Loading...
City Council Packet - 05/13/2008 City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 1 peri ri:T I GARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING I May 13, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:\Ofs\Don na's\Ccpktl Phone: 503.639.4171 . Fax: 503.684.7297 , . www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday May 13, 2008 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. This item was previously scheduled to be heard by the City COMMUNITY Council on Tuesday April 22, 2008 and has been rescheduled to the PAPERS date indicated above. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.050.D. Further infor- Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 97075 mation may be obtained from the Planning Division (Staff contact: Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 Todd Prager) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or Email: by calling at 503.639.4171. MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2008- legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com 00005 - APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 18.790 - The City Council will review an appeal of the Community Development Director's Interpretation of Chapter AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 18.790 of the Tigard Community Development Code. The appeal State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS is specific to the language regarding Tree Plan Requirements. Applicable Review Criteria: 18.340, 18.390 and 18.790. Publish I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, 4/24/08. TT11117. depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Notice of Public Hearing TT11117 A copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said APR 2 9 2008 newspaper for . . Successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues April 24, 2008 C'ha(x~k Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Ma ager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this April 24, 2008 NOTAR PUBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires , ~ CJV t I 1 Acct #10093001 Patty Lunsford OFFICIAL SEAL City of Tigard :NOTARY UZETTE I CURRAN PUBLIC - OREGON 13125 SW Hall Blvd MISSION NO.422662 Tigard, OR 97223 1 XPIRES NOVEMPER 28, 2011 Size 2x3 Amount Due 50.10 'remit to address above City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE: May 13, 2008 MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 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. Citizen Communication 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 Manager. 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 agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (IDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dea~. CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 3:00 p.m. Friday 10:00 P.M. Monday 6:00 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 6 City of Tigard 4p e Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE/TIME: May 13, 2008/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 I'M • STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (d), (e) and (h), to discuss labor negotiations, real property transaction negotiations and pending litigation. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. (Note: Due to time constraints, the Executive Session might be continued after adjournment of the City Council Business meeting) 7:30 I'M 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council, Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 I'M 2. PROCLAMATION - MAYOR DIRKSEN • Emergency Medical Services Week -May 18-24,2008 7:44) I'M 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Megan Foltz ■ Acknowledge and Commend Megan Foltz for Her Efforts as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard - Resolution No. 08-21 Council Member: I move for adoption of Resolution No. 08-21 Council Member: I second the motion TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 6 Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the resolution? City Recorder: RESOLUTION NO. 08-21 - A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING AND COMMENDING MEGAN FOLTZ FOR HER SERVICE AS THE TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ENVOY TO THE CITY OF TIGARD Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion) All those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 08-21, please say "aye " Mayor/ Councilors Mayor: All those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 08-21, please say "nay." Mayor/ Councilors Mayor: Resolution No. 08-21 (is adopted or has failed) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote of the Council members present. Note: Tie votes =failure to pass. MORE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.- Citizen Communication - Sign Up Sheet • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication 7:50 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and City Center Development Agency) 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: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes for February 12 and 26, 2008 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 6 4.3 Approve Senior Center Remodel Grant Agreement 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment #14 to Increase Appropriations in the Facilities Fund Budget to Reflect Additional Costs Associated with the Tigard Senior Center Remodel Project - Resolution No. 08-22 A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #14 TO THE FY 2007-08 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FACILITIES FUND BUDGET TO REFLECT ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIGARD SEIOR CENTER REMODEL PROJECT • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed firm the Consent Agenda for separate discussion mvill be considered immediately after the Council/ City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:55 PM 5. HONOR TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL TIGERETTES DANCE TEAM FOR WINNING 2008 OREGON SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION (OSAA) DANCE/DRILL STATE CHAMPIONSHIP • Introduction: Administration Department 9:05 PM 6. FRIENDS OF THE REFUGE AWARD TO THE CITY OF TIGARD • Introduction: Community Development Department 9:101'M 7. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE TREE PLAN REQUIREMENT - DEVELOPMENT CODE CHATER 18.790.030 (MIS2008-00005) a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor b. Statement by City Attorney Regarding Procedure C. Declarations or Challenges Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves 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? d. Staff Report: Community Development Staff C. Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal/Final argument by applicant f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Resolution No. 08-23 Council Member: I move for adoption of Resolution No. 08-23 Council Member: I second the motion TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 6 Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the resolution? City Recorder: RESOLUTION 08-23 - A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.790.030 Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion) All those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 08-23, please say cc aye. Mayor/Councilors Mayor: All those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 08-23, please say "nay." Mayor/ Councilors Mayor: Resolution No. 08-23 (is adopted or has failed) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote of the Council members present. Note. Tie votes =failure to pass. 8:4) PM 8. UPDATE ON THE 1-5 TO 99W CONNECTOR PROJECT • Staff Report: Community Development Department 90) I'M 9. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANS TO INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RELATED POLICY AND ACTION MEASURE PROPOSALS OF THE PROJECT'S CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Consideration: Motion to initiate amendments to the Tigard Transportation System Plan and Comprehensive Plan by directing the Planning Commission to hold public hearings on the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan's recommendations and related policy and action measure proposals of the project's Citizen Advisory Committee. 9:4)1'M 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 132 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 6 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (e) and (h), to discuss real property transaction negotiations and pending litigation. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 I'M 13. ADJOURNMENT 1:\ADM\Cathy\CCA\2008\080513) busincss.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 6 City of Tigard app Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE: May 13, 2008 MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 dit 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. Citizen Communication 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 Manager. 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 agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (I'DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 3:00 p.m. Friday 10:00 P.M. Monday 6:00 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of4 City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE/TIME: May 13, 2008/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 630 I'M • STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (d), (e) and (h), to discuss labor negotiations, real property transaction negotiations and pending litigation. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. (Note: Due to time constraints, the Executive Session might be continued after adjournment of the City Council Business meeting.) 7:30 I'M 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council, Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PROCLAMATION - MAYOR DIRE SEN • Emergency Medical Services Week- May 18-24,2008 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Megan Foltz ■ Acknowledge and Commend Megan Foltz for Her Efforts as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard - Resolution No. 08- 0 Citizen Communication - Sign Up Sheet • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of4 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and City Center Development Agency) 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: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes for February 12 and 26, 2008 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve Senior Center Remodel Grant Agreement 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment #14 to Increase Appropriations in the Facilities Fund Budget to Reflect Additional Costs Associated with the Tigard Senior Center Remodel Project • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Soarate Discussion. Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Counal/City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 5. HONOR TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL TIGERETTES DANCE TEAM FOR WINNING 2008 OREGON SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION (OSAA) DANCE/DRILL. STATE CHAMPIONSHIP • Introduction: Administration Department 6. FRIENDS OF THE REFUGE AWARD TO THE CITY OF TIGARD • Introduction: Community Development Department 7. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE TREE PLAN REQUIREMENT - DEVELOPMENT CODE CRATER 18.790.030 (MIS2008-00005) a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor b. Statement by City Attorney Regarding Procedure C. Declarations or Challenges Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? Have all members familiarized themselves 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? d. Staff Report: Community Development Staff e. Public Testimony - Proponents Opponents Rebuttal/Final argument by applicant f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Resolution No. 08- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of4 8. UPDATE ON THE I-5 TO 99W CONNECTOR PROJECT • Staff Report: Community Development Department 9. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANS TO INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RELATED POLICY AND ACTION MEASURE PROPOSALS OF THE PROJECT'S CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Consideration: Motion to initiate amendments to the Tigard Transportation System Plan and Comprehensive Plan by directing the Planning Commission to hold public hearings on the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan's recommendations and related policy and action measure proposals of the project's Citizen Advisory Committee. 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (e) and (h), to discuss real property transaction negotiations and pending litigation. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 13. ADJOURNMENT 1:\AllM\Cathy\CCA\2008\080513P Uusincss.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ AGENDA - MAY 13, 2008 Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of4 City of Tigard Stu dy Session - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL r Fin LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CCDA) MEETING DATE/TIME: May 13, 2008/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (d), (e) and (h), to discuss labor negotiations, real property transaction negotiations and pending litigation. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. (Note: Due to time constraints, the Executive Session might be continued after adjournment of the City Council Business meeting) ➢ ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS o Distribute testimony dated May 13, 2008, from Mr. John Frewing for Agenda Item No. 7 - Quasi- Judicial Public Hearing - Appeal of Director's Interpretation of the Tree Plan Requirement o Distribute May 13 memo from City Engineer Duenas and Assistant Community Development Director Bunch regarding Highway 99W Corridor Improvement and Management Plan o Distribute draft letter prepared by Mayor Dirksen regarding Ethics Laws and updated draft resolution to the City Council. Council Calendar: 17 Saturday Council Team Building - Training Session - 9 a.m. - Noon, 13335 SW Hall Boulevard (The Schaltz House) 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 26 Monday Memorial Day - City Hall Closed 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 29 Thursday Joint Meeting with Tigard-Tualatin School Board and Tualatin City Council - Time and Location to be Announced (City of Tualatin is hosting) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - May 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 2 Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(2) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) 0) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - Ma 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. V, G~- Council Meeting of 9 a3 107, City of Tigard . , Tigard Business Meeting - Minutes TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE: May 13, 2008 MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -'Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 Track 2 • STUDY SESSION Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll call: Name Present Absent Mayor Dirksen ✓ Councilor Buehner ✓ Councilor Sherwood ✓ Councilor Wilson ✓ Councilor Woodruff ✓ Staff present: City Manager Prosser, Community Development Director Coffee, Human Resources Director Zodrow, Public Works Director Koellermeier, Police Chief Dickinson, Arborist Prager, City Engineer Duenas, and City Recorder Wheatley. Administrative Items: o Council received testimony dated May 13 2008 from Mr. John Frewing for Agenda Item No. 7 - Appeal of Director's Interpretation of the Tree Plan Requirement o Council received a May 13 memorandum from City Engineer Duenas and Assistant Community Development Director Bunch regarding Highway 99W Corridor Improvement and Management Plan o Council received a draft letter prepared by Mayor Dirksen regarding Ethics Laws and updated draft resolution to the City Council. o City Manager Prosser reminded the City Council of their training session on Saturday. City Manager Prosser read the following: • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:33 p.m. under ORS 192.660(2) (d), (e) and (h), to discuss labor negotiations, real property transaction negotiations and pending litigation. He noted the Executive Session might continue after the business meeting due to the number of topics for City Council review. Executive Session concluded: 7:21 p.m. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 14 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 7:31:55 PM 1.2 Roll Call: Name Present Absent Mayor Dirksen ✓ Councilor Buehner ✓ Councilor Sherwood ✓ Councilor Wilson ✓ Councilor Woodruff ✓ 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 7:32:46 Pi\1 2. PROCLAMATION Mayor Dirksen proclaimed May 18-24,2008, as Emergency Medical Services Week 7:34:01 Pitt 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Megan Foltz presented a report on recent activities at Tigard High School. A copy of her report is on file in the City Recorder's office. Ms. Foltz introduced Alexa Kanbergs who will be the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City Council next school year. • City Council considered a resolution to: Acknowledge and Commend Megan Foltz for Her Efforts as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard - Resolution No. 08-21 Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Buehner, to adopt Resolution No. 08-21. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present: Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes • Pavel Goberman, P O Box 1664, Beaverton, OR 97075 distributed a letter to the City Council. Mr. Goberman reviewed the message in his letter. He said he is a candidate for the US Senate. He also reviewed his concerns about the media coverage for his campaign and about how the media reports news to citizens. A copy of Mr. Goberman's letter is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mayor Dirksen asked City Attorney Ramis if there were any legal issues with regard to Mr. Goberman's testimony. City Attorney Ramis said there were no issues over which the City of Tigard had jurisdiction. 7:41:421'11 • Joseph Bowder of Metro West Ambulance spoke to the City Council about the service provided by Metro West. He presented the City Council with a plaque acknowledging the City of Tigard's support TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 14 and invited the Council members to an upcoming barbeque celebrating Metro West's 55 h Anniversary on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. Mayor Dirksen expressed appreciation for the service provided by the paramedics of Metro West. 7:43:47 I'M • Walt VanRheen, 8265 SW Cascade Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97008 reported he has learned that Washington County has determined that the Barrows Road Bridge cannot sustain any further growth. At this point, the County plans to shut down the bridge as soon as possible. Doing so will dramatically impact 135`h Avenue and it will not be able to support the resulting increased traffic. He said he hoped the City Council might have some influence to request that Washington County impose some weight restrictions until the City of Beaverton can complete the Davies Road extension. Mayor Dirksen advised Mr. VanRheen that the City Council was informed of the imminent bridge closure last week. Mayor Dirksen said the bridge has deteriorated and it either needs to be replaced or closed. The cities of Tigard and Beaverton are discussing this with Washington County to determine what alternatives might be possible. 7:46:23 P,INI Mayor Dirksen reviewed the Consent Agenda: 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes for February 12 and 26, 2008 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve Senior Center Remodel Grant Agreement 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment #14 to Increase Appropriations in the Facilities Fund Budget to Reflect Additional Costs Associated with the Tigard Senior Centex Remodel Project - Resolution No. 08-22 A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #14 TO THE FY 2007-08 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FACILITIES FUND BUDGET TO REFLECT ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIGARD SENIOR CENTER REMODEL PROJECT Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Buchner, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 7:46:54 PM 5. HONOR TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL TIGERETTES DANCE TEAM FOR WINNING 2008 OREGON SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION (OSAA) DANCE/DRILL STATE CHAMPIONSHIP Dance/Drill Team Coach Linda Sheron presented the City Council with a photograph of the team.. She complimented the members of the team who excel not only as dancers but also academically. The Mayor presented team members with a City of Tigard logo pin and congratulated them on their outstanding achievement. Councilor Sherwood commented on the number of hours of work and the physical fitness of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 139 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 14 these team members; she said she did not think people realized the amount of time and dedication it takes to reach this level of achievement. The photograph presented tonight will be displayed in the City Hall lobby. 7:50:19 PM 6. FRIENDS OF THE REFUGE AWARD TO THE CITY OF TIGARD Associate Planner Roberts introduced Becky Long representing the Friends of the Tualatin River Wildlife Refuge. Ms. Long presented a wood carving of a heron as an expression of appreciation for the City of Tigard's recent donation for the Grand Opening and also the recent Dedication Ceremony (March 29, 2008). There were more than 600 visitors to the Center on the day of the Dedication. Mayor Dirksen noted he was a member of the Friends of Refizge. 7:53:02 I'M 7. QUASI JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE TREE PLAN REQUIREMENT - DEVELOPMENT CODE CRATER 18.790.030 (MIS2008-00005) a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. 7:53:22 P\I b. City Attorney Ramis reviewed the procedures for the hearing. C. Declarations or Challenges: • Exparte Contact: Councilor Buchner advised that in her law practice she represents developers who are members of the Homebuilders Association, but she has had not contact with anyone regarding this specific issue. • All City Council members indicated they were familiar with the application. • There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter nor was there a challenge on the participation of any members of the Council. 7:57:04 P11 d. Community Development Director Coffee presented the staff report. Also present was City Arborist Prager. Community Development Director Coffee reviewed the elements of the Director's Interpretation; a copy of the staff report is on file in the City Recorder's office. Councilor Buehner asked if the intent of the interpretation was to try to clarify the current code so developers would know what was expected. Community Development Director Coffee replied that this was the intent. At this time the Code requires a tree protection plan and states that protection/preservation of trees is preferred over removal; however, the Code does not indicate what factors to consider in this judgment. This judgment can now be made by the applicant without indicating the extent to which that was considered. The interpretation was an attempt to specify criteria so staff can evaluate whether protection/preservation has been sincerely looked at over removal. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 132 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of M 8:00:08 RNI e. Public Testimony Appellant: Jim McCauley testified as a representative of the Portland Metro Homebuilders Association, which is the listed appellant in this appeal before the City Council. Mr. McCauley presented a letter dated May 13, 2008. Highlights of his remarks are as follows: • Purpose of appeal: The Director's Interpretation has gone beyond the overall intent and practical application of Tigard's tree protection standards elevating tree protection well above the appropriate trigger for a Type 3 application process. • The Director's Interpretation uses the mere existence of a tree, regardless of importance or significance, as a catalyst to dump development applications with trees on site into the Type 3 process. • There is sufficient basis to request that the City Council dismiss the Director's Interpretation and grant the appeal request. • Mr. McCauley then reviewed the contents of his May 13, 2008, letter; a copy of which is on file in the City Recorder's office. 8:06:49 PD4 Council discussed the concerns of the Homebuilders Association with Mr. McCauley. Highlights of the topics of discussion follow: • Councilor Buehner asked where and how is a determination whether any specific tree should be retained on a development site. Mr. McCauley said the interpretation does not speak to a specific tree or a number of trees. There are ten approval criteria created with the Director's Interpretation. Nine out of the ten criteria have a standard that is in place maximizing tree retention. This is a step well beyond what is currently in the Code. Mr. McCauley said a different process was needed. • Mr. McCauley responded to a question from Councilor Wilson and confirmed that a Type 3 process was applied automatically because it is discretionary. Councilor Wilson followed up by asking if it would not be possible to file a Type 2 application by answering the 10 questions and negotiating with staff Mr. McCauley said that this was correct. • Councilor Woodruff asked if the primary concern was related to the process or to the outcome. Mr. McCauley advised that if this was done in a different process, they would participate as it would be an open forum with discussion and participation from the HBA and the Planning Commission. • In response to Mayor Dirksen's question, staff confirmed that they had not seen the prepared statement presented by Mr. McCauley tonight. • City Attorney Ramis asked for some clarification. He noted that on the first page of the letter presented by Mr. McCauley, there is an argument that the process is defective because it allows the Planning Director to operate without proper oversight. City Attorney Ramis asked what there was about the public hearing and the Council's ultimate decision-making authority that was deficient as to proper oversight. Mr. McCauley advised the intent of his comment with regard to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 132 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 14 proper oversight is that this a step process. If the Director wants to make an interpretation, it must be compelled an application. If the Director or a third party wants to submit an application to trigger this step, that could be done. Mr. McCauley said that the oversight in an application process gives the City Council the opportunity to see the application. Without the application, the Director is free to be judge and jury. City Attorney Ramis asked if there was some kind of oversight, other than an appeal to the City Council with an opportunity to completely overturn or change the decision of the Planning Director that Mr. McCauley would consider to be adequate. City Attorney Ramis asserted that this is the opportunity for oversight; this is the body that will decide the interpretation. Is there some other body that should be exercising oversight? Mr. McCauley said, "No." • Paul Goberman had signed up to speak but was not present. • John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR said he thought the appeal should be denied. He made remarks supporting his position referring to a memorandum he prepared; a copy of the memorandum is on file in the City Recorder's office. 