-2944) Mr. John Shonkwiler, Esq. (by FAX 684-8971) Ms Dorothy Cofield, Esq. (by FAX 639-6891) 9131-154 . x,TR I 4 Dolan Telephone Calls Mc. Merv Johnson called on 6,27/95. 6150 S.W. 190th Beaverton, Oregon - 649-1732). IHe said he would not be able to testify; however, he wanted to forward a message to the Council that he favors setting aside space for a bikepath. h;\tegin\eathyWoten.tet r O'DC3NNBLL R IS CREW C®RRIGAN & BACHRACH - ATTORNE'Sl5 AT T.,~►W 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Pord=d, Omgoa 97209 TMIXIHONE: (503) 2224402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 PLEBE RELY TO rown"D vp PAC TMILE I3XZ88ION COVER &EMET THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE': INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. DATE: June 27, 1995 CLIENT NO.: 90036-06 TO: Cathy Wheatley City Recorder FAX 664-7297 Phone 639-4171 FROM: Ty K. Wyman FAX # (503) 243-294e4 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUI~ TRANSMITTED: Memorandum rega ding revision to staff report on SDR 91-05 aad VAR 91-10, Dolan. iLs Mcvp) COMMENTS : PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Anja Hackworth AW OMQUVAL 5 HBU% XAJJ. W: AN 6RIGMa 13 AVAM.. = UPON 8ZAUWD rr Z'd SIWUd 1T13NNOQ.O WUSP:60 S6, z2 wnr a• r J.. Y O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATMRMS AT LP,W 1727 N.W. Hoyt Suvet gas= t otdand. Oregon 97209 TIP{iON!'i (503) 222.4402 PAX (503) 243-29M DATE: June 27, 1995 TO: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder FROM: Ty K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office"') VIA FACSI Il~~ RD: Rovision to Staff Roport on SDR 91 05 =d Vz%R 91 10, Dolan Attachodl plcasc fed an updatcd snap of the aa°oa subjcct to the. proposed dedication condition in the referenced matter. This neap reflects the meowing of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway easement dedication used by the placement of the applicant's proposed building. The squat+e footage of the proposed dedication (3,159 sq. ft.) is accurately mflected in the stuff report and the appraisal. Therefon, the valuation of the easement set forth in that appraisal does not change. However, the proposed condition must be revised as follows to reflect this change: The applicant shall dedicate by easement to the City all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek (i. e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) (the "Drainage Area"), and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodnlain boundary except for the area encroached upon by the building depicted in tho site plan (the "Dikolftdcstdan Path Arca"). Tho Drniuagc Arsda and the Bike/Pedestrian Path A are each depicted on the attached map, and shall be collectively referred to as the "Basement Area". The easement required by this Condition shall allow the City to undertake only the following uses in the Basement Area: A. The easement will allow the City access to the Drainage Area only for the purpose of conducting or constructing flood and drainage controls, repairs and improvements for the purposes of reducing or preventing flooding and erosion ana for improving arainage within the City. The eacement will not allow the S+eneesal public to access the Drainage Area. B. The easement will allow the City access to the BiWIPedestaian Path Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a bicycle and pedestrian path and to use as necessary for activities allowed in the Drainage Arm. '14@ easgment will allow the gwnRral pnhlir. Ar.P.AaA to this RiBrps/Ps dsmtrian Area nnly fnr the Zd SIWUd 11-13NNOQ,0 WUSV:60 S6, Lz Nnr 1 LEM JUN 27 '95 09:46AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.3 w bWl~'l~+TO~Q?1dt~T~LW~~01~~ (W 1RA) PdQ3o;) AIPOIOQ (xei 13rn) lue lqddv .703 f-oujc)u * `i oafs -ta ugor •oux imu0o oI oaaj leaf omgcl `js-44-aua sM inoqu suopsonb Su¢ aA noA p(nogs • luauaas~ aip uF amonps impo ao ffuTpgjnq Aue uMupw ao l9=suoo jou negs ;uL-jq arm 'Molaaq ss $aus ua~eiodsu n jo 9=oj, poWolomun gtgsn pue Zu.W.etA jo asochnd r, - Z DIM 5661 '9Z bunr TuAmddy jo uouipuo, posodoid o; 3uaugmurV :aa ouaayq H7V2[H;)VE .9 NVOI RIOD ARHO 91L+iVd nEII` NOQA v mill= OP. ' 111// /11 ,J ! ~ ~ .;2154 ~o Top F:Lpd~ s;~.. 561 L2 .60 5I1~~ 1-r-7 3wwoQ 10 ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Jun 27,95 14:58 No.021 P.01 O'D®NIe ELL RAMIS CRHT CORRIGAN & BACHRACH X&'WRMYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. 11wit Stmt Portland, Omgm 972M TIT. tPRONT3: (IM) =4400 FAX; (503) 24S-2944 - ~a~avroarausmsvmoa~ar~ THIS COMMUNICATION MAY COMMIT OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE U2E OF THS INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIB MFAUGE 19 NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE OMPLOYSTI OA A*5NT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER ITTO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HERESY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DI®OEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR OOWNG OF THIS COMMUNICATION is STRICTLY PROHIBRIeD. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY U6 BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO UO AT TWE ABOVE ADDRE S VIA THE U.B. PORTAL GURVICE. THANK YOU, DATE: June 27, 1995 CLI> N'T NO. 90036-06 TO: Catchy Wheatley City Recorder, City of Tigard FAX 664-7297 Phone 639-4171 FROG'!: Pam Beery FAX # (503) 243-8944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCM43NT TI2MSMITTED: Menlo ray public hoaring an Dolan COMtENTE: Sae attached - for tonight'a meeting r I PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECBYVJE ALL OF THE PARES, PLEASE CALL THE 1U'N IMSIGNED AT (503) 222.4402 I DIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Anna Haackworth ` AN ORIGINAL 12 AVAILABLE UPON REQUB91' w`" 31 y ODONNELL RRMIS ET RL 503-243-2944 Jun 27.95 14:58 No.021 P.02 O'D®NNEILL RAMIS CR9W CORRICIAN & BACHRACH AIV AT LAW 1737 N.W. Map &I pa"ImW. 0I gum PAX SON W-2W DATE: Lune 27, 1995 TO: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder FROM: Pam Beery, City Attorney's OM lE: Dolan Public Hwlq In reviewing the public hcI notice for tonight's hearing, I noted that the listing of applicable review criteria was incomplete. Since the Mayor will be reading the list of applicable criteria tonight, pleaso be sure he has the followleg addition to the list to read: -Community Development Cods Chapta I8.844. Thanks for your assistance. Please lat me know if you have any questions. MEMORANDUM CITE( OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, City Administrator DATE: May 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Dolan Remand Hearing Attached is a letter from John Shonkw filer, Attorney for the Dolans, requesting an additional thirty day extension on the remand hearing. The meeting will be rescheduled for June 27, 1995. In addition, Mr. Shonkwiler has requested we have at least one more meeting to discuss settlement issues. I have asked City Attorney Tim Ramis to set c.:p that meeting. WAMAh attachment r FAX (Pli41e's DATE 2 0PAGES S 'f® A n j o- l~u.clC w~, h:\login\jo\wamQ5112 ORIGINAL MAILED S NO L z' Lill 111MANE'li! a iF JOHN W. SHONKWILEW, P.C. Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax 684-8971 Phone 624-0917 May 10, 1995 I HAY I 11995 Mayor James Nicoli L- City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Dolan Rem d Hearing SDR 21-OQ0d VAR 91-0010 Dear Mayor Nicoli: The Dolan remand hearing is presently continued to May 23, 1995. On behalf of the Dolan family, I previously requested a 30 day continuance because of continuing settlement negotiations and all the parties awaiting a federal court ruling that might affect the monetary issue. The federal court still has not ruled on the motions before it, and it appears appropriate to continue the remand hearing for an additional 30 days. Therefore, the Dolan family hereby requests that the above described proceedings be continued for approximately 30 days into June of 1995. In addition, I would like to schedule another meeting between the parties in the lawsuit to address the remaining settlement issues. Please let me know of any dates that would be acceptable to you and the City Attorney. Sincerely, JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. I John W. Shonkwiler cc: Dan Dolan Tim Ramis Dorothy Cofaeld David Smith 4 I IN a _ OEM kS - A14 SHARING THE CHALLENGE: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT INTO TIME 21" CENTURY The Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee AIISTRACT NO June 1994 i The