8:19:27 PAI • Phil Grillo, Land Use Attorney, Miller Nash, 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland OR 97204, advised he was present tonight on his own behalf. He said he had discussions with members of the HBA. He said he supported the HBA appeal. Mr. Grillo presented a letter outlining his main points; a copy of this letter is on file in the City Recorder's office. 8:23:54 I'M Mr. Grillo referred to earlier questioning by City Attorney Ramis regarding whether there was additional process that needed to occur other than being before the City Council. He said it is important to recognize the burden of proof. With an applicant in a quasi-judicial proceeding, the applicant carries the burden of proof. He questioned who was the applicant in this case? It is not the Homebuilders as they did not request the interpretation. As far as it is known, no one requested an interpretation. Therefore, the City Council does not know who has the burden of proof. Determining who has the burden of proof is a fundamental issue in deciding a quasi- judicial case. 8:25:04 I'M Mr. Grillo commented on earlier testimony and email from Mr. Frewing. One of the comments was a concern about this appeal being untimely. Mr. Grillo cited Community Development Code Chapter 18.340.020(d) and (e). The appeal period is within 14 days after the interpretation was mailed to the applicant. Who is the applicant? When was the decision mailed to the applicant? Mr. Grillo said it appears that the Planning Director was, in essence, the applicant even though he did not file an application. It is awkward to try to determine when the 14-day period began. Mr. Grillo said he thought the Planning Director rightfully recognized that issue during the process and tried to clarify what he believed to be the appeal period in this situation. Mr. Grillo said he thought the appeal was timely filed. 8:27:19 PAI Mr. Grillo commented on Mr. Frewing's argument regarding the ten factors that the Planning Director set out in the interpretation and that these factors should be considered approval criteria. It appears that the criteria have been stylized as application requirements; however, the line between application requirements and approval criterion can get "fairly fuzzy." The interpretation goes too far. It takes a standard that is expressed as a preference, makes that the policy choice and then tries to implement that policy choice by adding ten new approval TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 132 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 14 criterion that are arguably also application requirements. This totally changes the standard in terms of the tree plans in the City of Tigard. This conversation would be legitimate as a Type 4 legislative process. 8:29:37 Y\1 Mr. Grillo referred to Type 2 and 3 processes. The issue here is with regard to needed housing. Under state statute there needs to be a clear path for decisions to be made for approving needed housing that does not involve discretionary criteria. 8:31:00 I'M Councilor Buehner advised Mr. Grillo that she would find the interpretation to present helpful information to advise her clients and how to approach an application. She said she is having problems understanding how criterion has been created. She sees them as suggestions about how to present the application. 8:31:52 PD1 Councilor Buehner said the information was sent out to the HBA for comment; none was received. She asked why they did not comment then. Councilor Buehner referred to different roles between the Hearings Officer and the Planning Director. She cited the Cushman decision noted in Mr. Grillo's letter, which appears not to apply here. 8:33:28 PM Mr. McCauley responded to comments and testimony. The HBA did have verbal as well as e- mail correspondence with the Planning Director when they got word that this notice came out. The notice did not come directly to HBA staff; they received it from their members. From the standpoint of timeliness, Mr. McCauley advised they followed the Planning Director's advice. Mr. McCauley said HBA did not submit any formal response when the interpretation was issue; however, they had verbal conversations with the Planning Director. The appeal came at no surprise to the Planning Director. 8:34:49 PIA Mr. Frewing said the appellant stated there is no requirement in the Code to maximize the savings of viable trees. Mr. Frewing referred to his written comments; he said there are references in the Code. Mr. Frewing said that with regard to Type 2 or 3 decisions, even if one were to conclude that these are not clear and objective criteria, but are discretionary, such discretionary criteria are allowed in Type 2 procedures (18.390.020 b 2). 8:35:47 PM Mayor Dirksen asked for confirmation from the staff and city attorney that there is need for response to the points put forth in all of the testimony. City Attorney Ramis advised that given the material that has been presented and the able representation on both sides of the issues along with the new arguments raised, that the Planning Director ought to have the opportunity to consider this information. City Attorney Ramis gave an opinion that there is an open question about what LUBA would do in a case such as this. Our facts are somewhat different than the case referred to in earlier testimony. The question is whether or not those facts would make a difference. He said he thought Mr. McCauley was correct in characterizing the facts in the other case as one where there was no oversight over the Hearings Officer. The Hearings Officer decision was final, which was then appealed to LUBA. It did not go through the elected officials who adopted the Code. Also in that case, the power to make interpretation was vested TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 132 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 7 of 14 in the Planning Director, not in the Hearings Officer who actually made the decision. Here, we have the power vested in the Planning Director subject to the City Council's review; this is also a difference. City Attorney Ra.mis said, "We are all guessing a little bit about which way LUBA would come out on that." He agreed with Mr. Grillo that all decisions of this type are at risk in this context; however, it is difficult to say how LUBA would actually decide. 8:37:56 111\1 Community Development Director Coffee said he appreciated City Attorney Ramis's advice and that it would be appropriate to close the hearing and continue to another date the response from staff. He clarified that the term "Planning Director" had been used throughout testimony; it should be "Community Development Director." 8:38:28 P11 e. Mayor Dirksen recommended this be continued the hearing and to allow for consideration of the issue and meet again to study findings. After discussion, City Council consensus was that the points have been clearly articulated and the public hearing should be closed and left open only for City Council review and deliberation. 8:39:19 PM Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. The City Council review and deliberation was scheduled for the City Council meeting of June 10, 2008. City Council meeting recessed: 8:41:30 PM City Council meeting reconvened: 8:49:47 PM 8:49:49 P\1 8. UPDATE ON THE I-5 TO 99W CONNECTOR PROJECT City Engineer Duenas introduced this agenda item. He advised this project has been on the Council goals for at least the last couple of years. The last update on the project was in August 2007. City Engineer Duenas introduced Lawrence O'Dell who is the Assistant Director of the Department of Land Use and Transportation; Russ Knoebel the Washington County Principal Engineer. Also present were two project consultants: Scott Richman and Jim Evans. Mr. O'Dell presented the update; highlights are contained on a PowerPoint presentation, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. Desired outcomes: More efficient travel in the study area Viable town center protections Mobility improvements Freight improvements Reduced traffic Nothing has changed since the beginning of the process. Mr. O'Dell said this project has come a long way. About 1-1/2 years ago, there were more than 230 scenarios on how to deal with the issue. He referred to the public process to narrow the alternatives down to three. These are physical highway connector alternatives. There are three other process alternatives. 8:54:01 I'M TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 14 The Alternative Analysis Report will be released this week for public review and comment. After the process is complete, they will look for an amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan and if that occurs the design level will come next. 8:55:31 PM Mr. Lawrence reviewed the range of alternatives within the identified study area; these are illustrated in the PowerPoint presentation. How to fund remains a question for all alternatives. All of the alternatives are estimated at about $1 billion (high end). Mr. O'Dell said in his opinion, tolling will be a requirement. Option 6 would lend itself to tolling more than the other two options. 9:05:12 I'M Mr. O'Dell referred to population projections as part of the process. They are using 2030 population projections now. When they get to the design-level EIS phase, they will be using 2035 or 2040 projections. He said all of the alternatives have the same controlled access points using auxiliary lanes to I-5. The cost to the overall project for these auxiliary lanes is about 34-36 percent of the entire cost. He said that Washington County officials are not convinced that this magnitude is necessary; but, at this stage, it represents a worst-case picture. While inappropriate, there have been some actions to take the directional, auxiliary lane representation and overlay it along I-5 and extrapolate that to a much larger cost impact to the project. Mr. O'Dell said it is inappropriate since the illustration at this time is only representing what the access points would be. Mr. O'Dell discussed considerations as to whether the connector should be designed as a parkway or an expressway. 9:09:49 PDt Councilor Buehner advised she recently viewed a design that allowed people to get on and off buses in the middle of the section of the freeway. Has this been considered as a possibility? Mr. O'Dell said this would be a great thing to put in the mix and consider as the design activities are discussed. At this time, design- level issues are not being discussed, but they are looking at where the corridor will go and what are the major environmental and other issues that need to be dealt with. What Councilor Buehner suggests might be a good option. The connector will be a limited access highway, two lanes in each direction, and likely designed as something less than an expressway. 9:11:18 PTt Mr. O'Dell reviewed the project benefits for Tigard: • No direct project construction costs because Tigard is located just north of the project area. • Alternatives 3 through 6 will reduce the traffic during the 2030 peak hours 2-300 vehicles and large truck traffic up to 200 on Highway 99 in Tigard. • Alternatives 3 through 6 will reduce the total traffic during the 2030 peak hours 3-400 vehicles and large truck traffic about 100-130 on Durham Road. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 132 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 9 of M 9:13:54 13M Mr. O'Dell referred to the next steps and these are listed in the PowerPoint presentation. The public process coming up will be the time for the City of Tigard and other communities to give their views on the alternatives and proposals. 9:15:33 I'M Councilor Buehner asked when this would be presented to JPACT. Mr. O'Dell advised that JPACT will be a part of the RTP amendment process. Once that is done it goes into the design level and EIS process, which is hoped to occur in 2009. This summer they want to get the alternative analysis approved and out for public comment. The challenge is that this is a tier-one process being emulated and not a tier two; there is a tendency for project concept proponents and opponents to look for more detail in the process than what exists for a tier-one level. They do want to provide some level of detail, but it is not intended to get to the point where the connector itself is designed. The analysis report to be released looks to identify what potential impacts are. In any of this process until you get to the design level, you cannot identify each impact. Mr. O'Dell said he was optimistic that they would have something from the project steering committee to ask the public for comments. 9:1725 11,I Mr. O'Dell noted his appreciation of City Engineer Duenas who has been sitting on the Executive Management Team giving input and has representing City of Tigard's interests. 9:17:45 PIM Councilor Buchner asked when would there be some design to review and after the design how long will review process take. Finally, when would the construction start? Mr. O'Dell said this will be a long, phased project. Chair Brian has traveled to Washington D.C. on several occasions and will be going again the first week of June to look for funds for this project. The timeline is for: • An RTP amendment in September • An EIS draft process toward the end of 2008 • When the EIS is through, then likely there will be details of the design level process (2009) • Construction will occur in phases within a couple of years, if not sooner • The completed, phased connector project will take from 10 to 15 years The connector will be a package of projects. Some of the packages will likely be started in 2010 or 2011. However, Mr. O'Dell cautioned that the longer the project takes, the more expensive it will become. Purchase costs for right-of-way increase as time goes by. The estimate for the connector about 1-1/2 years ago was $300-400 million. The connector estimate has been raised to $700 million and if the I-5 access points occur, this will be another $330 million. The connector right-of-way needs to be designated to begin reserving and buying the right of way. 9:21:07 P\4 9. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANS TO INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RELATED POLICY AND ACTION MEASURE PROPOSALS OF THE PROJECT'S CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) Assistant Community Development Director Bunch reviewed this agenda item noting staff was asking the City Council to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to incorporate the recommendations of the Highway TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 10 of 14 99W Improvement and Management Plan. Assistant Community Development Director Bunch overviewed the process. A copy of the staff report is on file in the City Recorder's office. Oregon Department of Transportation reviewed Tigard's model for the Plan and determined it was credible. The City received ODOT's permission to proceed. During this time there were refinements to the Hall/Greenberg intersection and modifications to the plan and costs. The staff was before the City Council to ask them to direct the Planning Commission to initiate changes to the Transportation System Plan and the Comprehensive Plan to evaluate the proposal and recommend to the City Council whether or not to adopt the recommendations or to change them. 9:24:25 I'M Assistant Community Development Director Bunch referred to concerns previously raised by Councilor Wilson. Brief responses to these concerns were provided in a memorandum from City Engineer Duenas; a copy of this memorandum is on file in the City Recorder's office. Assistant Community Development Director Bunch suggested staff could respond more definitively to these concerns through the evaluations and findings of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Assistant Community Development Director Bunch stressed that tonight the City Council is not being asked to approve the 99W plan or even to endorse all of it; the request is for the initiation of the plan amendment. City Council can reserve its final decision until after the public hearing when the City Council considers the Planning Commission's recommendation. 9:26:25 1111 Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said because of all the activity in the region, it is important that the City Council initiate the amendment process due to timing. For example, Metro is working on the Regional Transportation Plan now and this will be the basis for regional funding. The City has expressed the view that 99W should be a candidate for future light rail. We have been involved in some regional discussions about light rail and rapid transit issues. The key to success will be clear, coordinated policy decisions involving the state highway system, 99W. Our light rail promotion effort should include a land use evaluation proposal. It is important to the staff to identify the policy issues in a timely way so they can begin to evaluate what it will take to create a transit-friendly environment from a land use perspective on this major transportation corridor. 9:27:47 P11 Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said the City is poised to update its Transportation System Plan; staff wants to have these completed within 18 months. Part of this effort will include an evaluation of the transportation issues affecting the Tigard Triangle. To complete the Transportation System Plan on schedule and resolve questions, staff also needs to have clear policy direction on 99W. 9?8:22 1111 Assistant Community Development Director Bunch summarized that staff would like the City Council to initiate the Plan amendment and have staff and the Planning Commission address Councilor Wilson's issues and any other issues the City Council might have. 928:38 P14I City Engineer Duenas added that Oregon Department of Transportation looked at the model that Tigard's consultant, DKS, used for 99W and concluded that they would accept either a five- or seven-lane section. He said he thought this was part of the issue that was brought up by Councilor Wilson. The main difference would be that the queues on the side streets would be longer with a five-lane section. City Engineer Duenas referred to his memorandum and advised that the Plan calls for intersection improvements and transitions, which in the case of Greenberg Road, Hall Boulevard, and the 217 Interchange, blend into a seven-lane section. Therefore the result is a seven-lane section primarily because the intersections are so close together. Further up, there is the same issue from 68`'' Avenue to the I-5 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 11 of 14 Interchange; in between there is a capacity and a five-lane section should suffice. It's possible that as part of the process, we will find out that the Plan achieves the goals without widening areas where it is not needed. Or, we might find that a seven-lane section is what we should construct. 9:30:05 Pnl Mayor Dirksen commented that what is before the City Council is essentially a draft with which to begin the review and public hearing process. City Engineer Duenas confirmed this statement. 9:30:22 I'M Mayor Dirksen asked Councilor Wilson if he had a chance to look at some of the staff's response to his concerns. Councilor Wilson said he has looked at the response briefly. He said he was not advocating for seven lanes; he wants to make sure that if we go from the previously recommended seven lanes to five that we do not have negative impacts. Councilor Wilson said he is particularly concerned about the Tigard Triangle and the development that has occurred and could occur since the "up zone." We are "not prepared to deal with that." He wanted to make sure that whatever we do, it allows the Tigard Triangle to develop as it was intended. Even looking to the future as we are updating our Comprehensive Plan and zoning to follow, he said he thinks the market wants to go even denser; this a good thing for this location. He doesn't want to take action that would preclude this. The Transportation System Plan didn't seem to indicate recognition of an alternative to seven lanes; we need to look at this carefully. 9:32:23 P\l Councilor Wilson noted another concern that needs to be reviewed. He said he did not think there has been enough study of the Walnut to Hunziker connection because it hasn't been funded. Since 2002, this was identified as a helpful project. He said he doesn't know if this can be funded, but we might find this is even better and cheaper. Both the TSP and the 99W report mention this connection has having benefits to the intersection of 99W near downtown, the Tigard Triangle, and helps the Downtown Improvement Plan. We would be remiss if we did not find some way to do some analysis and push hard to get the connection into the Regional Transportation Plan. City Engineer Duenas suggested that, as part of Tigard's Transportation System Plan update, this corridor be specifically reviewed and either validated or eliminated. With the City Council's direction, this could be part of the review. To place it on the RTP, some choices will have to be made because there is a limited amount of money and if this was placed on the RTP, something else will have to be removed. 9:34:43 PM Mayor Dirksen referred to the 99W study and the choices that will have to be made with regard to the Tigard Triangle, and said he assumed that we would have to consider what other upgrades will be anticipated for 72"d Avenue as well as the effects of the Hunziker connection. City Engineer Duenas commented that the Tigard Triangle has some serious challenges with the 217 Interchange at 72"d Avenue. He understands Councilor Wilson's concerns that if the Triangle cannot develop, then there is basically a moratorium on development for this area. If there is another major development in this area, it will generate the traffic that will force a decision. The TSP is one way to focus on the Tigard Triangle and the Walnut Street extension. 9:36:25 I'M In response to a question from Councilor Sherwood, City Engineer Duenas confirmed that the Walnut Street extension would require another rail crossing at Ash Avenue, which is being sought as part of the downtown circulation. Councilor Sherwood referred to controversy of limiting access on 99W, however, she thinks the Hunziker/Walnut extension is much more controversial than limited access on 99W. 9:32011 I'M Mayor Dirksen recommended that the City Council make a motion to approve going forward with the process with the information presented. He suggested that the City Council include the draft study, the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 12 of 14 recommended amendments from the Citizen Advisory Committee, and Councilor Wilson's comments to be considered during the review process by the Planning Commission. 9:37:37 PM Councilor Buehner referred to a-mails regarding limiting access on Highway 99W; City Engineer Duenas confirmed that he has copies of those e-mails. Councilor Buehner advised she thought some important issues were raised and she would like to see that material included in the Planning Commission's review. 9:39:08 PA1 Councilor Wilson wondered if there was any way to get consultants "on board" to do a Walnut to Hunziker study. City Engineer Duenas said the City did contract with DKS to get a desirable corridor; that study was basically to find a way to go all of the way from Walnut at 99W through some apartment complexes and wetland areas, across Ash Avenue and then to Hunziker. That study is done. City Engineer Duenas said we probably need to pull back and look at the need for that corridor and the impact it would have if it was available. Councilor Wilson suggested that at least a cost/benefit analysis be done to explore the relative merits. This should be part of the 99W study and the TSP update. 9:40:26 PM Councilor Woodruff advised that Wal-Mart has notified us that they do not plan to build a store in this area. 9:40:50 PM In response to Mayor Dirksen, Assistant Community Development Director Bunch advised that staff would like to have the City Council approve a motion to direct the Planning Commission to initiate a Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan amendment to consider the recommendations of the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management. Then, staff will initiate the application and begin the process. 9:41:17 Pii\1 Motion by Councilor Buchner that the City Council direct staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan process as just outlined by Assistant Community Development Director Bunch. The motion was seconded by Councilor Woodruff. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present: Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None ➢ Mayor Dirksen announced the City Council will hold an Executive Session after the business meeting. Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adjourn the meeting. City Attorney Ramis clarified, in response to a question from Councilor Buehner, that the Executive Session wording read earlier in the meeting was still applicable. 9:42:31 PM The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 13, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 13 of 14 Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Note: Executive Session concluded at 10:59 p.m. ~ VV Brine Wheatley, City Recorder (Ij Attest: Mayor, ity of Tigard Date: as a v I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080513 final.