Midwest Flood of 1993 was a significant the focus and the incentive to engage itself seriously in hydrometcorological event. In some areas it floodplain management. The 1993 flood has managed represented an unusual event; in most others, however, to focus attention on the floodplain and has provided the it was just another of the many that have been seen incentive for action. before and will be seen again. Flood flows similar to those experienced by most of the Midwest can occur at The Interagency Floodplain Management Review any time. During the decade ending in 1993, average Committee proposes a better way to manage the annual flood damages in the United States exceed $3 floodplains. It begins by establishing that all levels of billion. Flood damages are a national problem. govt:rnmcnt, all businesses and all citizens have a stake in properly managing the floodplain. All of those who Excessive rainfall, which produced standing water, support risky behavior, either directly or indirectly, saturated soils, and overland flow, caused major must share in floodplain management and in the costs of damages to upland agriculture and some communities. reducing that risk. The federal government can lead by In turn, runoff from this rainfall created, throughout the example; but state and local governments must manage basin, flood events that became a part of the nation's their own floodplains. Individual citizens must adjust - 1993 TV experience. Damages overall were extensive: their actions to the risk they face and bear a greater between $12 billion and $16 billion that can be counted, share of the economic costs. and a large amount in unquantifiable impacts on the health and well-being of the population of the Midwest. The Review Committee supports a Floodplain management strategy of, sequentially, avoiding Human activities in the floodplains of the Midwest over inappropriate use of the noodplain, minimizing the last three centuries have placed people and property vulnerability to damage through both structural and at risk. Local and federal flood damage reduction nonstructural means, and mitigating flood damages projects were constructed to minimize the annual risk, when they do occur. and, during the 1993 flood, prevented nearly $20 billion in damages. Some of these programs, however, By controlling runoff, managing ecosystems for all their attracted people to high risk areas and created greater benefits, planning the use of the land and identifying exposure to future damages. In addition, flood control, those areas at risk, many hazards can be avoided. navigation, and agricultural activities severely reduced Where the risk cannot be avoided, damage minimization available floodplain habitat and compromised natural approaches, such as elevation and relocation of functions upon which fish and wildlife rely. buildings or construction of reservoirs or flood _ protection structures, arc used only when they can be Over the last 30 years the nation has learned that integrated into a systems approach to flood damage effective noodplain management can reduce reduction in the basin. When floods occur, impacts on - vulnerability to damages and create a balance among individuals and communities can be mitigated with a ,Z 4•. " natural and human uses of foodplair- -1rd their related flood insurance program that is funded by those who r watersheds to meet both social and environmental goals. arc protected. Full disaster support.for those in the _ The nation, however, has not taken full advantage of floodplain is contingent on their participation in these ` _1 this knowledge. The United States simply has lacked self-help mitigation programs. Measures that z - v u .asE. internalize risks reduce the moral hazard associated with The upper Mississippi River Basin includes tx)th full government support. individually authorized federal flood damage reduction projects and levees built by local groups and To ensure a long-term, nationwide approach to individuals. This pattern of development is unique and floodplain management, the Review Committee requires a unique approach. Tltc Review Committee proposes legislation to develop and fund a national proposes a plan to identify and evaluate the needs of the Floodplain Management Program v+ith principal