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES - MAY 135 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 14 of 14 - Et s c-wS Civic-minded citizens of Tigard, including the City Council, wish to express our concern over what we presume are some unintended consequences of the recent modifications to the State's ethics laws enacted by the 2007 Legislature. The concern surrounds the impact the new requirements are having on volunteerism in our City and around the entire state. Like most cities large and small, the functioning of our municipal government and in fact the democratic process itself depends upon the willingness of citizens to volunteer in various capacities. Many of the new ethics requirements are viewed by some as being too onerous and too personally invasive, and act as a deterrent to new potential volunteers, and have even led to the resignations of some existing public officials of long standing. As burdensome as some of the other new rules are, the real crux of the matter is in regard to the inclusion in public disclosure documents of the names of family members who don't live in the submitter's household. In many cases they may not live in the public official's jurisdiction, and may not even reside in the State of Oregon. As such, the benefit of their exposure is unclear at best. One complaint is that while an individual who decides to become active in their community may need to have his life exposed to the public forum for the good of that public, one's relatives have not made that decision and their private lives should remain private. I feel confident that I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that this kind of invasion of people's personal lives is unwarranted and creates varying levels of distress, from general discomfort up to being unable to tolerate the intrusion at all, which has led to the resignations. We would encourage the Legislature to reconsider its recent action and to enact new legislation that removes this requirement and creates an environment in which those of us who choose to serve our communities are held accountable but at the same time we and our families are treated with respect. a4 16 ~,5, /3-og CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION URGING LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RECENTLY ADOPTED ETHICS LAWS WHEREAS, the Oregon Legislature recently adopted legislation based upon Senate Bill 10 and House Bill 2595 incorporating new ethics law provisions governing the conduct of public officials in the State of Oregon; and WHEREAS, the recently adopted legislation set forth new requirements for public officials who, in the past, were required to file an annual Statement of Economic Interest; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council is supportive of high ethical standards and the requirement to file an annual economic statement as required in recent years; and WHEREAS, apprehension and objections to certain provisions of the new requirements have been identified by City of Tigard public officials and include the following concerns 1. Responding to recent problems at the state level, the State Legislature adopted additional ethics laws focusing on volunteers and officials at the local level. 2. Requiring information on relatives not living.in'the public official's household is an invasion of privacy of family members not living with officials or volunteers. 11 I 3. Posting Statement of Economic Interest information on the Internet is a substantial invasion of privacy issue. Emphasizing punitive consequences in the Statement of Economic Interest filing forms represents a presumption of guilt to hundreds of volunteers providing vital services to Oregon towns and cities. Requiring economic interest statement forms to be filed on a quarterly basis represents a hardship given the significant demands on the time and attention of public officials who are usually volunteers at the local level. 1~. Increasing obligations and disclosure requirements will discourage potential volunteers who would otherwise consider serving as a public official for the City. Exempting volunteers who serve on similar governmental boards or agencies such as school district boards and special districts appears to be arbitrary. 0 6305-ed o n ~u r1 G lvr ~(oc~u~ r~~~ ~s s c~ ~s~ t RESOLUTION NO. 08 - Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Governor and the Legislature expedite their efforts to review the legislation and work with organizations such as the League of Oregon Cities to make the changes needed to remove the unintended consequences of the legislation. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2008. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard 1: \ADM\ Packet '08\080527\ Resolution Ethics Review.doc RESOLUTION NO. 08 - Page 2 AGENDA ITEM NO.3 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: May 13, 2008 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend orparticipate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name- PAV EL GA&ER M W F_14b~ ~ a- - Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will ~J- - 1 help the presiding officer pronounce: Address P. 0 1 61~c t661( city rw , 0 ~ 97075- State Zipl`p Phone No. ~ 6/~ `l 3 - S i O Name: _)aScpk 3C'V c j e.5 Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will A V%& bV ✓tCQ help the presiding officer pronounce: ~nW , ]e,, Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: G f G t W GTN I.t1 P~AI Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will A help the esiding offic r prono ce Address g SU1 C"; G g- l~J~s 1 city S&AV, State Zip D~ SUS A eS Phone No. Q; [p q LV2'-26 ko d owls P/~'~pr~'1` ~Q CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Jeg5o Note Doto chl(onge[H mvgy 21, 2008 B)? B~(Q Please bring your family and friends and join us as we celebrate our 55th Anntvenziry & Msflonat EmeTgency Y~edk,0 SeTvh'ces Weekv.. The afternoon will be complete with a Car Show, BBQ/POTLUCK, and plenty of games for the kids. ~un wIll~~ inclaude: o Tours of an ambulance & Metro West headquart9rs Carnival Games ~ Giant Slide 00 ~ Noodles the Clown 6 Car Show Raffling of a Nintendo Wii RSVP to Sam Apodaca 503-648-6658 ext; 1]l5 By May 18th The BBQ wiH be heW at Metro West Arnbu~ance 5475 NE Dawson Creek Drive. HiHsboro, OR 97124 Vt cor c tuw\n .S ice. 0% Tigard City Council Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator "Stop Political Prostitution!", P.O. Box 1664 Beaverton, OR 97075 (503)643-8348 ELECTION AND THE MEDIA: MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE 05/13/08 _ I'm an official Candidate for US Senator. I'm honest, incorruptible, with Faith, Integrity and High Moral Principles. My opponents in the Primary Speaker Merkley and Mr. Novick do not say that they are honest and incorruptible. They accepting money from many states, from special interests as banks, lawyers, medical organizations, big companies, unions and others, sold the People of Oregon for about $3 million to the media, and corrupted media is talking about them. The media for own huge monetary benefits promotes bribery, corruption and political prostitution. The media junta hijacked this country, violates the Constitution of the USA and the Code of Ethics for the Media. The media must give an information, give the facts and evidence, but not to make Presidents and Senators as it is doing now. The media is destroying our democracy, covering up crimes of politicians. Promoting the Speaker of the House Merkley and Mr.Novick, both of them have no military experience, the media creates more deaths of our soldiers in Iraq. The media digs a grave yard for itself and all of us. The morons if the media as AP, the Oregonian, TV Ch 2 and Ch 8 can't understand that money will not shield this nation from a weapons of mass destruction. Many our soldiers died in Iraq because of the media. The media creates a danger to our national security and is a cancer of our society, a public enemy. People of Oregon, there is no need money in election. The PBS, including the OPB, receives $463 each year from federal government / taxpayers. Ignore misleading ads by Merkley and Novick - it is a voice of special interests. American Proverb: " The receiver is as bad as the thief' and "Don't put robber to work in bank". The People of all parties and not affiliated, do home work, read the Voter's Pamphlet. No one better than me could help state and nation to solve many problems. If my name is not in your Ballot, write it in and I promise to work for you. Thank Pavel Goberman 3 v~ Tigard High Leadership 9000 SW Durham Road - Tigard - Oregon- 97224 (503) 431-5518 - FAX (503) 431-5410 http://ths.ttsd.kl2.or.us/leadership/home.html 2007-2008 City Council Student Report: May 13, 2008 "Challenging the Student Envoy: Megan Foltz Impossible~ 1. Academics Activities a. The Rotary Awards Banquet was Sunday, May 4"' in Director: Wilsonville. 3udy Edtl b. Senior Awards Night is on Tuesday, May 27t~'. President: c. Leadership Awards Night is on Thursday, May 22"d. Megan Foltz d. There are 16 school days left for seniors. Vice President: II. Athletics Cassie Abeyta a. The track teams beat Tualatin last Wednesday. The girls were undefeated this year. Districts are on this Thursday Activities: and Friday at Linfield. Alexa Kanbergs b. Anthony Brietenbach and Kevin Xiong made it to state for Secretary: tennis for singles. Jeff Rogers and Andrew DeBlanc will Heather Lloyd be playing doubles at state. c. The baseball team beat Tualatin twice last week and they Treasurer: also have the highest GPA in the state. Michelle Chesney d. The girls lacrosse team will play Westview in the first Human Relations: round of playoffs. Bre Burnett III. Alts a. The guitar concert is on Wednesday, May 21st. Assemblies: b. Our choir members performed well at the State Kaitlyn Lange competition. Spirit: c. Andrea Fisher is the winner of an art contest which will Libby Brallier send her to the Olympics in China to display her work. IV. Activities Publicity: a. There was a Cinco de Mayo dance and dinner last Liaie Parker Thursday. Tech Coordinator: b. The Prom assembly was this Monday and the dance is on Zane Rogers Saturday at the World Trade Center. The theme this Executive Council year is "Diamonds are Forever". Delegate: Yoli De la Cruz *I am introducing Alexa Kanbergs, next year's ASB President. .r Agenda Item # --3 Meeting Date May 13, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Acknowledge and Commend Megan Foltz for Her Efforts as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the i of Tigard Ci4-" , Prepared By: C Wheatley -Dept Head Approval: M" Pn- City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council acknowledge and commend Megan Foltz for her efforts as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Megan Foltz is the Tigard High Associated Student Body President and served this school year as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard. Ms. Foltz gave the City Council and community timely and informative updates about student activities including students' efforts to provide service and assist community members in need. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Promote and honor good citizenship in Tigard. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed resolution. FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:\ADM\Packet'08\080513\Foltz AIS.doc M MEMORANDUM j. TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Agenda Item No. y- - a- e)a-;th-~ For Agenda of May 13, 2008 FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder RE: Three-Month Council Meeting Calendar DATE: April 30, 2008 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk May 5 Monday Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 6 Tuesday Special Council Meeting - Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 12 Monday Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 17 Saturday Council Team Building - Training Session - 9 a.m. - Noon, Town Hall/Red Rock Creek Conference Room 19 Monday (If needed) Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 26 Monday Memorial Day - City Hall Closed 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 29 Thursday Joint Meeting with Tigard-Tualatin School Board and Tualatin City Council - Time and Location to be Announced (City of Tualatin is hosting) June 3 Tuesday Special Council Meeting - Comprehensive Plan Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 17* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall July 1 Tuesday Special Council Meeting - Comprehensive Plan Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 4 Friday 4th of July Holiday - City Hall Closed 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 29 Tuesday Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting - 7-9, Public Works Auditorium l:\ADM\City Council\3-month calendar for 0800513 cc mtg.doc No. Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2008 Agenda Item No Meeting of 77?Q ~3., oidd Meeting Date: May 6, 2008 Meeting Date: May 12, 2008 Meeting Date: May 13, 2008 Meeting Type/Time: Special Mtng./6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Budget Com/6:30 p.m. Meeting TypelTime: Business/6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: Library Com Rm Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: April 22, 2008 Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: April 29, 2008 Special Meeting Study Session Comp Plan Workshop - Goal 2: Land Use Exec. Sess. (Labor Neg.) - Continued discussion Planning - 60 min. Budget Committee Meeting on Class/Comp Study - Sandy Z. - 50 min. Comp Plan Workshop - Urban Forest (subsection Exec. Sess. (Pending Litigation) - Tom C. - 10 min. of Goal 2: Land Use Planning) -60 min. Study Session - Discussion on Ethics Law Changes, Urbanization Forum and Proposed Closure of Consent Agenda Barrows Road - Gus D. 30 min Approve Senior Center Remodel Phase II - CDBG Funding Agreement - Duane R. Budget And. #14 for Sr. Center - Joe B. - RES Business Meeting Proc. - Emergency Med. Svcs. Week Joanne - 5 min. THS Student Envoy - 10 min. Last Meeting for Megan - Council resolution Honor THS Tigerettes Dance Team for Winning 08 State Championship - Joanne B. - 15 min. Friends of the Refuge Award to COT - Duane - 5 min. 1-5 to 99W Connector Project Update - Gus D. - PPT - 20 min. Amendments to Comp. &Trans. System Plans to incorp. 99W Mgmt. Plan and CAC Rec. -Gus -40 min. QJPH -Appeal of Director's Interp. of Tree Code MIS 2008-00005 - Tom C. - 30 min. - MO Exec. Sess. (Pending Litigation & Real Property) - Gus D. - 20 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 150 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 135 min. ITime Left: 50 min. Time Left: 0 min. 5/6/2008 1 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2008 Meeting Date: May 17, 2008 Meeting Date: May 19, 2008 Meeting Date: May 20, 2008 Meeting Type/Time: Team Building/9-12 Meeting TypefTime: Budget Com/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 Location: Schaltz House Location: Library Corn Rm Location: City Hall Greeter: 13335 SW Hall Blvd. Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: May 6, 2008 Workshop Meeting Meeting with ODOT Region 1 Manager - Jason Budget Committee Meeting Tell - Gus - 20 min. (if needed) Traffic Congestion in Tigard - Gus D. & Mike Council Team Building Session McCarthy - 45 min. Discussion on Council Task #13 - Purpose of Citizen Conference - Loreen - 45 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 110 min. Time Left: 90 min. 5/6/2008 1 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2008 Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Meeting Date: May 29, 2008 Meeting Date: June 3, 2008 Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Joint w/TTSD &Tual/6:30 Meeting Type/Time: Special Mtng./6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: Tualatin City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: May 13, 2008 Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: May 20, 2008 Study Session SPECIAL MEETING WITH TTSD BOARD & Special Meeting Meeting with Judge - SI - Nadine R. - 30 min. TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL Public Hearing - Comp Plan Amendment CPA 2008- Executive Session (Real Property)-Phil N. - 20 min. 00001 - Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning - Appoint CAC for TGM Grants - Ron B. - 10 min. Mayor Dirksen Absent Darren W. - 60 min Naming Library Pavilion - Craig P. - 10 min. Public Hearing - Comp Plan Amendment CPA 2008- 00002 - Subsection of Statewide Planning Consent Agenda Goal 2: Land Use Planning - Urban Forest Adopt Washington Co. Natural Hazard Mitigation Darren W. - 60 min. Plan & COT Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan -Dennis Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep.- 10 min. QJPH - Phelps Annexation (ZCA 2008-00002) Emily E. - 30 min. - ORD Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 40 min. Time Avail: 135 min. -Time Scheduled: 120 min. ITime Left: 95 min. Time Left: 15 min. 5/6/2008 1 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2008 Meeting Date: June 10, 2008 Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Meeting Date: June 24, 2008 Meeting Type/Time: BusinessCCDA/6:30 p.m. Meeting TypefTime: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting TypelTime: Business/6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: May 27, 2008 Materials Due @ 5: June 3, 2008 Materials Due @ 5: June 10, 2008 Study Session Workshop Agenda Study Session Exec. Session - Labor Negotiations -Sandy Z. 60 min. Tigard-Tualatin School District Board - Update on the Tigard/Lake Oswego Water Visioning - Cathy W. - 60 min. Partnership - Dennis K. - 20 min. Comp Plan Workshop - Goal 5: Natural Consent Agenda Resources - Darren W. - 60 min. Consider Revisions to City's Emergency Operations MTIP Grant Proposal for Potential Redevelopment Consent Agenda Plan - Dennis K. of Tigard Transit Center - PPT - Sean F. -15 min. CCAC Appointments - Phil N. - TENTATIVE Approve IGA wlTualatin Valley Water District for LCRB-Award Contract for Hiteon Creek Water Imp. Within Tigard Triangle LID #1 - Gus. D. Riparian Enhancement Phase II - Dennis K. CCAC Appointments - Phil N. - TENTATIVE Appoint CAC for TGM Funded Update of Tigard Annual Solid Waste Financial Report - SI Transportation System Plan - Darren W. Public Works LCRB-Award Contract for Crack Sealing - Dennis K. LCRB-Award Contract for ROW Mowing - Dennis K. Business Meeting Certify City provides Services Qualifying for State Shared Revs - RES - Bob S. - 5 min. Business Meeting Declare City's Election to Receive State Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min. Revenues - PH - RES - Bob S. - 5 min. CCAC Appointments - Need RTS Approve 2008-2013 CIP - PH -Bob S.. - 10 min. Tigard TSP Update Discussion & IGA w/ODOT - Adopt Citywide Master Fees & Charges Schedule Darren W. - 20 min. Bob S. - RES - 10 min. Adopt FY 2007-08 Budget - PH - RES Bob S.- 25 min CCDA Budget Adoption - Bob S. - 5 min. Time Avail: 135 min. -Time Scheduled: 60 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 135 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 30 min. Time Left: 75 min. Time Left: 65 min. Time Left: 105 min. 5/6/2008 1 Agenda Item # 1-11 1/ Meeting Date May 13, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title A Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #14 to the FY 2007-08 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the Facilities Fund Budget to Reflect Additional Costs Associated with the Tigard Senior Center Remodel Project Prepared By: Joe Barrett Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ,bL cd ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve Budget Amendment #14 to increase appropriations in the Facilities budget to reflect additional costs associated with the Tigard Senior Center Remodel Project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Budget Amendment #14. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Remodel work began on the Tigard Senior Center in FY 2006-07. During the construction work other needs have been identified, including the replacement of flooring due to extensive water damage, additional plumbing work due to previous sub-standard work, ground compaction, and the need for a new roof The cost of this additional work is estimated to cost $190,000. These costs were not foreseen during the preparation of the FY 2007-08 budget. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution including Attachment A. FISCAL NOTES This amendment reduces the Facilities Fund contingency by $190,000. \Vig20Unetpub\tig20\w oot\to"sVorm dom\council agenda item summary sheet 07.doc Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 13, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY . City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Tide Senior Center Remodel Grant Agreement Prepared By: Duane Roberts Dept Head Approval: ' City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City enter into an agreement with Washington County accepting $145,109 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the phase II renovation of the Tigard Senior Center? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Senior Center Phase II project work scope consists of the addition of a 619 square foot "Garden Room" to the center's lower level, a rooftop deck, and a paved walkway between an outside entrance to the garden room and the lower parking lot area. The garden room will provide an indoor, year-round area for gardening and other activities. The rooftop deck will expand the upper dining room, increasing its functionality, and allow for outdoor seating facing the greenway. In May 2007, the City entered into an agreement with Washington County accepting Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the partial renovation of the Tigard Senior Center. In September 2007, Council authorized the submittal of a second request for CDBG funds to address additional Senior Center improvement needs. In February 2008, the CDBG Policy Action Board selected the Senior Center project for FY 08/09 funding. In March 2008, the policy board's project list was endorsed by the Washington County Commissioners. The contracting process to receive the grant dollars includes an IGA between the City and County. A copy of the IGA is available in the City Recorder's office. The IGA is the standard document used for previous CDBG grant funds awarded to the City. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None considered. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A l:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-13-08 AIS Senior Center Remodel Grant AgreLment.doc 1 ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES The total project cost is $258,459. Of this amount, $145,109 will be charged to CDBG funding. The balance of $113,350 will be contributed by the City through direct payments ($107,750) and in-kind contributions ($5,600). The City's $107,750 cash contribution is included in the proposed 2008/09 budget. I:\LRPLN\Councd Materials\2008\5-13-08 AIS Senior Center Remodel Grant Agreement.doc 2 Agenda Item # S" Meeting Date May 13.2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Honor Tigard High School Tigerettes Dance Team for Winning 2008 Oregon School Activities Association (OS" Dance/Drill State Championship' f~ Prepared By: Joanne Bengtson 9RV Dept Head A roval: ~ a ~ ~ pp City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Honor Tigard High School's Tigerette Dance Team for earning the 2008 Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) Dance/Drill State Championship. Kevin Bryant, Associate Principal for Athletics and Activities at Tigard High School is attending this evening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Information only. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard High School Tigerettes won the 2008 Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) Dance/Drill State Championship Competing in the 6A Large Division. They earned this honor for their extraordinary technique, spacing and alignment, precision, choreography, floor patterns, maneuvering, projection, repertoire and musicality. Tigard Times reporter Traci Chelf wrote: "In preparing for the competition the coaches were challenged to create a story of hope and peace through intense choreography that required perfect timing and planning. The Tigerettes complex routine included sections where five pieces of choreography were going on at the same time." Three of the Tigerettes - Elissa Boudreau, Kelsey Cline and Brittany Domstrand were selected for the 2008 Senior All-State Team. The OSAA promotes interscholastic activities that provide equitable participation opportunities, positive recognition and learning experiences to students, while enhancing the achievement of educational goals and enriching the educational experiences of high school students. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal #4: Promote and honor good citizenship in Tigard. • Recognize good citizenship by individuals and groups. • Build youth involvement programs. ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:\ADM\13acket'08\080513\'I'igerettcs AIS 080513.doc Agenda Item # 6 Meeting Date 5/13/08 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Friends of the Refuge Award Presentation Prepared By: Duane Roberts Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: V~ cd;o ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City accept an award from the Friends of the Tualatin River Refuge recognizing the City of Tigard's contributions to the refuge. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council accept the award. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Friends of the Refuge wish to recognize the City of Tigard's monetary contributions to its 2006 grand opening celebration and to the more recent festivities celebrating the completion and opening of the visitor center with the presentation of an award to Council. Becky Long of the Friend's group is scheduled to make the formal presentation to Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None considered. CITY COUNCIL GOALS NA ATTACHMENT LIST NA FISCAL NOTES No fiscal impact. i/lrpln/council materials /refuge award Statement by City Attorney - Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision under existing laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Any person may offer testimony. Please wait until you are asked to speak by the Mayor and try to limit your remarks to the applicable approval standards for the application. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have had any ex parte contacts or have any conflicts of interest. A Council member must declare any contacts with the public regarding this matter or any information received outside the record. After declaring the contacts, the Council member may participate in the decision. If a Council member has an actual conflict of interest, the Council member cannot participate. An opportunity will be provided to challenge statements made by a Council member and to challenge the participation of a Council members. City staff will make a presentation, followed by the applicant and those in favor of the application. Then witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the applicant can respond. The Council members also may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. The applicant can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Failure to raise Constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow a response precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table and give your name and mailing address. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder who will mark these exhibits as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. is\adm\cathy\cca\quasi judicial information\attorney statement - updated by g. firestone march 06.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.790.030. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director is charged with making interpretations based on the best available information for any ambiguities or words having multiple meaning in the Tigard Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Directors Interpretation is supported by both adopted and proposed goals, policies, and action measures of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and provisions of the Tigard Development Code to protect existing trees wherever possible; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council adopted Development Code Chapter 18.790.030 to expressly protect trees during development wherever possible; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the matter on May 13, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby expresses its affirmation that the interpretation ("Exhibit A") made by the Community Development Director is in keeping with the intention of the Tigard City Council and the purpose of the Tree Plan Requirement of the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.790.030. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2008. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: S~ City Recorder - City of Tigard ~ S RESOLUTION NO. 08 - Page 1 EXHIBIT A v DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION a DATE: February 26, 2008 CODE CHAPTER: 18.790 Tree Removal TOPIC: How should the statement, "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" in Section 18.790.030 be interpreted? How can an applicant demonstrate that they have adequately considered tree protection given code preference for protection over removal? DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION: I. Introduction A tree plan is required when a development application is filed: 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of tree prepared by a certified arborzst shall be pinvided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots orpatzels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. Historically, applicants have been required to identify all of the trees on the site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. Any or all trees could be removed as long as they were appropriated mitigated. This process does not prioritize protection over removal as required by Section 18.790.030. In order to clarify the intent of the, "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" requirement, a Director's interpretation is needed. U. Interpretation One of the primary purposes of Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code is to preserve existing trees. Therefore, a development application is required to demonstrate that the site analysis and development plan protects the maximum amount of existing, viable trees (i.e. healthy and sustainable individuals or stands). The City recognizes that some tree removal is unavoidable in order to meet certain planning and/or construction requirements as indicated in Section 18.790.010. 18.790.010 Purpose C..RMgv]U need m- ex bons The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. In order to determine that preservation of viable trees has been adequately considered, the tree plan shall include a narrative that addresses the following: 1. How does the site, lot and/or building layout maximize tree retention? 2. How have improvements such as roads, driveways, utilities, and walkways been designed and located to maximize tree retention? 3. Have tree compatible construction techniques been considered and utilized wherever possible to maximize tree retention? (examples of tree compatible construction techniques include but are not limited to tunneling for utilities, "no-dig" pavement installation, and use of retaining walls in certain situations to limit root disturbance) 4. Is it possible to reduce the number of parking spaces to maximize tree retention? 5. Is it possible to reduce the total number of lots to maximize tree retention? 6. Could lot size averaging per Section 18.790.040(2) be utilized to maximize tree retention? 7. Could lot width and/or depth per section 18.790.040(3) be reduced in order to maximize tree retention? 8. How have buildings and building footprints been designed to maximize tree retention? 9. Are offsite trees that may be impacted by development inventoried and adequately protected? 10. Describe additional techniques not mentioned above that have/will be used to maximize tree retention. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed development will preserve viable trees wherever possible may result in findings for denial of a development application. This interpretation shall become effective immediately. By: Tom Coffee Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 2 41 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist RE: Appeal of Director's Interpretation of 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement DATE: April 28, 2008 1. Introduction Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.340 authorizes the Community Development Director to interpret any terms or phrases within the Tigard Development Code that may be ambiguous or subject to two or more meanings. An Interpretation was issued by the Community Development Director on February 26, 2008 regarding the meaning of a particular phrase in Chapter 18.790.030 (Tree Plan Requirement). This Interpretation was initiated by the Director himself in order to clarify the criteria by which land use applicants are required to consider the protection of trees during development planning. The Interpretation was appealed by the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland as allowed by Chapter 18.340. As a result, City Council is required to hold a public hearing according to 18.390.050.D in order to decide whether or not to uphold the Director's Interpretation. The following is a summary of what prompted the Interpretation, how the Interpretation was developed, the Home Builder's Association's objections to the Interpretation, and staff's responses to their objections. II. Background In Tigard, a tree plan is required when a development application is filed: 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepare d by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. (Emphasis added). Historically, applicants have been required to identify all of the trees on the site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. As implemented, any or all trees could be removed as long as they would be mitigated. Contrary to the stated objective of Tigard's development code, this has frequently resulted in site plans being submitted that demonstrate little regard for the preservation of existing trees on site. Page 1 of 7 An example of this practice was noted by the Community Development Director in late 2007, during staff's review of a pending subdivision where the tree plan proposed removal of 100% of existing trees on site. This included the removal of trees well outside of proposed grading, building envelopes, and other construction areas. The Director asked staff why they were allowing trees to be removed that were not in conflict with the development plan. Staff responded that the City's administrative process had historically allowed the removal of any tree, so long as an applicant was willing to mitigate by planting new trees or paying an in-lieu fee. As a result, applicants had not typically demonstrated any genuine attempt during site design to preserve trees, but rather trees have been viewed as impediments to maximum development. This practice is not limited to residential construction. A recent project to construct an office building included a parking lot containing significantly more spaces than the minimum required by code which resulted in the removal of 100% of the trees on site. When staff discussed the possibility of retaining some of the viable trees on site, the applicant chose to continue on with his plan to remove all of the trees and mitigate their removal rather than consider reconfiguring the site and/or losing some parking spaces. A third example is a subdivision that had a minimum density requirement of 8 lots. The applicant chose to increase density 50% by building 12 lots, the maximum density allowed. This contributed to the need to remove over 50% of the healthy trees on site. Had the number of lots been reduced, the development could have retained additional trees. In response to the Director's concerns, staff thoroughly reviewed that portion of the code that addresses the Tree Plan Requirements (18.790.030). In their review, staff observed that 18.790.030.A establishes the guiding principle of the tree plan as being "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." However, while this statement is clear and self explanatory in its meaning, there are no evaluation criteria that can be used to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated protection of trees wherever possible during site design and development. As a result, the Director determined that an interpretation of the Tree Plan Requirement was needed in order to create clear and objective criteria by which to evaluate whether land use applicants are protecting existing trees wherever possible. III. Interpretation The following has been excerpted from the Director's Interpretation: "One of the primary purposes of Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code is to preserve existing trees. Therefore, a development application is required to demonstrate that the site analysis and development plan protects the maximum amount of existing, viable trees (i.e. healthy and sustainable individuals or stands). The City recognizes that some tree removal is unavoidable in order to meet certain planning and/or construction requirements as indicated in Section 18.790.010. Page 2of7 18.790. 010 Purpose C. Recognise need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, note thstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets utilities, and other needed or required improvements n thin the development. In order to determine that preservation of viable trees has been adequately considered, the tree plan shall include a narrative that addresses the following: 1. How does the site, lot and/or building layout maximize tree retention? 2. How have improvements such as roads, driveways; utilities, and walkways been designed and located to maximize tree retention? 3. Have tree compatible construction techniques been considered and utilized wherever possible to maximize tree retention? (examples of tree compatible construction techniques include but are not limited to tunneling for utilities, "no-dig" pavement installation, and use of retaining walls in certain situations to limit root disturbance) 4. Is it possible to reduce the number of parking spaces to maximize tree retention? 5. Is it possible to reduce the total number of lots to maximize tree retention? 6. Could lot size averaging per Section 18.790.040(2) be utilized to maximize tree retention? 7. Could lot width and/or depth per section 18.790.040(3) be reduced in order to maximize tree retention? 8. How have buildings and building footprints been designed to maximize tree retention? 9. Are offsite trees that may be impacted by development inventoried and adequately protected? 10. Describe additional techniques not mentioned above that have/will be used to maximize tree retention. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed development will preserve viable trees wherever possible may result in findings for denial of a development application." IV. Community Values and Comprehensive Plan The Director's interpretation issued on February 26, 2008 is consistent with community values and citizen expectations. Tigard's 2006 Community Attitudes Survey found "the protection of trees and natural resource areas" as rating the highest of all "livability" characteristics posed to the respondents, scoring 8.4 out of 10 points. A follow-up question contained in the 2007 survey revealed that 84% of Tigard Residents supported increased regulations to protect existing trees. 59% disagreed with the statement that "the City should encourage greater residential density than exists today." This data suggests that when given a choice between preserving viable trees or increasing the number of residential units above the minimum required by Metro, a majority of Tigard citizens would choose tree preservation. Page 3 of 7 The City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan is the primary document that guides land use decisions in the community and reflects the current and projected community character and conditions. Language within the plan was created with considerable input and oversight from community volunteers, and thus is intended to reflect the will of the citizens of Tigard. A number of Policies within the Plan either directly or indirectly relate to tree and natural resource preservation. The following recently adopted Policies relevant to tree and natural resource preservation have been excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan: Policy 6.1.6 - The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces, natural resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain their positive contribution to air quality. Policy 6.2.3 - The City shall encourage the use of low impact development practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development. Policy 6.2.4 - The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contribution to water quality. Policy 8.1.19 - The City shall seek to establish and manage a fully functional urban forest. Policy 9.1.12 - The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. Policy 10.2.1 - The City shall adopt measures to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of its residential neighborhoods. Policy 10.2.5 - The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resources, easy access to public- transit and other efficient modes of transportation, easy access to services and parks, resource efficient design and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources. Policy 10.2.7 - The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to locational characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and natural resources, availability of public facilities and services, and existing land use patterns. Policy 10.2.8 - The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or more intense land uses on residential living environments, such as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another; B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. Page 4of7 Policy 10.2.9 - The City shall require infill development to be designed to address compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Policy 13.1.3 - The City shall require future development to consider topography, vegetation, and solar access during the design phase to reduce demands for artificial heating, cooling, and lighting. The following Policy relevant to tree and natural resource preservation has been excerpted from a portion of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan that is still currently in effect: Policy 3.4.2 - The City shall: a. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; b. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed; and c. Require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as delineated on the "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" on file at the City d. Address Goal 5 rule requirements pertaining to the preservation of wetlands once adequate information on the location, quality, and quantity of wetland sites is obtained. This Goal 5 review will include determining which wetland sites are ecologically and scientifically significant. Citizens will participate in making policy recommendation for the protection and preservation of those wetland areas designated as significant. The City shall complete its Goal 5 review of wetland areas before the City's next periodic review, but no later than December 23, 1996. The following policies relevant to tree and natural resource preservation have been excerpted from the Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment (subchapter of Goal 2, Land Use Chapter). They have been developed by the Tigard Tree Board and the Tigard Planning Commission through extensive input from City staff, the development community, and the public. The Planning Commission formally recommended the policies to Tigard City Council at its April 21, 2008 public hearing. Upon Council's adoption, the Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan will be incorporated into the City's update of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.3.1 - The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread. Policy 2.3.2 - In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give priority to the protection of existing trees, and shall consider the financial impact of mitigation. Page 5 of 7 Policy 2.3.6 - The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of development review. Policy 2.3.9 - The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves instead of isolated specimens. The above adopted and proposed Comprehensive Plan policies reflect the community's past, present, and future desires to preserve existing trees wherever possible. The Community Development Director's February 26, 2008 Interpretation was intended to ensure these policies are carried out during development review as required by Chapter 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement. V. Conclusion The intent of the Interpretation is not to "save all trees at all costs." Instead, it allows both the applicant and the City to better address the code provision requiring tree preservation wherever possible in a clear and objective manner early in the design process. The Home Builder's Association has appealed the Director's Interpretation, and now Council is charged with making a decision. Staff has provided a summary of the Home Builder's Association's reasons for appealing the decision, as well as staff s responses to the individual items in Appendix #1. Appendix #1, Summary and Response to Home Builder's Association Appeal A12beal Statement #1: "The Director's Interpretation is contrary to the letter of the code..." Response: The purpose of the Director's Interpretation is to implement the code requirement in 18.790.030.A which states, "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." The Interpretation creates clear and objective guidelines for applicants to demonstrate conformance with this requirement. It also creates clear and objective guidelines by which staff will evaluate whether tree protection has occurred wherever possible. Appeal Statement #2: "It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to determine whether or not a tree can or should be saved." Response: A tree plan or development plan is not the sole responsibility of the applicant, but instead is a joint responsibility between the applicant and the City. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit a development plan that meets the code requirements. It is the City's responsibility to review the development plan, and evaluate whether the plan meets the code requirements. The code explicitly says "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." The applicant must address this by demonstrating through their tree plan that tree protection wherever possible has occurred. The City must then review and approve the plan for reasonableness prior to any tree removal. The Director's Interpretation has established the review criteria to address the code requirement. Page 6of7 This is equivalent to the code requirement in 18.790.030.B.4 which states that a tree plan shall include "A protection program defining the standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction." The applicant's arborist creates the tree protection plan and the City Arborist reviews the tree protection plan for completeness and adequacy. If the City Arborist finds that additional protection measures are needed, he may require more protection measures prior to approval. Anneal Statement #3: "To meet the terms of this interpretation, development can not occur on developable properties with trees unless a Type 3 process is used." Response: The Interpretation allows development to proceed utilizing specific incentives and flexible development standards through a Type 2 process if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development will preserve viable trees wherever possible. The Director understands that some tree removal is unavoidable in certain situations due to minimum density requirements and other needed or required improvements. The Interpretation is intended to require trees to be preserved wherever possible as a development goes through the Type 2 process. Anneal Statement #4: "The cost of construction would spiral out of control if construction techniques are used that "maximize" tree retention are required. Response: Requiring development to protect and incorporate significant natural features such as viable trees into the design is not an uncommon development procedure, and has been practiced by surrounding jurisdictions for some time. These jurisdictions, with what are commonly considered more restrictive tree ordinances than the City of Tigard, allow for economically viable construction and development projects. By requiring a tree plan and narrative early in the development review process, the City is ensuring that applicants give early consideration to tree preservation during the site design phase, thus reducing the likelihood of costly delays and the need to redesign the project or utilize unforeseen alternative construction techniques. Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 2 r- EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 21, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd y- 2. ROLL. CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Caffall , Doherty, Fishel; Hasman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh ` Commissioners Absent: Anderson Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community- Develof xment Director; Darren Wyss, Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner;,Todd Prager; City Arborist; Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II 3. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Caffall reportcd that he'd attended the'CCI"[Committee for Citizen Involvement] meeting earlier in the month and that the City now has four neighborhoods up and running with their "neighborhoo&website." He said the City webpage has details on these neighborhood websites.and that,more are to come. He encouraged people to check out the website to see if their neighborhood-has a v cbpage. 4 r APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There:was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve `the April 7; 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES:`, Caffall , Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh NAYS: one ABSTENTIONS: Muldoon, Vermilyea EXCUSED: Anderson , 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002 Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 1 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\tpc 04-21-08 minutes.doc REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement,., Environmental Quality, Hazards, Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features Jrand-nperi Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1. 2. 5, 6, and,, l . ,meeting was a continuation President Inman opened the public hearing, explained that this from the last hearing, and went on to explain the process. She~noted that public testimony would be reopened and that there is a 3-minute limit for Individuals and a 20 minute limit for people speaking on behalf of a group. John Floyd, Assistant Planner, gave his report on behalf of the.C.ity. He went over changes that had been made by staff since the April 7 meeting 14'e: noted that\there were basically four changes and that his PowerPoint presentafion would cover those changes. Following are the changes (in brief): 1. Eight (8) policies and recommended acdon-measures were amended, rewritten, or recreated as a result of dirccrion from the Planning Commission at the last meeting; 2. Two definitions were changed - one is new, one is substantially rewritten; 3. Staff wanted greater clarification as to Planning_C ummission's preference in policy 2.2.9 (which he would explain in more detail later in his presentation); and 4. Two pieces _of public comment 'had been received by staff since the last hearing [Attachments,) R.2] for the Planning. Commission's consideration. Floyd explained these,changes in detail iii` his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3). After-'Floyd's report, President Inman asked the commissioners if they had any questions of sThere cre none. At this,p()inr, President Inman opened up the meeting for public testimony. PUBLIC TESTTMONV"-IN"FAVOR: Janet Gillis, 13711 SW,Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223 (Chair of the Tree Board) said the Tree Board had met again since the last Planning Commission meeting and went over the issues that they considered particularly important [Listed in attachment 2]. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke in support of the policies and action items - specifically, recommended action measure 2.2.v (page 5 of Floyd's memo of 4/14) where the word "removals" is replaced by the words "permitted removals." He also PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -Apa 21,2008- Page 2 11LRPLN1Doreen1PC1PC Minutes 20081tpc 04-21-08 minutes.doc spoke about the definition of "understory" - that it should say "immediately under, or immediately adjacent to, trees or canopies." Kandace Horlings, 14525 SW Chesterfield Ln., Tigard, OR 97224, identified herself as a Tree Board member. She said that committees can never make everyone happy. She said she works as a landscaper and she spoke about rules. She said, even as a landscaper, she has to get permits at times. She does not believe the Tree Board i§,working against developers. She commented that what is in place now is not going to work0 or,40 v rs from now. She noted that this is a broad document, by design. She,would f like to seethe HBA (Home Builders Association) members and interested public ctiz s`sit dog s1 with the Tree Board. She reiterated that this is a starting point and the Tree`Board lis willing,to listen. f Tony Tycer, 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke about nderstto y `veg'etation. He said his concern is more aimed towards the soil, as he believes that is mores levant. He commented that these policies are deliberately very broad. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION: Alan Deharpport, 5740 SW Arrowwood Lane, -Beaverton, OR 97225, was concerned about the wording. He wants to add to the following languageaas a recommendation on 2.3.4: "...while minimizing the financial impact to the ptoperty owner." He said there are 11 hundreds of thousands of dollars in tree mitigation fees that the underlying property owner typically pays. He said that's a st'raightf6twardiaddinon to,rhe language that would allow the 1 11 writers of the code to come up \6th;a niitigatiori sia~da it-that would not be onerous to the underlying property owner.,'] n addition, he was(concerned that the definition of mitigation came within a week's notice of the\vote - he thought`tli t was too fast for everyone affected by this to make a judgment: ,,He requested another continuance to take into account the many people'who"wou~ld be affected b rhese policies. He expressed concern about mitigation fees. Henoted,,his concern that citizens were not notified. He also noted that the wording "proportional to- theloss" is neb, ulods? He wondered what proportional means... does it mean tree for ate? Incf ~ for inch?" He expressed concern about the wording of the document. He said the code writers should have leeway. t _a s Bill,McMonagle, 8740 SW/gSeoftins St., Tigard, OR 97223, gave a scenario where a property~wasvdevalued si ply because it had trees on it. He believes that's wrong. He said trees are going to be the dictator of the functional use of land. He was concerned about the understory iss e. He believe the City should not be "in their backyard." Kevin Luby, 16497 SW 103rd, Tigard, OR 97223, said there is a dichotomy between developers and subsequent occupancy. He discussed the developer's side. He agreed with previous testimony that the mitigation fee schedule is unfair. It doesn't take into account the realistic life expectancy of trees. As far as "subsequent occupancy" - he said his ability to decide when the useful life of his own trees is done and when he wants to replace those trees should be his own decision. He was further concerned about requiring permits to take down PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - ApH 21, 2008 - Page 3 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\tpc 04-21-08 minutes.Aoc trees, he said the City would have the right to deny that permit and he has a problem with the City having that kind of control over his property. Among other things, he expressed concern over the vagueness of the definition "understory vegetation" and was concerned about the idea of mitigation fees on private property. The question was asked if he had any suggestions on how to improve on the idea of "understory." He said, "Delete it." Walt Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmuir, Beaverton, OR 97007; identified himself as an arborist & forester of 47 years. He spoke specifically to the question t f "understory". He encouraged the City to drop all references to it because it has nu "handles" that can be scientifically supported.f r cn P-:1 Ken Gerts, 19200 SW 46 Tualatin OR, introduce(] `him'self'as'a long-time Oregonian, The written form of his comments is Attachment 4. l James McCauley, 15555 Barley Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035 "of the HBA (Homebuilders Association) stated that he believes a major error.egarding the Tree Board is that there does not appear to be a broad range of interests represented Lie said he believes policy 2.3.1 is a horrible piece of language from a private landowner's point of view. He spoke to the issue of "understory" - he agreed that there is-no scientificvidence regarding this. On policy 2.3.4 - he believes "balance'. is a better word rhan "minimize." Craig Brown, 16074 SW 103rd, Tigarld, OR 97224: dressed co cern over policy 2.2.4. He said the intent was not clear. In recommended f action measure 1.1.iv - he wondered whether the City will be doing our landscaping now. He does'not understand what the provision implies. 2.3.1 - believes it's 6vgrreaching. As tn2.3.1a -he•wonders whose standard this is going to be. What is proportional impact? It's very subje five and he's concerned how that will be applied. 2.3.2 with regard to' subsequent occupancy." He's concerned about the City going into people's yards changing things He questioned the definition of mitigation. He questioneed the term "understory vegetation" He said if property is zoned residential, it's residential. I=f you-add penalties and punitive policies, that keeps it from being developed that way, and,y u are no providing#for reasonable development. \ 'e Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, identified himself as a land- use planer\and said he was §'peaking in support of the changes of the builders. He encouraged the City to be very careful in adopting policies and to pay attention to the fact that these polies\have a great effect on the citizens. When you adopt policies be very careful - it may start to infringe on private property owners rights. Roger Anderson; 10120 SW Kable, Tigard, OR 97223, said he'd only heard a week or so ago that the City was,, orking on this tree thing and that it would affect every citizen in Tigard who own houses and trees. He was especially concerned about "non-development trees" and "subsequent occupancy". He suggested the City take these two phrases completely out of the policy wording. He said he believes this is overkill. He wondered why the City cares about private homeowners trees. He believes the ordinance is ridiculous. He thinks it would actually cause people to hate trees since they will have no control over them. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - tkpril 21, 2008 - Page 4 I:\LRPLMDoreeMPC\PC Minutes 2008\tpe 04.21-08 minutes.dw And then they'd have to pay for a permit to take trees down on their own property. He believes if the City wants to control his property, then they should buy it. Steve Roper, 196 SW Hall Blvd. #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, said the others who had spoken in opposition had pretty much said what he believes as well. He spoke about affordable housing. He said adding tree mitigation adds to the price of those homes. He spoke about the lack of developer input into the Tree Board:,He felt the Tree Board wasn't really interested in his take on things. i. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED s~ E There was a 5-minute break., DELIBERATION: 9:53PM President Inman explained that the deliberation timelis a time for theme,Planning Commissioners to deliberate and that, at this point,, they would not be entertaining questions or comments from the audience. The public testimony time had officially,.c'losed. After much deliberation, the Planning Commisslit >11 came up with the following revisions (not in order of the text) to be taken into considerario~n of the,motton `that follows: r ~ ,l 1. Strike all reference to the term"understory vegetation" throughout the document and remove thedefinition. 2. 2.3.1- strike reference to "all development and:non-development related tree removal" and substitute the language "The,City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize impacts on existing tree cover;-with-priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long "lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread." 3f 2 3.1a~ 'lIn.preseribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give priority to preservationw f existing trees and shall consider the financial impacts,of mitigation." \ Changed definition of mitigation. Everything is the same except after the word compensated strike everything - and put "as appropriate". 5 2.3.2 changed to "The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect trees, including'root systems, selected for preservation during land development: ~6. 2.3.4 `remove the' word "require" and substitute "develop." 7. 2.2.9 - use-the' word "discourage." 8. 2.2.v - The word "removals" was struck but will be reinstated as "permitted removals." 9. Definition of a "hazard tree" will be reviewed in the ISA definition and will be held open until the next meeting for potential amendment at that time. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 5 1ALRPLMDoreeMPC1PC Minutes 20081tpc 04.2108 minutes.doc Commissioner Walsh made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty: "I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council on application case number CPA2008-00002 for the Tigard Comprehensive Plan update pertaining to Tigard Urban Forest and adoption of the revisions that the group just reviewed [above] and approval of the staff report and public testimony presented and received. I further move that the definition of "hazardous tree" be revised based upon ISA definition aid.that that issue be left open for future review and approval by the Planning Commission." The motion carried as follows: jf AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman~Inman, Muldoon, Verm lyea, and:Walsh NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None , EXCUSED: Anderson 6. OTHER BUSINESS - President Inman reminded the commissioners that this issue would go to City Council for a May 6 workshop and a June 3 hearing: 7. ADJOURNMENT. f President Inman adjournedihe meeting at 11:48p m. \-150reen L`-.aughlin, Administrative Specialist II ATTEST: Pres1d nt Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 -Page 6 I:1RPLN1DoreenTC1PC Minutes 20081tpc 04-21-08 minutes.doc ATTACHMENT 3 APPEAL FILING FORM PD 141 FOR LAND USE DECISIO ~ 2008 City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR/~e' rC r1/6. r Phone.• 503.639.4171 Fax., 503.598.1960 ,94) The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to Participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Appealed: Director's intrepretation, dated Feb. Case No.(s): WS o1fT'p$4000-5, Case Name(s): 26, 2008 Code Chapter 18.790 (Tree removal) ReceiptNo.: t110yf10V 5-1 How Do You Qualify AsAParty?: Irade Association Application A&cepted By: IS .10945A-1- Date: 3/1Wo8~ - Appellant's Name: HOMEBUILDERS ASSN. OF METRO PORT A*Ia3;ovedAsToForm By. Date: Appellant's Address: !5555 SW Bangy Rd. #301 Denied As To Form By. City/State: Lake Oswego OR Zip: 97035 Date: Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached (50 684-1 880 liev. 7/1/07 c\ctupln\masters\land use applications\appeal land use app.doc Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: March 14, 2008 Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: Feb 26, 2008 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Attached ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Q Appeal Filing Form (completed) [/r Filing Fee (based on criteria below) > Directors Decision to Hearings Officer/Planning Commirs > FxpeditedReview (deposit) $ 300.00 > Hearing Referee $ MOD > Planning Commiss6VHeariirW%Officer to City council $ 2,513.00 7\arucripa Signature(s) Ap ellant(s): Home taiI ers Assn Metro Portland >e att -nor. of Local Gov'tUfairs M APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS (Cont'd.) The Home Builders Assn. is appealing the Director's interpretation because we believe it drastically changes the intent of Tigard's tree protection requirements, and elevates tree protection standards well beyond the purpose and the practical application of a type 3 application. The Director's interpretation is contrary to the letter of the code: Sec 18.790.010 B.1 "Encourage the reservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City." Sec 18.790.010 B.6 "Provide incentives for the retention and protection;..." Sec 18.790.030 "...protection is preferred to removal." These sections do not require anyone to save a tree as long as they are willing to mitigate for the loss of a tree. Nothing is said about protecting the maximum amount of existing viable trees, or any tree for that matter. It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to detemline if and when a tree can or should be saved. 1. To meet the terms of this interpretation, development cannot occur on dividable properties with trees unless a Type 3 process is used. 2. The cost of construction would spiral out of control if construction techniques that are used that "maximize" tree retention are required. State law requires that all jurisdictions must allow for an applicant to file a type 2 application provided they meet all of the provisions of the development code. Per the Director's interpretation, an applicant will now be REQUIRED to reduce the number of lots to maximize tree retentions stated in points 5, 6 an 7 of the interpretation. It is always possible to reduce the number of lots, use lot size averaging, and to reduce the width and depth of lots in order to maximize tree retention, however, this puts the applicant into the type 3 application process section of the code, which is OPTIONAL and entirely at the discretion of the applicant. Moreover, this interpretation does not provide a "CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE" standard from which a developer can base their decision to purchase developable property with trees on it. The type 3 application process is intended for sensitive sites, and is not intended to be used for the simple existence of a tree unless there is a link to an actual resource. Originally, the PD section of the code was written to accommodate wetlands and waterways, not trees, in order to. flex the density from the undevelopable portions of the land. A PD was never intended to protect trees unless they happened to be in a wetland. No other jurisdiction requires applicants to make these types of considerations. CITY OF TIGARD 3/14/2008 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2:33:13PM Tigard, OR 97223 503.639.4171 Receipt 27200800000000000851 Date: 03/14/2008 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid MIS2008-00005 (LANDUS] Interpretation of CDC 100-0000-438000 250.00 Line Item Total: $250.00 Payments: Method Paver User ID AcctJCheck No. Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check HOMEBUILDERS ASSN OF ST 14483 In Person 250.00 METRO PORTLAND Payment Total: $250.00 cReceipLrpt Page 1 of I q DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION a DATE: February 2b, 2008 CODE CHAPTER: 18.790 Tree Removal TOPIC: How should the statement, "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" in Section 18.790.030 be interpreted? How can an applicant demonstrate that they have adequately considered tree protection given code preference for protection over removal? DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION! I. Introduction A tree plan is required when a development application is filed:- 1& 790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. The plan rragad A ttve plan for the plantan& removal and pmtection of trees pmpand by a cowfred mborxrt shall be pmvdded for any loo panel or combination of lots orpamlC for which a development application for a subdivddan, partition, the development mew, planned development or conditional use is filed Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. Historically, applicants have been required to identify all of the trees on the site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. Any or all trees could be removed as long as they were appropriated mitigated. This process does not prioritize protection over removal as required by Section 18.790.030. In order to clarify the intent of the, "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" requirement, a Director's interpretation is needed. I.I. Interpretation One of the primary purposes of Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code is to preserve existing trees. Therefore, a development application is required to demonstrate that the site analysis and development plan protects the maximum amount of existing, viable trees (i.e. healthy and sustainable individuals or stands). The Cityrecognizes that some tree removal is unavoidable in order to meet certain planning and/or construction requirements as indicated in Section 18.790.010. A790.010 Purpose C. E ecog i need o~- woAdws, The City treagmtes that, notlvitbstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to rBmove wvi# trees in order to accommodate sAwckwrs, stlrets N94ties, and other needed or tvgmited impmvements rvitbin the development. In order to determine that preservation of viable trees has been adequately considered, the tree plan shall include a narrative that addresses the following: 1. How does the site, lot and/or building layout maximize tree retention? 2. How have improvements such as roads, driveways, utilities, and walkways been designed and located to maximize tree retention? 3. Have tree compatible construction techniques been considered and utilized wherever possible to maximize tree retention? (examples of tree compatible construction techniques include but are not limited to tunneling for utilities, "no-dig" pavement installation, and use of retaining walls in certain situations to limit root disturbance) 4. Is it possible to reduce the number of parking spaces to maximize tree retention? 5. Is it possible to reduce the total number of lots to maximize tree retention? 6. Could lot size averaging per Section 18.790.040(2) be utilized to maximize tree retention? 7. Could lot width and/or depth per section 18.790.040(3) be reduced in order to maximize tree retention? 8. How have buildings and building footprints been designed to maximize tree retention? 9. Are offske trees that may be impacted by development inventoried and adequately protected? 10. Describe additional techniques not mentioned above that have/will be used to maximize tree retention. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed development will preserve viable trees wherever possible may result in findings for denial of a development application. This interpretation shall become effective immediately. By: Tom Coffee e~ Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUN IL RESOLUTION NO. 07a A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN INTERIM TREE BOARD CHARGE STATEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE TREE PROTECTION AND URBAN FOREST ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the current charge of the Tree Board (Council resolution 01-02) requires it to, "develop and administer a comprehensive tree management program for the maintenance, removal, replacement and protection of trees on public property"; and WHEREAS, the Board's current charge does not provide the latitude for it to undertake other important community tasks related to stewardship of Tigard's tree resources; and WHEREAS, the City is engaged in update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Board's services are needed to address the important matters of tree stewardship and enhancement of the City's urban forest, because: a. Urban development has resulted in loss of trees; b. Trees and other natural resources contribute to Tigard's quality of life and overall environmental quality; c. Urban density, unless well designed, results in loss of trees and private open space; d. An attractive, treed environment is a component of an economically prosperous community; e. A balance is needed between tree stewardship and the need for efficient use of valuable urban lands; f. A sound technical basis is needed for useable and up-to-date tree codes and standards; g. Tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement provides civic engagement opportunities; and h. A healthy urban forest and its associated benefits require active management. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: For the purposes of developing a comprehensive City Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program, the Tree Board shall have the following responsibilities in addition to those spelled out in its existing mission statement, a. The Tree Board shall work with the Planning Commission to update the City's Comprehensive Plan by developing Comprehensive Plan background information (findings) and goals, policies, and action measures pertaining to tree stewardship and the contribution of trees and other vegetation to Tigard's quality of life. b. The Tree Board shall recommend updated goals, policies, action measures, and background information to the Planning Commission. The Board shall participate in the Commission's joint work sessions to review/discuss the same. These amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are subject to Planning Commission public hearings and recommendation to the City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 07 - Page 1 C. The Tree Board shall propose a tree stewardship program for Planning Commission consideration which shall consist of municipal code and land use regulations to implement the above "Trees and Vegetation" Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and action measures. Proposed Municipal and Development Code amendments shall be subject to review by the City Attorney. Proposed land-use code changes shall be subject to public hearings and recommendation to Council by the Planning Commission. The Tree Board shall participate with the Commission in work sessions to review/discuss the same. d. The Tree Board may also make other general recommendations to enhance urban forest resources for City consideration such as public education, incentives, tree planting programs, and arboriculture practices, etc. e. The Tree Board shall review recommendations from staff to develop specific interim tree code standards intended to prevent tree removal during the period it takes to develop the City's tree stewardship program. The Tree Board shall participate in work sessions with the Planning Commission prior to the Commission holding public hearings to recommend the interim standards to Council. f. The Tree Board, in consultation with the Planning Commission and Committee for Citizen Involvement, shall develop and implement a public information and involvement program to hear public concerns and suggestions regarding tree stewardship and urban forestry enhancement in Tigard. In addition, the Tree Board shall prepare a citizen involvement report as part of the record of its proceedings. g. Every three months the Tree Board shall forward a report of its progress to the City Council and Planning Commission. Initially, the Tree Board shall prepare a schedule and scope of work as the first step to implement this mission. SECTION 2: Upon adoption of the Tree Protection Program, the Tree Board's charge statement shall be reevaluated to address public issues associated with the urban forest and other natural resources as seen fit by the City Council SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This ~a -day of 2007. L (T Mayor - ity of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 07 -.3 Page 2 Agenda Item # 7 Meeting Date May 13, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title MIS2008-00005/Ap12eal of Director's Interpretation of the Tree Plan Requirement (Development Code Chapter 18.790.030). Prepared By: Todd Prager Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council uphold or deny the Home Builder's Association appeal of the Director's Interpretation of the Tree Plan Requirement ("Exhibit A") of Community Development Code Chapter 18.790.030? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the Home Builder's Association appeal of the Director's Interpretation and adopt the attached Resolution affirming the Director's Interpretation ("Attachment 1"). KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY - Chapter 18.790.030 (Tree Plan Requirement) of the Community Development Code clearly states "(Tree) Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." - Historically, land use applicants have developed site plans with little regard to existing trees, resulting in widespread . removals. - In response to past and present disregard for the tree preservation component of 18.790.030, the Community Development Director has issued a Director's Interpretation that outlines the clear and objective criteria by which tree plans shall be developed and reviewed. - 4The Homebuilder's Association of Metropolitan Portland has appealed the Director's Interpretation on the grounds that it has no basis in existing Code ("Attachment 3"). Chapter 18.340 (Director's Interpretation) of the Community Development Code requires the appeal to be addressed by City Council at a public hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Amend the Tree Code codifying the Director's interpretation and adding clear and objective standards relating to tree preservation. Uphold the appeal of the Homebuilder's Association and, by motion, reverse the Community Development Director's interpretation. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution Denying the Appeal Exhibit A: 2/26/08 Director's Interpretation Attachment 2: 4/28/08 Memo to Council Exhibit A: 4/21/08 "Draft" Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 3: Home Builder's Association Appeal Attachment 4: Resolution No. 07-30 FISCAL NOTES No known financial costs to the City of Tigard. AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: May 13, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE TREE PLAN REQUIREMENT - DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18-790.030 (MIS 2008-00005) Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony iAadm\cathy\city council\ccsignup\ph testimony - 080513 Appeal doc AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: May 13, 2008 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. *!F- L~ 6 ~f-KA A-i✓ ~ P , 0~ g7o7s X03 6 3 Y8 Name, Addrep&~P~ho~ne Npo. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. jrp3 , 2ikj . qnuo Name, Address P one No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. .Jrvn ~ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Cathy Wheatle o~ From: Craig Dirksen [craigd@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:30 AM To: Liz Newton; Craig Prosser; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Public Hearing - Director's Interpretation (Tree Removal) From: John Frewing[SMTP:JFREWING@TELEPORT.COM] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:11:03 PM To: Craig Dirksen Cc: Todd Prager; Tom Coffee Subject: Public Hearing - Director's Interpretation (Tree Removal) Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Dirksen and City Council Members, Below is the full text of my testimony as planned for tomorrow evening, May 13. 1 know that you want to limit the time of individual testimony, but I want you to consider fully the thoughts I offer, and I want you to have the exact reference to various code sections, so I have decided to provide this in advance. I hope to at least highlight portions of this material orally tomorrow evening. Please do consider the issues I raise. John Frewing TIGARD TREES - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION 5/13/08 1 appreciate the opportunity to support in major part the Director's interpretation issued on 2/26/08. My testimony is directed at compliance with the applicable approval criteria found in 18.340, 18.390 and 18.790. A: Untimely appeal. Section 18.340.020E requires appeals to be filed within 14 days of the Director's interpretation. In this case, the Director's interpretation was issued on 2/26/08 and the HBA appeal filed on 3/14/08. This is greater than the maximum 14 days allowed. Section 18.390.080A.2 of the code explains the rules for time computation; the day of issuance is not counted, and appeal on the last day of the computed time is allowed. In this case, Day 1 was Feb 27 and Day 14 was March 11. The HBA appeal failed to meet this code requirement by three days, and it is therefore untimely. The appeal should be denied. Alternatively, Section 18.340.020E states that an appeal may be filed pursuant to Section 18.390.040G2. This latter section, at 18.390.040G2.a.(1), states that an appeal shall be filed with the Director within ten business days from the issuance of the Director's interpretation. In this case, ten business days, with Feb 27 being Day 1, ends on March 11. The HBA appeal failed to meet this code requirement by three days, and it is therefore untimely. The appeal should be denied. HBA received fair notice of the proposed Director's opinion. The email from John Floyd providing public notice included as DIRECT ADDRESSEES people such as developer Alan DeHarpport (who sends comments to Tigard City Council on HBA stationery), engineer Bill McMonagle, arborist Walter Knapp, Steve R at srdllc, Troy M at srdllc, planner Jeff Caines, attorney William Rasmussen, builder Ken Gertz and Tom Wright of Group Mackenzie, all of whom have participated in land use matters before Tigard. Such distribution meets the code and Oregon legal standard of a `good faith' effort to contact affected persons (see eg 18.390.050F). B: The scope of the appeal is null and void. Section 18.390.040G2a.(2)(d) states that the notice of appeal by HBA "shall" contain a statement demonstrating that the specific issues raised on appeal were raised during the comment period. There were no issues raised during the comment period by HBA; therefore there is no basis for an appeal. The allowable range of appeal bases or reasons is empty; it should be denied. 1 The comment period began with the issuance on Feb 15 of an email from John Floyd to interested publics containing a draft of the Director's interpretation that was eventually issued on Feb 26. 1 was the only one to comment on this draft Director's interpretation, sent by return email to John Floyd on Feb 16. Section 18.390.040G2.b states that the scope of appeals under this chapter "shall" be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period unless the Hearings Officer (in this case, the City Council) allows additional evidence. The rationale for this rule is to "encourage (ing) persons with standing to submit their specific concerns in writing during the comment period" and "only in extraordinary circumstances" should any new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer. In this case, the city's Public Hearing Notice was clear that the appeal hearing will follow the code and any procedures adopted by the city council and available at city hall - there are no adopted waiver procedures noted in the Public Hearing Notice or available at city hall pertaining to this issue. Therefore, the content of the HBA appeal is null and void and hence there is no substantive appeal scope; it should be denied. C: No change in code intent; code clarification is permissible. Section 18.340.010 anticipates the need to clarify words of the Tigard development code. While the submittal of additional detail in a tree plan is added by the Director's interpretation, there is no change in intent. The code specifically allows the Director to `resolve(ing) ambiguities.' The ambiguities have arisen in land use proceedings before Tigard and LUBA where the meaning of `Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible' has been contested. ' The standards of approval, namely that the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the regulations and that protection has been afforded reasonable preference over removal, remain unchanged. All that has been clarified is a listing of information necessary for staff to make a finding on these standards. The appellants point to no code language prohibiting the interpretation proposed in this case. The RBA appeal should be denied. Now, for a couple suggested improvements in the Director's interpretation and its use. AA: The code should clarify that submittal of the required narrative is an `approval criterion,' not just an information request. The rationale for this suggestion lies in the fact that on appeal, items in the code which are only information requests are not considered - the only examination which LUBA makes regarding an appeal is whether the "approval criteria" have been satisfied. The solution to this situation is to retitle Section 18.790.030 as "Approval Criterion for Required Tree Plan" and then to append the Director's interpretation to the bottom of 18.390.030A. With such a clarification, the city will be on firm ground to say that 18.390.030 indeed is an approval criterion. BB: Requirement 8 of the Director's interpretation should have added after the word "footprints" the following in parentheses: "(as show on application drawings)". Not only is it necessary to know "how" buildings and building footprints have been designed, but one must also actually see the proposed layout of buildings and building footprints to make this judgment. Without this suggested improvement, a developer might simply say in his narrative that "buildings have been moved to the front of lots" or "building footprints have been designed to be narrow as viewed from the street" or similar qualitative words, without considering actually where the major trees on the site which can be saved might be located. CC: A new requirement should be added to the Director's interpretation stating, "Show overlays of tree locations on site drawings of infrastructure development (streets, sidewalks, grading, ditching for utilities, cable, etc) and individual lot development (building footprint, driveway, impervious walkways, ditching for drainage, irrigation, or other actions which may affect the root integrity of trees to be saved, etc)." As presently practiced, a developer provides one drawing showing trees on a site, including those to be saved, but this drawing does not show site infrastructure or lot developments which necessitate removal of trees. The reviewer is left to guess where a building might be located, or where utility ditching may occur. Little or no thought is given to where infrastructure or lot developments might be slightly altered to save important trees, and no instructions to subcontractors are provided for location of these features. Different Tigard staff persons may be involved in approving the location of these site features than the planning staff that is involved in permitting the development. The new requirement for coincident illustration of both trees and 2 infrastructure/lot development will allow Tigard planners to compare tree locations with such site work that would 'threaten trees. Finally, I provide an analysis of the HBA appeal filed March 14, 2008. AAA. The appeal must be garbled in its preparation. What possibly could the words of the first paragraph mean when the HBA claims that the interpretation "elevates tree protection standards well beyond the purpose and the practical application of a type 3 application"? What criterion is being addressed? Why is a type 3 application the standard for tree protection? How does the interpretation go beyond the requirements of a type 3 application? This statement of the issue is nonsense. BBB. The second paragraph (beginning `The Director's interpretation) cites code sections to assert that nowhere does the code require protecting the "maximum amount of existing viable trees or any tree, for that matter". Appelant HBA has simply not read the code. At 18.350.100B.3.a.(1), the code calls for preserving the existing trees to the greatest degree possible. At 18.360.090A.2.a.(1), the code calls for preserving existing trees where possible. At 18.360.090A2.b. the code requires that trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. At 18.790.01013.1, the code states that it is the purpose of the city to encourage the preservation of trees in the city. CCC. The third paragraph (beginning `These sections do not') of the appeal makes a vague charge that to meet the interpretation, development cannot occur on dividable properties with trees unless a Type 3 process is used. No code citations are provided. Such prohibition does not exist. While the interpretation does not change the approval criterion from its current `clear and objective' status (it simply requires some additional narrative information to enable staff to make findings on the approval criterion), even if the HBA were correct in saying the interpretation involves discretionary criteria, a Type lI decision process can indeed contain such discretionary criteria. See 18.390.020B.2. DDD. In the third paragraph, the claim is made that `the cost of construction would spiral out of control' if the Director's interpretation is implemented. Not the slightest whiff of evidence is provided anywhere in the appeal to support this claim. Without facts to support an opinion, the assertion is interesting but with no weight. EEE. In paragraph four (beginning with `State law'), the appeal says that an applicant under the Director's interpretation will be REQUIRED to reduce the number of lots to maximize tree retention, because of statements in points 5, 6, and 7 of the interpretation. These three points NOWHERE use the word `required'; all they do is ask the applicant to answer three questions in the affirmative or negative, indicating whether flexibility already existing in the code can be used. The Director's interpretation retains the same standards for approval of an application - a) is the requested information provided and b) has the applicant applied the various tools already in the code to retain the maximum number of trees. Thus, if the current standard for approval is clear and objective, then the standards under the Director's interpretation are clear and objective. No change in the decisionmaking process, from Type II to Type III is necessary. FFF. In paragraphs five and six (beginning with `The type 3'), the appeal claims that the PD section of the code is intended only for sites with sensitive lands, not those with trees that are otherwise not on sensitive lands. No reference to the applicable code sections or other basis for this claim is provided. In actuality, the code at 18.350.010 lists five purposes of the PD overlay zone - none of these five purposes mentions anything about sensitive lands. At 18.350.020A, the code clearly states that the PD designation is applicable to ALL zones. The PD regulations at 18.350.100B.3.a.(1) specifically require that existing trees be preserved to the greatest degree possible, without mentioning sensitive lands. Thus, one can conclude from the clear meaning of the English language in the code, that PD regulations are intended for a wide variety of lands, where trees shall be preserved. GGG. The last sentence of the appeal claims that no other jurisdiction requires applicants to make these type of considerations (the information requests stated in the Director's interpretation). This is simply not so. City of Portland code, at 33.630.300, which allows mitigation, just as does the Tigard code, states that mitigation as an option will be considered ONLY if `as many trees as possible are preserved'. The City of Portland code, at 33.248.065, requires applicants to show how tree protection requirements are met, much as the Director's interpretation in Tigard makes this requirement. Portland tree preservation and protection requirements are much like Tigard - construction fencing, prohibition of use which could hurt tree root protection zones, show location of water, sewer and other utility easements, show location of dry wells and soaking trenches, etc. City of Wilsonville code, at Section 4.610.00 makes the same 3 requirement as the Tigard Director's interpretation, namely that the applicant `shall provide complete information as 41 required by this chapter.' The Wilsonville code at Section 4.610.10 has a standard similar to Tigard regarding maximizing the preservation of trees - the applicant must show that tree removal is `necessary for construction,' and `that there is no feasible and reasonable location alternatives and design options on-site for proposed buildings, structures or other site improvements.' Wilsonville's tree preservation plan information requirements are similar to those of Portland and Tigard. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 503-245-5760 4 a! T~ J-- 7 Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland May 13, 2008 Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Metro HBA appeal of the Director's Interpretation Dated February 26, 2008, regarding Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal). Dear Mayor Dirksen and Councilors: As you know HBA filed its appeal of the Director's Decision dated February 26, 2008. HBA's purpose of the appeal is quite simple. The Director's interpretation has gone beyond the overall intent and practical application of Tigard's tree protection standards elevating tree protection well above the appropriate trigger for a type 3 application process. In essence, the Director's interpretation uses the mere existence of a tree as a catalyst dumping development applications with trees on site into a type 3 process simply due to the existence of trees regardless of their importance or significance. HBA believes we have sufficient basis for Council to dismiss the Director's Interpretation and grant our appeal request. No written request was included in the Director's Interpretation: Based on Section 18.340.020(A), in order for the Director to initiate an interpretation a written request is required. Based on the file information the Director violated this requirement by.p;esenting application from a third party making the request. Based on recent LUBA findings, when a jurisdiction requires a written application in advance of a Director's interpretation at any level, the requirement can not be waived for any reason. Failure to initiate a Director's interpretation from a written request is a jurisdictional error Because it does not allow the jurisdiction to make the interpretation and allows the Director to operate without proper oversight. This alone is reason enough to dismiss the Director's Interpretation. See Cushman v. City of Bend, November 5, 2007 (LUBA) (To invoke the hearings officer's authority to issue a declaratory ruling, a person with standing to do so must "initiate" a declaratory ruling, that is, file an application.) Director's interpretation is inconsistent with the text and context of the provision being interpreted: The text under consideration is the phrase: "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. " This phrase contains seven words in subsection 18.790.030 "Tree Plan Requirement" of Chapter 18.790. This subsection describes in general the preference for protection over removal. The phrase establishes no implied standard or approval criteria beyond a general goal statement. This statement does not establish anything close to a "maximum tree retention" standard as suggested in the Director's interpretation. In fact the word maximum is not alluded to at any point in Chapter 18.790 relative to tree protection or mitigation. The existing phrase merely expresses a preference and nothing more. Given the relevant approval criteria in the existing code an applicant is not even required to save trees, let alone establish a standard to "maximize tree retention". Based on our interpretation and the current language the existing code does not require or imply that development must "maximize tree retention". Simply put, the Planning Director's premise that such a standard is implicit or expressed in the code is not consistent with the written text or context of Chapter 18.790. Clear and Obiective Standard Under Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal), the phrase: "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. " Chapter 18.790 contains various subsections, each with its own approval criteria. Each of these subsections contains clear and objective standards that allow the City to apply these criteria, without the need for discretionary review, in compliance with ORS 197.307. Under subsection 18.790.030 mitigation and protection of trees that are not removed is the standard in place. Incentives for tree removal are provided for under Section 18.790.040, and Sections 18.790.050 and 060 describe requirements for tree removal permits and illegal tree removal, respectively. Collectively, these elements of Chapter 18.790 provide the implementation guidelines, yet none discuss, explain, present, or imply development will "maximize tree retention". The Director's interpretation converts the City's existing clear and objective Tree Removal standards into a series of discretionary approval standards that are inconsistent with the context, purposes, and policy of Chapter 18.790 and other relevant legal standards. The Director's interpretation establishes a new measurement with the use of "maximum tree retention" at nine of the ten criteria described. 2 If these new discretionary standards created by the Director's interpretation become part of the approval criteria for Tree Removal under Chapter 18.790, any proposed development on treed sites would require discretionary review. This creates an inconsistency within the text and context of the provision being interpreted and would violate ORS 197.307 and ORS 197.831. The Director has traded the existing seven word phrase with a newly established set of ten discretionary approval criteria attempting to "maximize tree retention". In essence, a private landowner is limited to one option for a permit pathway under the proposed Director's interpretation. New discretionary approval criteria The Director's interpretation creates ten new approval criteria in order to achieve the premise of "maximum tree retention." This element of the Director's interpretation establishes a legislative amendment to Section 18.790, not a simple interpretation of a provision in the Section. The cited phrase in Chapter 18.790 is a goal statement, not approval criteria. The choices made by the City Council that effect interpretation of this goal are set forth in the subsections of Chapter 18.790 outlined earlier. However, the Director determined the Council's choice of how to implement the protection goal in Section 18.790 did not go far enough, which is why the Director interpretation was made, establishing ten discretionary approval criteria in the process and forgoing a legislative process. In order to convert the goal statement into a set of new approval criteria a legislative process is required, not an administrative or quasi-judicial function. The Director's interpretation may well be an appropriate step for the City Council to consider, but not outside of a formal legislative process used to examine a set of ten discretionary approval criteria under the guise of an "interpretation" for a phrase in Section 18.790. The appropriate legislative process to consider this question would require the use of a Type IV legislative process, not a Type I administrative or Type II quasi-judicial process. Consideration of what "tree protection" means under Section 18.790 may be considered under a Type IV legislative review process, pursuant to Section 18.390.060, but this can obviously not be covered under this current conversation. Interpretative process under Section 18.340 is designed to serve a different purpose- which is to resolve terms or phrases in the code that are ambiguous and subject to two or more reasonable meanings. In this case, the Director's interpretation has gone too far, by creating ten new approval criteria, under the guise of interpreting a seven-word aspirational phrase in Section 18.790. The Director lacks jurisdiction to render this interpretation. It should therefore either be reversed or dismissed. 3 Summary: HBA believes that we have presented sufficient information to offer council reason to reverse or dismiss the Director's interpretation. If Council wants to modify or amend Chapter 18.790, then we recommend the use of a Type IV legislative process, not the current route the Director has taken. We have illustrated in our comments that this Director's interpretation failed to meet jurisdictional standards because the process was initiated with out proper written application. More itnportantly the Director's interpretation is attempting to establish a set of ten criteria to replace an existing seven word general goal forming phrase without using the proper legislative process denying not only council for input, but multiple interests in the community. For all of these arguments cited, HBA believes Director's interpretation should be dismissed or reversed, and our appeal should be granted. Respectfully submitted, Jim McCauley, V.P. Government Affairs Portland Metro Home Builders Association . ~ a 4 3• cis TIGARD TREES - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S. INTERPRETATION 7 5/13/08 I appreciate the opportunity to support in major part the Director's interpretation issued on 2/26/08. My testimony is directed at compliance with the applicable approval criteria found in 18.340, 18.390 and 18.790. A: Untimely appeal. Section 18.340.020E requires appeals to be filed within. 14 days of the Director's interpretation. In this case, the Director's interpretation was issued on 2/26/08 and the HBA appeal filed on 3/14/08. This is greater than the maximum 14 days allowed. Section 18.390.080A.2 of the code explains the rules for time computation; the day of issuance is not counted, and appeal on the last day of the computed time is allowed. In this case, Day 1 was Feb 27 and Day 14 was March 11. The HBA appeal failed to meet this code requirement by three days, and it is therefore untimely. The appeal should be denied. Alternatively, Section 18.340.020E states that an appeal may be filed pursuant to Section 18.390.040G2. This latter section, at 18.390.040G2.a.(1), states that an appeal shall be filed with the Director within ten business days from the issuance of the Director's interpretation. In this case, ten business days, with Feb 27 being Day 1, ends on March 11. The HBA appeal failed to meet this code requirement by three days, and it is therefore untimely. The appeal should be denied. HBA received fair notice of the proposed Director's opinion. The email from John Floyd providing public notice included as DIRECT ADDRESSEES people such as developer Alan DeHarpport (who sends comments to Tigard City Council on HBA stationery), engineer Bill McMonagle, arborist Walter Knapp, Steve R at srdllc, Troy M at srdllc, planner Jeff Caines, attorney William Rasmussen, builder Ken Gertz and Tom Wright of Group Mackenzie, all of whom have participated in land use matters before Tigard. Such distribution meets the code and Oregon legal standard of a `good faith' effort to contact affected persons (see eg 18.390.050F). B: The scope of the appeal is null and void. Section 18.390.040G2a.(2)(d) states that the notice of appeal by HBA "shall" contain a statement demonstrating that the specific issues raised on appeal were raised during the comment period. There were no issues raised during the comment period by HBA; therefore there is no basis for an appeal. The allowable range of appeal bases or reasons is empty; it should be denied. The comment period began with the issuance on Feb 15 of an email from John Floyd to interested publics containing a draft of the Director's interpretation that was eventually issued on Feb 26. 1 was the only one to comment on this draft Director's interpretation, sent by return email to John Floyd on Feb 16. Section 18.390.040G2.b states that the scope of appeals under this chapter "shall" be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period unless the Hearings Officer (in this case, the City Council) allows additional evidence. The rationale for this rule is to "encourage (ing) persons with standing to submit their specific concerns in writing during the comment period" and "only in extraordinary circumstances" should any new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer. In this case, the city's Public Hearing Notice was clear that the appeal hearing will follow the code and any procedures adopted by the city council and available at city hall - there are no adopted waiver procedures noted in the Public Hearing Notice or available at city hall pertaining to this issue. Therefore, the content of the HBA appeal is null and void and hence there is no substantive appeal scope; it should be denied. C: No chance in code intent, code clarification is permissible. Section 18.340.010 anticipates the need to clarify words of the Tigard development code. While the submittal of additional detail in a tree plan is added by the Director's interpretation, there is no change in intent. The code specifically allows the Director to `resolve(ing) ambiguities.' The ambiguities have arisen in land use proceedings before Tigard and LUBA where the meaning of `Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible' has been contested. The standards of approval, namely that the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the regulations and that protection has been afforded reasonable preference over removal, remain unchanged. All that has been clarified is a listing of information necessary for staff to make a finding on these standards. The appellants point to no code language prohibiting the interpretation proposed in this case. The HBA appeal should be denied. Now, for a couple suggested improvements in the Director's interpretation and its use. AA: The code should clarify that submittal of the required narrative is an `approval criterion,' not just an information request. The rationale for this suggestion lies in the fact that on appeal, items in the code which are only information requests are not considered - the only examination which LUBA makes regarding an appeal is whether the "approval criteria" have been satisfied. The solution to this situation is to retitle Section 18.790.030 as "Approval Criterion for Required Tree Plan" and then to append the Director's interpretation to the bottom of 18.390.030A. With such a clarification, the city will be on firm ground to say that 18.390.030 indeed is an approval criterion. BB: Requirement 8 of the Director's interpretation should have added after the word "footprints" the following in parentheses: "(as show on application drawings)". Not only is it necessary to know "how" buildings and building footprints have been designed, but one must also actually see the proposed layout of buildings and building footprints to make this judgment. Without this suggested improvement, a developer might simply say in his narrative that "buildings have been moved to the front of lots" or "building footprints have been designed to be narrow as viewed from the street" or similar qualitative words, without considering actually where the major trees on the site which can be saved might be located. CC: A new requirement should be added to the Director's interpretation stating, "Show overlays of tree locations on site drawings of infrastructure development (streets, sidewalks, grading, ditching for utilities, cable, etc) and individual lot development (building footprint, driveway, impervious walkways, ditching for drainage, irrigation, or other actions which may affect the root integrity of trees to be saved, etc)." As presently practiced, a developer provides one drawing showing trees on a site, including those to be saved, but this drawing does not show site infrastructure or lot developments which necessitate removal of trees. The reviewer is left to guess where a building might be located, or where utility ditching may occur. Little or no thought is given to where infrastructure or lot developments might be slightly altered to save important trees, and no instructions to subcontractors are provided for location of these features. Different Tigard staff persons may be involved in approving the location of these site features than the planning staff that is involved in permitting the development. The new requirement for coincident illustration of both trees and infrastructure/lot development will allow Tigard planners to compare tree locations with such site work that would threaten trees. Finally, I provide an analysis of the HBA appeal filed March 14, 2008. AAA. The appeal must be garbled in its preparation. What possibly could the words of the first paragraph mean when the HBA claims that the interpretation "elevates tree protection standards well beyond the purpose and the practical application of a type 3 application"? What criterion is being addressed? Why is a type 3 application the standard for tree protection? How does the interpretation go beyond the requirements of a type 3 application? This statement of the issue is nonsense. BBB. The second paragraph (beginning `The Director's interpretation) cites code sections to assert that nowhere does the code require protecting the "maximum amount of existing viable trees or any tree, for that matter". Appelant HBA has simply not read the code. At 18.350.10013.3.a.