basin, to ensure the integrity of a flood damage responsibility and accountability at the state level. It reduction system that meets the needs of the basin, and also proposes revitalization of the federal Neuter to restore natural floodplain functions on appropriate Resources Council to better coordinate federal lands. activities, limited restoration of some basin commissions for basin-wide planning, and issuance' of a Presidential The nation knows where to go with floodplain Executive Order requiring federal agencies to follow management and how to get there. This report provides floodplain management principles in the execution of a map showing the shortest route to success. The their programs. nation now must take the actions required to 'do so. I I i I I i ' I i I I i t • i i i • i I i a' I I , Vi OHIO NEW =11=0231 111 10 Em I Dolan Telephone Calls Mr. Marv Zohnson called on 6/27 ag f 6i gD S.W. 190+.V. Beaverton, Oregon - 649-1732). He said he would not be able to testify; however, he wanted to forward a message to the Council that he favors setting aside space for a bikepath. h:\Login\eathy\doLanAeL s y 'J. Tom' 41 JF. 4}f^tJ 1 ' _ NU FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL NOTICE y DATE: June 27, 1995 TO: city council Co. /nnimp.: PAX FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator Y DEPT: Administration PHONE: 639-4171 SUBJECT: North/South Light Rail Resolution Endorsement We received the attached communication today reference the North/South Light Rail Resolution Endorsement from our MPAC representative, Jeannine L. Murrell. GIs. Murrell asks that the City Council review and send to her its "vote" on whether to endorse the document before her meeting on the evening of June 28. We will try to set aside a few minutes tonight to determine Council's direction on this item. Page 1 of Our facsimile telephone number is (503) 684-7297 This number is to be used for business transmission only and is not available for advertising purposes. Should you have any difficulties with this transmission, please call (503) 639-4171 h:\1ogin\cathy\faxtran3 r 2 .JUN-27-1995 11:29 CITY OF CORNELIUS P.01 MEMORANDUM Cate: 6/27195 To: Washington County Cities, Mayors, City Council I'r°cariii airs, City Manager. Admiens'erazors, and Coy' Recorders CC: Sea Distribution List From, Jeannine L. Murrell, Cornelius City Council Member, Washington Countty Small Cities Representative to Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) Subject: North/South Light Rail Resolution Endorsement Priority: Urgent Please find attached a copy of a fax received at my office late last night. It deals with MPAC endorsing a resolution to approved North/South Light Rail state funding. This item will be discussed tomorrow at the regularly scheduled MPAC meeting. need for each city to review this document and fax or call my office and leave me your vote on whether to endorse this document or not. The majority vote will be the stand I will take on your behalf at the meeting. My office fax: 357-7618 My office phone: 3594939 TO BEST REPRESENT YOUR INTEREST I NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU, jlm/jlm Attachments a 9/27/95 2 r. !1 p a, zc y'~ ,JUN-27-1995 11:29 CITY OF CORNEL.IUS P.02 JONES ~ KEY ATTOONEYS. PT lwW SUITE 2300 _ sTA%vARV INSURANCE CENT@A 900 sW AM "Emus PORTLAND, oREGow 9=4-ius 'relepkome (S03) 2I6.3190 Mccvpiee (503) 210-eiso Cobh' Iewport Telex 703osS hMter'i Direct Not Nwmkf (5~3) 296-9616 June 26, 1995 SdIA 'i'ELI~CAPY ~T Metro Polioy Advisory Committee Metro Re: NPAC Resolution in Support 9E"outh-N0rth Liaht ail Fellow Member& of MPAC: Attached you will find my draft of a resolution in support of state legislative funding of the south.-north light rail lane during the July 28 Special Session. 1 hope we can approve this resolution, or a version of it, at our meeting Wednesday night. Y have discussed this agenda item with our Chair. Very truly yours, James A. Zehren JAZ:c-w Enclosure cc (w/encl)(via telecopy): The Hon. John Kitzhaber The Hon. Mike Burton The Hon. Members of the Metro Council Mr. Philip R. Bogue Mr. William Wyatt Mr. Tom Walsh sDeXS-~o9ses.a 95949 0000 rs ronnAND. 9tnTTlR• YYI.LBVUC, VANCOUV$p, MEW. SALT L"SCt-M, WA$utNQrVN. - CARGO" WA914094'r0N WASNINU ON WASMNOTON IDAHO UTA" DKMCTOFCOLUhQIA -".r. 4 b lp! a re .JUN-27-1995 11:30 CITY OF CORNELIUS P•03 40RA 'A O Po1<.