(1), the code calls for preserving the existing trees to the greatest degree possible. At 18.360.090A.2.a.(1), the code calls for preserving existing trees where possible. At 18.360.090A2.b. the code requires that trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. At 18.790.01013.1, the code states that it is the purpose of the city to encourage the preservation of trees in the city. CCC. The third paragraph (beginning `These sections do not') of the appeal makes a vague charge that to meet the interpretation, development cannot occur on dividable properties with trees unless a Type 3 process is used. No code citations are provided. Such prohibition does not exist. While the interpretation does not change the approval criterion from its current `clear and objective' status (it simply requires some additional narrative information to enable staff to make findings on the approval criterion), even if the HBA were correct in saying the interpretation involves discretionary criteria, a Type II decision process can indeed contain such discretionary criteria. See 18.390.020B.2. DDD. In the third paragraph, the claim is made that `the cost of construction would spiral out of control' if the Director's interpretation is implemented. Not the slightest whiff of evidence is provided anywhere in the appeal to support this claim. Without facts to support an opinion, the assertion is interesting but with no weight. EEE. In paragraph four (beginning with `State law'), the appeal says that an applicant under the Director's interpretation will be REQUIRED to reduce the number of lots to maximize tree retention, because of statements in points 5, 6, and 7 of the interpretation. These three points NOWHERE use the word `required'; all they do is ask the applicant to answer three questions in the affirmative or negative, indicating whether flexibility already existing in the code can be used. The Director's interpretation retains the same standards for approval of an application - a) is the requested information provided and b) has the applicant applied the various tools already in the code to retain the maximum number of trees. Thus, if the current standard for approval is clear and objective, then the standards under the Director's interpretation are clear and objective. No change in the decisionmaking process, from Type II to Type III is necessary. FFF. In paragraphs five and six (beginning with `The type 3'), the appeal claims that the PD section of the code is intended only for sites with sensitive lands, not those with trees that are otherwise not on sensitive lands. No reference to the applicable code sections or other basis for this claim is provided. In actuality, the code at 18.350.010 lists five purposes of the PD overlay zone - none of these five purposes mentions anything about sensitive lands. At 18.350.020A, the code clearly states that the PD designation is applicable to ALL zones. The PD regulations at 18.350.10013.3.a.(1) specifically require that existing trees be preserved to the greatest degree possible, without mentioning sensitive lands. Thus, one can conclude from the clear meaning of the English language in the code, that PD regulations are intended for a wide variety of lands, where trees shall be preserved. GGG. The last sentence of the appeal claims that no other jurisdiction requires applicants to make these type of considerations (the information requests stated in the Director's interpretation). This is simply not so. City of Portland code, at 33.630.300, which allows mitigation, just as does the Tigard code, states that mitigation as an option will be considered ONLY if `as many trees as possible are preserved'. The City of Portland code, at 33.248.065, requires applicants to show how tree protection requirements are met, much as the Director's interpretation in Tigard makes this requirement. Portland tree preservation and protection requirements are much like Tigard - construction fencing, prohibition of use which could hurt tree root protection zones, show location of water, sewer and other utility easements, show location of dry wells and soaking trenches, etc. City of Wilsonville code, at Section 4.610.00 makes the same requirement as the Tigard Director's interpretation, namely that the applicant `shall provide complete information as required by this chapter.' The Wilsonville code at Section 4.610.10 has a standard similar to Tigard regarding maximizing the preservation of trees - the applicant must show that tree removal is `necessary for construction,' and `that there is no feasible and reasonable location alternatives and design options on-site for proposed buildings, structures or other site improvements.' Wilsonville's tree preservation plan information requirements are similar to those of Portland and Tigard. -TES ti YYI or, y PORTLAND,ORE N 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue SEATTLE, WASHINGGOTON Portland, Oregon 97204.3699 -7 O MILLER NASH«P VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON OFFICE 503.224.5858 FAX 503.224.0155 ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Phillip E. Grillo phil.grillo@millernash.com (503) 205-2311 direct line May 13, 2oo8 BY HAND DELIVERY Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland Appeal of Director's Interpretation Dated February 26, 2oo8, re Code Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) Dear Mayor Dirksen and Councilors: I am writing on my own behalf in support of the Homebuilders' appeal of the Planning Director's February 26, 2oo8, interpretation concerning a phrase in r, Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal). I am participating in this appeal because I am concerned about the impact of this interpretation on future land use applications, and because I am concerned about its effect on the way future directors' interpretations are initiated. 1. The Planning Director's interpretation is inconsistent with the text and context of the provision being interpreted. a) The text of the phrase "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" is a phrase in the "Tree Plan Required" subsection of Chapter 18.7ooo that expresses a general preference for protection over removal. This phrase is expressed as an aspirational statement, not as an approval criteria. Even if the phrase could be interpreted to be intended as an approval criteria, the preference expressed in that phrase does not require "maximum protection" of trees, as suggested by the Planning Director's interpretation. It merely expresses a preference. As the Homebuilders' appeal correctly points out, the relevant approval criteria in the code do not require an applicant to save trees, let alone protect the maximum number of trees. Instead, Section 18.790.03o requires mitigation and PDXDOCS:1698825.1 PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON MILLER NASHL11 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members May 13, 20o8 Page 2 protection of trees that are not removed. Section 18.790.040 provides incentives for tree retention, and Sections 18.790.05o and o6o outline the requirements for tree removal permits and illegal tree removal, respectively. Read in context, the code does not require "maximum protection" of trees. In short, the Planning Director's premise that such a standard is implicit or expressed in the code is contrary to the text and context of the provision. b) In the context of Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal), this phrase has been implemented through a series of clear and objective approval criteria that provide the City, the applicant and the public with specific mitigation requirements and F incentives for tree removal. As outlined above, Chapter 18.790 contains various subsections, each with its own approval criteria. Each of these subsections contain clear and objective standards that allow the City to apply these criteria ministerially, without the need for discretionary review, in compliance with ORS 197.307. c) The Planning Director's interpretation converts the City's clear and objective Tree Removal standards into a series of discretionary approval standards that are inconsistent with the context purposes and policy of Chapter 18.790 and other relevant legal standards. If these new discretionary standards created by the Planning Director's interpretation become part of the approval criteria for Tree Removal under Chapter 18-790, proposed development on treed sites would require discretionary review, even if the existing clear and objective approval criteria are met. Such a result is inconsistent with the text and context of the provision being interpreted and would violate ORS 197.3o7 and ORS 1cZZ8~1 with regard to the development of needed housing on treed sites because it would no longer be possible to approve a permit under Chapter 18 79o on treed sites solely through the application of clear and objective approval criteria. The Planning Director's decision creates ten new approval criteria, which would purportedly be used to determine if "preservation of viable trees has been adequately considered," in order to achieve the Planning Director's premise of "maximum tree retention." The Homebuilders are legitimately concerned that by adding a set of ten discretionary approval criteria aimed at achieving maximum tree retention" on a given site, residential development on treed lots will not comply with ORS 197.307's requirement for clear and objective standards to apply to applications for development of needed housing. PDXDOCS:1698825.1 O PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON MILLER NASHLLP VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members May 13, 2008 Page 3 2. The Planning Director's action adds ten new discretionary approval criteria to Section 18.790, it is therefore a legislative amendment to Section 18.79O, rather an interpretation of a provision in that section. a) The cited provision is a goal statement, not an approval criteria. The phrase "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" is not expressed as an approval criteria, but rather as a goal statement. The choices made by the City of effect this goal are set forth in the above-mentioned subsections of Section 18.790, and are alluded to by the Planning Director in his interpretation. In essence, the Planning Director's view is that Council's choice of how to implement the "protection" goal in Section 18.79o did not go far enough. 4 b) The act of converting a goal statement into a set of new approval criteria is a legislative function, not an administrative or quasi judicial function. The Planning Director's view that Council has not gone far enough to implement the "protection" goal is a legitimate policy question for Council to consider. It is not, however, a legal basis for creating a set of ten discretionary approval criteria under the guise of an "interpretation" of a phrase in Section 18.790. c) If Council wishes to legislate changes to Chapter 18.790, it may do so through a Type IV legislative process, not a T)pe I ministerial or Type II quasi-judicial process. The means by which "tree protection" occurs under Section 18.790 may be reconsidered under a Type IV legislative review process, pursuant to Section 18.390.060. The interpretative process under Section 18.340 is designed to serve a different purpose-which is to resolve terms or phrases in the code that are ambiguous and subject to two or more reasonable meanings. In this case, the Planning Director's interpretation has gone too far, by creating ten new approval criteria, under the guise of interpreting a seven-word aspirational phrase in Section 18.790. V. 3. The Planning Director lacked jurisdiction to render this interpretation. It should therefore either be reversed or dismissed. a) Pursuant to Section 18.340.020(A), no party filed a written application to the Director requesting an interpretation. Section 18.340.020(A) requires that an interpretation be initiated by a written request. No written request preceded the Director's February 26, 2008, interpretation. This error violated Section 18.340.020(A). PDXDOCS:1698825.1 O PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON MILLER HASH... VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members May 13, 2oo8 Page 4 b) LUBA has recently found that when a written application for an interpretation is required under the local code, it is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived. Failure to file a written application as provided under the local code is not a procedural error. On the contrary, such error deprives the city of jurisdiction to render such an interpretation. The above-mentioned error is not merely a technical or procedural error. When the local code contains a requirement for a written application in order to initiate a director's interpretation, failure to do so is a jurisdictional error. See Cushman v. City of Bend, November 5, 2007 (LUBA) (To invoke the hearings officer's authority to issue a declaratory ruling, a person with standing to do so must "initiate" a declaratory ruling, that is, file an application.) c) This appeal should be granted and the Planning Director's interpretation should be either reversed or dismissed. If Council wishes to amend Chapter 18.790, it should do so through a Type IV legislative process, not through a Director's Interpretation process. The Planning Director exceeded his authority by issuing this interpretation. He also exceeded his authority by failing to properly initiate the process under Section 18.340 by creating new approval criteria for Section 18.790, through an "interpretation" process, rather than through a legislative process. Finally, he exceeded his authority by interpreting a phrase in a manner that is contrary to the text and context of the provision being interpreted. For all of these reasons, the Planning Director's interpretation should be dismissed or reversed, and the Homebuilders' appeal should be granted. Very truly ours, 1 Phillip . Grillo PDXDOCS:1698825.1 Chapter 18.340 DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATIONS Sections 18.340.010 Purpose 18.340.020 Procedure 18.340.010 Purpose A. Purpose. It is anticipated that some terms or phrases within the Code may be ambiguous and therefore subject to two or more reasonable meanings. Because it is not possible to identify or remove all ambiguities in the Code, a process should be established for resolving these ambiguities in advance of or concurrent with applying for a particular permit or other action. Director's Interpretations provides a process for resolving ambiguities in such a manner. All Director's Interpretations are subject to appeal to the City Council as provided below. 18.340.020 Procedure A. Requests. A request for an interpretation shall be made in writing to the Director. The Director may develop guidelines to and in the application process. B. Decision to issue. The Director shall have the authority to consider the request for an interpretation.. The Director shall respond within 14 days after the request is made, as to whether or not the Director' will issue the requested interpretation. C. Director may decline. The Director is authorized to issue or decline to issue a requested. interpretation. The Director's decision to issue or decline to issue an interpretation is final when such. . . decision is mailed to the party requesting the interpretation and such decision is not subject to any further local appeal. D. Written interpretation mailed. If the Director decides to issue an interpretation as requested, it shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to the person requesting the interpretation and any other person that has specifically requested a copy of such interpretation. E. Appeal to City Council. The applicant and any party who received such notice or who participated in the proceedings through the submission of written or verbal evidence of an interpretation may appeal the Director's Interpretation to the City Council within 14 days after the interpretation was mailed to the applicant. The appeal may be initiated by filing a notice of appeal with the Director pursuant to Section 18.390.040 G2. F. Appeal procedure. City Council shall hear all appeals of a Director's interpretation as a Type III action pursuant to Section 18.390.050D, except that notice of the hearing shall be provided to the applicant, any other party who has filed a notice of appeal, and any other person who has requested notice. G. Final decision/effective date. The decision of the City Council on an appeal of a Director Interpretation shall be final and effective when notice of the decision is mailed to the applicant, provided however, that if the applicant is the Director or the City Council, the decision is final and effective when made. Director's Interpretations 18.340-1 Code Update: 01/00 H. Interpretations on file. The Director shall keep on file in the Department of Community Development a record of all Director's Interpretations. (Ord. 99-22)■ Director's Interpretations 18.340-2 Code Update: 01/00 Chapter 18.790 TREE REMOVAL Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Permit Applicability 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to,eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; Tree Removal 18.790-1 SE Update: 10104 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices; 5. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 6. "Tree" means a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level; 7. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Tree Removal 18.790-2 SE Update: 10104 C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus 'shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25%, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off- Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. Tree Removal 18.790-3 SE Update: 10104 C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. ' Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. Tree Removal 18.790-4 SE Update: 10104 E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding DA. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; ol- d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; Tree Removal 18.790-5 SE Update: 10104 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu-of payments In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive.■ Tree Remove! 18.790-6 SE Update: 10104 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON NOV05,0-.7 AmI0.25 LUBCA 4 CATHERINE E. CUSHMAN, 5 Petitioner, 6 7 vs. DECEIVED BY 8 9 CITY OF BEND, NOV 0 6 2007 10 Respondent, 11 MILLER NASH LLF 12 and 13 14 BROKEN TOP COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 15 Intervenor-Respondent. 16 17 LUBA No. 2007-088 18 19 FINAL OPINION 20 AND ORDER 21. 22 Appeal from City of Bend. 23 24 Stephanie M. Hicks, Bend, filed the petition for review and a cross-respondent's brief 25 and argued on behalf of petitioner. With her on the briefs was Ball Janik LLP. 26 27 No appearance by City of Bend. 28 29 Phillip E. Grillo, Portland, Portland, filed the cross-petition for review and response 30 brief and argued on behalf of intervenor-respondent. With him on the briefs were Lisa D.T. 31 Klemp, Redmond, Edward Fitch, Redmond, Bryant Emerson & Fitch LLP and Miller Nash 32 LLP. 34 BASSHAM, Board Member; HOLSTUN, Board Chair; RYAN, Board Member, 35 participated in the decision. 36 37 REMANDED 11/05/2007 38 39 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the 40 provisions of ORS 197.850. Page l 1 Opinion by Bassham. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioner appeals a hearings officer's declaratory ruling that petitioner's use of a 4 'building as a real estate sales office adjacent to the Broken Top Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD) is illegal. 6 REPLY BRIEF 7 Intervenor-Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Broken Top Community Association 8 (BTCA) moves to file a reply brief to address waiver and other issues raised in the response 9 to BTCA's cross-petition. We agree that the reply brief is warranted under our rules, and it is 10 allowed. 11 FACTS 12 In 1991, Cascade Highlands, Inc. (the developer), applied to the county for 13 conditional use and master plan approval for a proposed PUD located on property outside the 14 City of Bend but within the city's urban growth boundary. At that time the relevant county 15 ordinances allowed as conditional uses "temporary subdivision tract offices" and "community 16 buildings," and generally prohibited commercial uses in the applicable zone. The county 17 approved the PUD master plan in 1992 (hereafter, the 1992 PUD). Condition 14 of the 1992 .18 PUD required the developer to obtain site plan approval for a "sales office." 19 In 1992, the developer applied for site plan approval for an administrative building, a 20 gate, and a temporary construction office on Tract H of the PUD. Tract H is located at the 21 entrance to the Broken Top PUD, just outside the PUD. In the application, the developer 22 stated that the administrative building would "serve as the information and sales headquarters 23 for the Broken Top Development." Record 802. The building was to include offices, 24 meeting rooms, reception and sales display area, and a small library. The application also 25 noted that the "building may also serve as a community center at project buildout." Id. Page 2 1 The county approved the site plan (hereafter, the 1992 site plan). The 1992 site plan 2 decision notes that the developer had originally proposed a third building, a manufactured 3 home, as a temporary sales office, but had deleted the third building from the site. plan. The 4 decision noted that the parking layout had been designed with the temporary sales office in 5 mind, and it "may be changed with the sales office to be combined with the administrative 6 building." Record 796. The decision approves the site plan for an "administrative 7 building/sales office." Record 131. The developer then constructed the 5,000-square foot 8 administrative building that is at issue in this appeal. 9 Shortly after the administrative building was constructed, the developer allowed 10 petitioner to operate a real estate sales business in the building, limited to sales of Broken 11 Top PUD properties. Intervenor BTCA also leased a portion of the building for some time. 12 In 1996, petitioner opened a real estate sales office elsewhere in the city and moved her real 13 estate business there. Petitioner continued selling lots within the Broken Top PUD, and also 14 sold property outside the PUD. In 1998, at the request of the developer, petitioner moved her 15 business back into the building on Tract H, with the understanding that she could continue to 16 sell property both within and outside the Broken Top PUD. At that time most of her sales 17 involved Broken Top PUD properties. 18 In 1998, the city annexed the Broken Top PUD. In 1999, the developer put the 19 administrative building on the market as a residential dwelling. The city advised the 20 developer that a master plan amendment would be necessary to convert the use of Tract H to 21 residential use, and the property was taken off the market. In 2001, as part of an update to the 22 PUD master plan, the developer assigned a single unit of residential density to Tract H. That 23 action was one step toward making it possible. to use Tract H:as a residential lot, but the 24 developer took no further steps. Instead,. in 2003, after offers to sell:.the property to BTCA 25 and a nearby golf club were. declined, the developer sold Tract H to petitioner for $133 26 million. Petitioner has continued to operate her real estate business from the building. At the Page 3 1 time of the proceedings before the hearings officer, most of her sales involved properties 2 outside the Broken Top PUD. 3 In 2005, the president of the BTCA filed a code complaint with the city, arguing that 4 use of the building for a permanent real estate sales office that is not limited to Broken Top 5 properties is illegal. The city investigated and declined to prosecute, concluding that the 6 1992 PUD and site plan approvals did not specify that the "sales office" cease operations 7 upon build-out and did not expressly limit sales to Broken Top PUD lots. 8 In 2006, BTCA filed an application for a declaratory ruling pursuant to Bend City 9 Code (BCC) 4.1.1400, which permits the property owner, the permit-holder, or the city 10 planning director to request an interpretation of a land use permit "in which there is doubt or 11 a dispute as to its meaning or application." The city advised BTCA that the application was 12 incomplete and allowed BTCA 30 days to submit the missing information. BTCA did so, 13 and its declaratory ruling application was deemed complete as of October 31, 2006. 14 On November 7, 2006, petitioner's attorney argued to the city that BTCA is neither 15 the owner of the subject property nor the permit-holder and did not have standing to apply for 16 a declaratory riling. In a letter dated November 13, 2006, the city planning director 17 informed planning division staff that the planning director "joins" in the BTCA application. 18 Record 655. The planning.director did not file an application or otherwise participate in the 19 declaratory ruling proceeding. 20 The hearings officer conducted a hearing on January 25, 2007 and, on March 1, 2007, 21 issued a decision finding that petitioner's use of the building is unlawful. Petitioner appealed 22 the decision to the city council, which declined to hear the appeal. This appeal followed. 23 FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 24 The first three assignments of error raise common issues under BCC 4.1.1410 et seq., 25 and we address them together. Page 4 1 BCC 4.1.1410(A) establishes a process to request from the city an interpretation of a 2 comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation, or a provision or limitation in a land 3 use permit, where there is doubt or a dispute regarding the provision's meaning or 4 applicaiion.1 BCC 4.1.1410(B) and (C) limit the scope and availability of the declaratory 5 ruling process. 2. Further, BCC 4.1.1415(A) limits the persons who may "initiate a declaratory 6 ruling" to (1) the owner of a property relating to the use of that property, (2) the holder of the BCC 4.1.1410(A) provides in relevant part: "Subject to the other provisions of this section, there shall be available for the City's comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, the subdivision and partition ordinance and this ordinance a process for: 111. Interpreting a provision of a comprehensive plan or ordinance (and other documents incorporated by reference) in which there is doubt or a dispute as to its meaning or application; "2. Interpreting a provision or limitation in .a land use permit issued by the City or quasi- judicial plan amendment or zone change in which there is doubt or a dispute as to its meaning or application[.] "Such a determination or interpretation shall be known as a `declaratory ruling' and shall be processed in accordance with this chapter. In all cases, as part of making a determination or interpretation the Planning Director (where appropriate) or Hearings Body (where appropriate) shall have the authority to declare the rights and obligations of persons affected by the ruling." 