~, Y AnyTSGlzY cS3 ita'I' ~E RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SOUTH-NORTJd LIGHT RA L June 28,-1995 (Presented by MPAC Member Zehren) AREAS, in 1978, regional, state, and federal officials approved reallocation of $214 million monjea planned for construction of the Mt. Hood Freeway and related projects to fund the construction of the MAX eastside light rail line between Portland and Gresham as the first .segment of a regional light rail system;, and WHER , since the MAX easEside light rail lime commenced service in 1966, the line has achieved ridership. levels of 24,600 riders weekdays, 21,300 riders Saturdays, and 12,500 riders Sundays, for a total current riderehig of 8.1 million riders per year, thereby helping to address the tri-county metropolitan areas transportation and air quality weeds; and AREAS, since the MAX eastside light rail, line cow. need service in 1966, the line has served as a catalyst for over $1.2 billion of regionally significant and beneficial development and investment in downtown Portland, at the site of the Rase Garden Arena, in the Lloyd Canter area, in downtown Gresham, and at transit station sites elsewhere along the line in Multnomah County; and WHER , in 1990, the voters of the tri-county metropolitan area approved by an 7S percent affirmative vote the expenditure of $125 million in regional monies to fund the construction of a westaide light rail line between Portland and Millsboro as the second segment of the regional light rail system; and WHEREAS; in 1991, the Oregon Legislative Assembly and the Governor of Oregon approved the expenditure of $113 million in state monies to fund the construction of the westside light rail line; and WHEREAS, in 1991,. the United States Congress approved the expenditure of $516 Million in federal monies to fund the construction of the westside light rail line and, in. 1994, the r Federal Transmit Administration approved an additional $75 million in federal monies to fund construction of the extendion of the westside light rail line to Hillsboro; and a ~AM3-139379.1 99330 0001 .JPN-27-1995 11:30 CITY OF CORNELIUS P.04 JtZM, conatr tion of the west side light mail line presently iS going n the line is scheduled to commence service in septe or 1988, w n it will help address the tri-county sett olitan ar s transportation and air quality needs; and 2 WHE. , construction of the west side light rail lane already is serving as a' catalyst for significant and beneficial economic development and investment in Portland, Beaverton, and-other transit station sites along the line in Washington County; and WHEREAS, in 1994, the voters of the tri-county metropolitan area approved by a 63 percent affirmative vote, and with an affirmative vote by the voters of every legislative district voting, the expenditure of $475 million in regional monies to fund the construction of the south-north light rail line as the third segment of the regional light rail system; and WHEREAS, during its 1995 Regular Session, the Oregon Legislative Assembly did not act on a bill approving the expenditure of $375 million in state monies to fund the construction of the south-north light rail line; and AREAS approval by the Oregon Legislative Assembly of expenditure of $37$ million in state monies for the south- north light rail lane prior to Fall 1995 is necessary in order to secure approval by the United States Congress of the expenditure of $750 million in federal monies to fund the construction of the south-north light Fail line; and WHERZAS Governor Kitxhabes has publicly stated his intention to convene a Special Session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly on July 26, 1995 to address approval of expenditure of $375 million in state monies for the south- north light sail line; and WHERzAs the south-north light rail line, like the ' eastside and weatside light rail lines and other light rail lines planned for the region, is a critical component of the long-term transportation strategy for the tari-county metropolitan area, aimed at maintaining mobility while reducing dependency on the automobile, as determined by local and regional elected officials acting through the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation WPACT), the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), and the Metro Council as part of the region's 50-year Region 2040 planning process; and rm-109279.1 99830 cool Z JUN-27-1995 11:31 CITY OF CORNELIUS P.05 "sREAS the south-north light rail line, like the eestside and weetside light rail lines and other light rail r- plan" A for the region, is a critical component of the long-term air quality strategy-for the tri-county metropolitan area, aimed at avoiding air pollution and preserving tnduatrial development airshed capacity, as determined bl local and regional elected officials acting through MPAC and the Metro Council as part of the region's 50-year Region 2040 planning process; and WHEREAS the south-north light rail line, like the eastside and westside light rail lines and other light rail lines planned for the region, is a critical component of the long-term land use and growth management strategy for the tri-county metropolitan area, aired at supporting a livable region of connected but distinct communities with vital city center's, as determined by local and regional elected officials acting through' MPAC and the Metro Council as part of the region's 50-year Region 2040 planning process; and WF.94E.S the south-north light rail line, like the ea.sts.ide and westside light rail lines and other light rail lines planned for the region, generally will serve to preserve and enhance the long-term environmental quality, economic well-being, and overall quality of life of the tri-county metropolitan area, as determined by local and regional elected officials acting through NPAC and the Metro Council as part of the region's 50-year Region 2040 planning process; and WHEREAS, in 1991, the Oregon Legislative Assembly authorized the voters of the tri-county metropolitan area to approve a charter to govern the affairs of the regional government in the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, in 1992, the voters of the tri-county metropolitan area approved a Metro Charter providing for a regional government to be governed by the Metro Council and the Metro Executive Officer with the advice of MPAC; and WHEREAS under the Metro Charter, the members of the Metro Council atd the Metro Executive officer are elected officials who represent the citizens of the. tri-county metropolitan area; and WHERE-AS under the Metro Charter, the membership of MPAC includes elected officials who represent the cities, counties, and special districts of the tri-county metropolitan area as well as citizens appointed to represent the metropolitan area as a whole; -ao~2~s.a ~9~ao oooi 3 r~ 77 ;x IJUN-27-1995 11:31 CITY OF CORNELIUS P.06 i NOW, TH8RBpORv, in consideration of all of the above decisions made dusir:g the last, seventeen years by all of the above elected and other officials at the regional, state, and nq"nnrt of a re ee^e-a- 3esrs5 r" c5it~rta2 light rail system to seXVe all of the above long-term iAteresta Of the t °Co,.Lni7y metropolitan area, the idetro Policy Advisory Comumittea of Metro; 1. Reaffirms its enthusiastic support for the south-worth light rail luxe as a critical component of the long-term transportation, air quality, economic development, land use and growth management, and quality of life strategy for the tri-county metropolitan area; and 21 Urges the Oregon Legislative 1Sffiemb]:y and Governor Kitzhaber to approve the expenditure of $375 million in state monies for the south-north light rail line during the July 28; 1995 special Session; and 3. Urges the Metro Council and the Metro Executive officer promptly to (a) reaffirm their support for the south- north light rail line and (b) convey their support to the Oregon Legislative Assembly and Governor Kitzhaber; and 4. Urges the elected council, or board and mayor or elected executive of each local government in the tri-county metropolitan area promptly to (a) affirm their support for the south-north light rail line and (b) convey their :;support to the Oregon Legislative Aseembly and Governor Kitzhaber. UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED this ~ day of June, 1995. Gussie McPobert, Mayor of Gresham Chair Metro Policy Advisory Committee ;v 3sae~~'9.i 90870 0003. 4