2 BCC 4.1.1410(B) and (C) provide, in relevant part: "B. A declaratory ruling shall be available only in instances. involving a fact-specific controversy and to resolve and determine the particular rights and obligations of particular parties to the controversy. "Declaratory proceedings sha11 not be used to grant an advisory, opinion on a specific quasi-judicial land use application. Declaratory proceedings shall not be. used as a substitute for seeking an amendment of general applicability to a legislative enactment. "C. Declaratory rulings shall not be used as a substitute for an appeal of a decision in a land use action or for a modification of an approval.. * * Page 5 I permit, where the request is to interpret a permit provision, and (3) the planning director.' 2 No other person is authorized by BCC 4.1.1415(A) to initiate a declaratory ruling. 3 BCC 4.1.1415(B) describes how a request for a declaratory ruling is initiated, and 4 specifies that each application for a declaratory ruling "shall include the precise question on 5 which a ruling is sought."4 Finally, BCC 4.1.1420 provides that the procedures for making 6 declaratory rulings shall be the same as set forth in the development ordinance for land use 7 actions, and that, in cases where the planning director is the applicant, the planning director 8 bears "the same burden that applicants generally bear in pursuing a land use action."' 9 The hearings officer agreed with petitioner that BTCA did not have standing to 10 initiate a declaratory ruling proceeding under BCC 4.1.1415, because BTCA is neither the. ' BCC 4.1.1415(A) is entitled "Persons Who May Apply" and provides: "Subsection 4.1.215(B); Application Requirements notwithstanding, the following persons may initiate a declaratory ruling under this chapter: 111. The owner of a property requesting a declaratory ruling relating to the use of the owner's property; "2. In cases where the request is to interpret a previously issued quasi-judicial plan amendment, zone change or land use permit, the holder of the permit; or " 3. In all cases arising under Section 4.1.1410; Availability of Declaratory Ruling, the Planning Director. "No other person shall be entitled to initiate a declaratory ruling." ° BCC 4.1.1415(B) provides: "A request for a declaratory ruling shall be initiated by filing an application with the Planning Division and, except for applications initiated by the Planning Director, shall be accompanied .by such fees as have been set by the Planhing Division. Each application for a declaratory ruling shall include the precise question on which a ruling is sought-. The application shall set forth whatever facts are relevant and necessary for making the determination and such other information as may be required by the Planning Division." BCC 4.1.1420 provides: 'Except as set forth in this chapter or in applicable provisions of a zoning ordinance, the procedures for making declaratory rulings shall be the same as set forth in this ordinance for lahd use actions. Where the Planning Division is the applicant, the Planning Division shall bear the same burden that applicants generally bear in pursuing a iand .use action." Page 6 I owner of the property nor the permit holder.6 However, the hearings officer concluded that 2 she had the authority to rule on BTCA's application after the planning director "joined in" the 3 application.7 In the first assignment of error, petitioner asserts three challenges to that 4 conclusion. First, petitioner argues the application was void ab initio because it was filed by 5 a party that had no standing to initiate a declaratory ruling, and therefore there was nothing to 6 "join." Second, BCC 4.1.1415 specifies that a declaratory ruling proceeding must be initiated 7 by filing an application, and petitioner contends the director filed no application. Finally, 8 petitioner argues the hearings officer erred in presuming that the planning director would 9 have initiated a declaratory ruling or specified the same legal "question on which a ruling is 10 sought," and erred in assuming the planning director would have taken on the burden of proof 11 on the question. 12 Under the second assignment of error, petitioner challenges the hearings officer's 13 finding that a hypothetical application initiated by the planning director "would be based on 14 exactly the same facts and legal issues, and would involve exactly the same parties." 15 According to petitioner, the evidence in the record supports the opposite conclusion, that the 16 planner director. disagreed with BTCA over the lawfulness of petitioner's use of the disputed 17 building, and in fact had previously determined it was lawful. Petitioner contends that there 6.BTCA filed across-petition for review challenging the conclusion that it is not a property owner or permit holder entitled to initiate a declaratory ruling proceeding under BCC 4.1.1415. We address the cross-petition below and conclude that the hearings officer did not err in that respect. The hearings officer concluded, in relevant part: "The property owner argues the city cannot establish its standing to request a declaratory. ruling through BTCA's application because [the planning director] did not actually initiate the request through the filing of an application as required by [BCC 4.1.1210(B)]. The property owner apparently does not dispute that [the planning director] could have filed the application himself. The Hearings Officer finds no legitimate purpose would be served by dismissing this proceeding and requiring [the planning director] to file another application and initiate another proceeding that would be based on exactly the same facts and legal issues and would involve exactly the same parties. I find that under these circumstances [the planning director] effectively initiated this declaratory ruling proceeding by submitting his letter." Record 33, Page 7 1 is no support in the record for her assumption that a hypothetical. application by the planning 2 director would have framed the "precise question" in the manner BTCA did. 3 Under the third assignment of error, petitioner challenges the hearings officer's 4 finding that the planning director carried his burden of proo£8 According to.petitioner, the 5 planning director made no appearance below other than the single fetter, in which he stated 6 that he did not agree with BTCA regarding the lawfulness of petitioner's use.9 Petitioner $ The hearings officer found, as relevant: "The applicant [BTCA] submitted a declaratory ruling application on September 26, 2006, accompanied by the required fee. The applicant submitted initial and supplemental burdens of proof as well as supporting evidence and written and oral testimony. The applicant's burden of proof statements describe in detail the bases of its belief that the existing use on the subject property is unlawful. The Hearings Officer has found that although the applicant did not have standing to initiate this declaratory ruling proceeding, the planning director's act of joining the applicant's request effectively initiated these proceedings under [BCCJ 4.1.1415. "As discussed above, the property owner argues that because the planning director did not actually file an application for a declaratory ruling, the procedures required by this paragraph were not followed. In addition, the property owner argues that because the planning director stated the city does not agree with the applicant's position he therefore did not meet the declaratory ruling applicant's burden of proof. The Hearings Officer disagrees. The city's declaratory ruling provisions do not establish traditional approval criteria with which the applicant must demonstrate compliance. Rather, [BCC] 4.1.1410 merely requires the applicant to show the reason for the declaratory ruling request falls within one of the listed categories. In other words, [BCC] 4.1.1410 does not require the declaratory ruling applicant to demonstrate an existing use violates or complies with a previously issued land use permit, but only that there is a dispute about such compliance. Therefore, the burden of proof is identical for the applicant and the planning director, and it does not matter whether they disagree about the lawfulness of the use at issue." Record 34-35. 9 The planning director's letter states, in full: "I am writing to confirm that the Community Development Department joins with [BTCA] for the purpose of determining `the lawfulness of the commercial use of the premises located at 61999 Broken Top Drive, Bend, Oregon.' "I have been aware of significant questions raised by [BTCA], and agree with the Association that.the history of this matter is sufficiently arguable. While the City does not agree with the Association's position on the lawfulness of the commercial use, the City does believe that the Declaratory Ruling process is the most appropriate procedural method to resolve the question whether the existing use of the building is lawfiil. "It is the City's interpretation of [BCC] 4.1.1415(A)(3), that my joining with this application ' constitutes my initiation of the Declaratory Ruling process for the purpose of authorizing the filing of the process." Record 592. Pane 8 I argues that by. allowing BTCA to present all the evidence supporting the application while the 2 director remained silent, the city wrongfully shifted the burden of proof that BCC 4.1.1420 3 assigns to the planning director to BTCA. 4 BTCA responds that the hearings officer did not err in allowing the planning director 5 to "join" BTCA's application and thereby cure whatever lack of authority BTCA might have 6 to initiate the disputed declaratory ruling. According to intervenor, the issue identified in 7 BTCA's application and the issue identified in the planning director's November 13, 2006 8 letter are identical: whether petitioner's current use of the administrative building is lawful. 9 Intervenor agrees with the hearings -officer that no purpose would be served by requiring the 10 planning director to submit a new declaratory ruling application or to submit evidence that 11 would simply replicate the evidence that BTCA had already submitted into the record. 12 Intervenor disputes petitioner's view that BTCA's application was a "nullity" and void from 13 the outset, noting that the hearings officer had not yet ruled on BTCA's standing at the time 14 the planning director submitted his letter. 15 Finally, intervenor argues that even if the hearings officer erred in 'allowing the 16 planning director to "initiate" the application by joining BTCA's application, the error is at 17 most a procedural error. Intervenor contends that petitioner has not established that any 18 procedural error prejudiced petitioner's substantial rights to participate in the proceedings 19 below. 20 Although it is a close question, we agree with petitioner that the hearings officer erred 21 in concluding that the planning director's letter is sufficient to "initiate" a declaratory ruling .22 application, within the meaning of BCC 4.1.1415.. Petitioner argues, and we generally, agree, 23 that the city intended the declaratory ruling process to.be a rather limited vehicle for resolving 24 land use disputes. BCC 4.1.1410 imposes significant lirnitations on the types of disputes and 25 the circumstances under which those disputes may be resolved under the declaratory ruling 26 process. BCC 4.1.1415(A) expressly limits the persons who have standing to initiate a Page 9 I declaratory ruling application. Particularly significant here is the fact that BCC 4.1.1415(B) 2 describes, in mandatory terms, the steps that must be taken to initiate a declaratory ruling 3 request. The request "shall be initiated by filing an application with. the Planning Division 4 * That application must "include the precise question on which a ruling is sought" and 5 must "set forth whatever facts are relevant and necessary for making the determination * * 6 The only explicit difference between an application initiated by the planning director and 7 applications initiated by others is that the director need not pay a fee. In all other respects, 8 the county reviews an application filed by the planning director in the same manner as any 9 other application. BCC 4.1.1420. 10 Nothing in the above provisions appears to contemplate or authorize deviations from 11 those mandatory requirements. Neither the planning director nor the hearings officer cite any 12 textual or contextual support for the view that the planning director need not actually 13 "initiate" the request in the way BCC 4.1.1415(B) requires-by filing an application. Just as 14 importantly, neither the planning director nor the hearings officer cite any textual or 15 contextual support for the view that a person who lacks standing to initiate a declaratory 16 ruling can nevertheless do so, and be given the opportunity to carry the burden of proof that 17 BCC 4.1.1420 assigns to persons with standing to initiate declaratory rulings, so long as the 18 planning director states in a subsequently submitted letter that he "joins" the request. 10 While 19 nothing in the code prohibits the planning director from joining a previously filed declaratory 20 ruling application, at the same time nothing in the code authorizes treating such "joinder" as 21 equivalent to initiating a declaratory ruling request in the manner that is required by the code, 22 -i.e., by filing an application accompanied by the required information. 10 As petitioner correctly argues, it is inaccurate to say the planning director "'joined" BTCA's request. The planning director simply agreed that there should be some resolution of the dispute between BTCA• and petitioner. The planning director never "joined". in the sense of adopting BTCA's proposal for carrying the burden of proof that BCC 4.1.1420 assigned to the planning director, and the planning director made no attempt to carry that burden of proof himself. Page 10 I The hearings officer found that "no legitimate purpose would be served" by 2 dismissing BTCA's application and requiring the director "to file another application and 3 initiate another proceeding that would be based on exactly the same facts and legal issues and 4 would involve exactly the same parties." Record 33. However, nothing "requires" the 5 planning director to file such an application. It may be, of course, that the planning director 6 would in fact choose to do so, but that is certainly not a given. Nor is it clear. that the 7 planning director would (1) frame the "precise question" in the same manner that BTCA did, 8 (2) include in the application the same information "necessary for making the determination" 9 that BTCA did, or (3) attempt to satisfy the applicant's burden as BTCA did. As petitioner 10 notes, the planning director apparently disagrees with BTCA's view of the lawfulness of the 11 petitioner's use of the building, although the director submitted no testimony or evidence 12 explaining why. While the city's practice apparently is to interpret its code to allow third 13 parties to participate in declaratory ruling proceedings; it is clear that it is the application filed 14 by the persons authorized by BCC 4.1.1415(A) that frames the issues to be resolved. That 15 application must include the information required by BCC 4.1.1415(A), and that information, 16 at least initially, provides the information.' necessary" to resolve those issues. 17 The hearings officer also found - that the applicant for a declaratory ruling has no 18 particular burden of proof other than to show that the declaratory ruling request falls within 19 one of the categories listed in BCC 4.1.1410, and that there is a "dispute" about compliance 20 with the applicable law. Again, there is simply no textual authority cited for that conclusion. 21 BCC 4.1.1420 provides that the planning director bears the same burden as applicants 22 generally bear in pursuing a land use action. As petitioner notes, BCC 4.1.830 provides that 23 "[t]hroughout all local land use proceedings the burden of proof rests on the applicant." 24 While the hearings officer is correct that the declaratory ruling provisions do not set out 25 ".`approval criteria" as such, it seems reasonably- clear that the applicant for a, declaratory 26 ruling carries the initial and ultimate burden of proof and persuasion with respect the "precise Page 11 I question" submitted. It seems inconsistent with those provisions to allow the planning 2 director or other proper applicant under BCC 4.1.1415(A) to simply demonstrate that there is 3 an interpretative "dispute," but leave it to others who do not have standing to initiate the 4 declaratory ruling to take a position in that dispute and provide information or evidence to be 5 used to resolve the dispute, so that the dispute will be resolved based solely on legal 6 argument and information supplied by third parties to the application. 7 Finally, with respect to intervenor's argument that any error is procedural in nature 8 and that petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice to her substantial rights, it is not clear 9 to us that the hearings officer's error is accurately characterized as procedural. To invoke the 10 hearings officer's authority to issue a declaratory ruling, a person with standing to do so must 11 "initiate" a declaratory riling request, that is, file an application. The hearings officer 12 determined that the application before her was not filed by a person with standing to initiate a 13 declaratory ruling request, but the hearings officer nonetheless proceeded to exercise her 14 authority under the declaratory ruling provisions based on the planning director's joinder. 15 For the reasons stated above, that approach was error. As a result of that error, the hearings 16 officer had no proper declaratory ruling request before her, and therefore had no legal 17 authority to issue a declaratory ruling. The hearings officer's error in concluding otherwise is 18 not accurately characterized as a mere procedural error that may be overlooked absent a 19 demonstration of prejudice to petitioner's substantial rights. 20 The first, second and third assignments of error are sustained. 21 We do not reach or resolve the remainder of petitioner's assignments of error, which 22 challenge the merits of the declaratory ruling. As explained below -in addressing BTCA's 23 cross-petition for review, we must remand the hearings officer's decision to provide an 24 interpretation and adopt more adequate findings regarding whether BTCA has standing under . 25 BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) to initiate a request for a declaratory ruling. Only if the hearings officer 26 determines on remand that BTCA does have standing under BCC 4'.1.1415(A)(2) will the Page 12 1 merits of the declaratory ruling be at issue. Accordingly, it 'is unnecessary; or at least 2 premature, to address petitioner's challenges to the• merits. of the declaratory ruling in this 3 opinion. 4 CROSS-PETITION FOR REVIEW 5 In its cross-petition for review, BTCA assigns error to the hearings officer's 6 conclusion that BTCA does not have standing as a property owner "requesting a declaratory 7 ruling relating to the use of the owner's property" or as the "holder of the permit" under 8 BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1) or (2).11 We address each contention in turn. -9 A. BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1): Property Owner 10 BTCA argues that, * as an owner of property within the Broken Top PUD, it has 11 standing to initiate a declaratory ruling request as "[t]he owner of property requesting a 12 declaratory ruling relating to the use of the owner's property." BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1). 13 According to BTCA, its declaratory ruling request regarding the lawfulness of petitioner's 14 use of Tract H also "relates" to the use of BTCA's property within the PUD. BTCA contends 15 that it has a fiduciary responsibility to its members to ensure that property subject to the 1992 16 PUD approval is used in a manner consistent with prior land use approvals and applicable 17 covenants, conditions and restrictions. . BCC 4.1.1415(A) is quoted above at n 3. We quote it here again for convenience. "[T]he following persons may initiate a declaratory ruling under this chapter: 111. The owner of a property requesting a declaratory ruling relating to the. use. of the owner's property; ."2. In cases where the request is to interpret a previously issued quasi judicial plan amendment, zone change or land use permit, the holder of the permit; or "3. In all cases arising under Section 4.1.1410; Availability of Declaratory Ruling, the Planning Director. "No other person shall be entitled to initiatea declaratory ruling." Page 13 1 Petitioner responds that this issue was never raised below and is thus waived. 2 ORS 197.763(l ).12 BTCA replies that it argued below that it "stood in the shoes" of the 3 original PUD developer, and that argument applies to both the "permit holder" and "property 4 owner" prongs of BCC 4.1.1415(A). According to.BTCA, that argument as it applies to the 5 "property owner" prong was raised with sufficient specificity to allow the hearings officer 6 and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to. it. Indeed, BTCA argues that the 7 hearings officer addressed both prongs and. found that BTCA had standing under neither, 8 which suggests that the hearings officer recognized that an issue had been sufficiently raised 9 regarding BTCA's standing under the property owner prong. 10 In our view, making the argument that BTCA "stands in the shoes" of the original 11 developer and is thus a "permit holder" under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) is not sufficient to raise 12 the very different issue of whether BTCA is a "property owner" entitled to request a 13 declaratory ruling regarding the use of petitioner's property, under the theory that the use of 14 petitioner's property "relates" to the use of the BTCA's property under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1). 15 The two theories of standing are sufficiently dissimilar that we cannot say a reasonable 16 decision maker would recognize one in the other. While the hearings officer concluded that 17 BTCA is "neither the property owner nor the `holder of the permit,"' the findings exclusively 18 address BTCA's "permit holder" theory, and make no mention of. any other theory. The 19 hearings officer's finding that BTCA is not "the property owner" appears to be an effort to 20 comprehensively address all the standing provisions, even those that are not invoked, rather 12 ORS 197.763(1) provides: "An issue which may be the basis for an appeal to [LUBA] shall be raised.not later than the close of the record at or following the final evidentiary hearing on the proposal before the local government. Such issues shall be raised and accompanied by statements or evidence stifcient to afford the governing body, planning commission, hearings body or hearings officer, and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue." Page 14 I than an indication that the hearings officer recognized that an issue was raised regarding 2 BTCA's standing under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1). 3 Even if the issue were not waived, we agree with petitioner's arguments.on the merits 4 that BTCA has not established that it is a "property owner" within the meaning of 5 BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1). The declaratory ruling that a property, owner is authorized to seek 6 under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1) must "relat[e] to the use of the owner's property[.]" The 7 declaratory ruling that BTCA sought and was granted does not relate to BTCA's property. 8 Rather, the declaratory ruling that BTCA sought and was granted relates to Tract H, which is 9. petitioner's property. While petitioner is authorized by BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1) to seek a 10 declaratory riling regarding the propriety of operating an unrestricted real estate sales office 11 on tract H, BCTA is not. The fact that the disputed declaratory ruling might have some 12 indirect bearing on properties that were not the subject of the requested declaratory ruling 0 does not mean the declaratory ruling "relat[es] to the use of those other properties, within .14 the meaning of BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1). We reject BTCA's argument to the contrary. This 15 subassignment of error is denied. 16 B. BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2): The Holder of the Permit 17 BTCA claimed standing to initiate the declaratory ruling under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2), 18 as the "holder of the permit," specifically, as one of the successors in. interest to the 1992 19 PUD and 1992 site plan approvals granted to the original developer. The hearings officer 20 rejected that argument, finding: 21 "[BTCA] argues it has standing to initiate this declaratory ruling proceeding 22 because it stands in the shoes of the `holder of the permit'-i.e., the original 23 developer of the Broken Top PUD-because the BTCA assumed .24 responsibility for the Broken Top common areas and for enforcement of the 25 Broken Top CC&Rs. The property owner responds that the BTCA does not 26 own or manage the subject property which is not Broken Top common area, .27 and consequently the BTCA cannot be considered the `holder of the permit' .:28 with respect to the subject property.. In addition, the record includes a letter 29. dated February 1, 2007 from Broken Top Partners, LLC, stating that as the 30... owner of the Broken Top golf course and clubhouse it is the successor to the Page 15 I original Broken Top developer. The letter goes on to state Broken Top 2 Partners supports use of the subject property for the existing real estate 3 brokerage office. For these reasons, the property owner argues this 4 declaratory riling proceeding should be dismissed. 5 "The Hearing Officer finds the BTCA. does not have standing to request a .6 declaratory ruling because it is neither the property owner nor the `holder of 7 the permit' with respect to the subi ect property. * * Record 32-33 8 (emphases in original). 9 BTCA argues that the above finding is conclusory, fails to adequately identify the 10, pertinent "holders of the permit," for purposes of BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2), or explain why BTCA 1'1 is not one of the "holders" of the relevant permits. BTCA notes that, unlike 12 BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1), subsection (A)(2) includes no language requiring that the permit holder 13 own the property. We understand BTCA to argue that there is no express language in 14 BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) that limits the, scope of '`permit holder," qualifies what kind of 15 "permits" may.be the subject of a request for a declaratory ruling, or requires that the permit 16 . have any particular kind or degree of relationship to property the use of which is the subject 17 of a declaratory ruling request. 18 According to BTCA, it is the fee title owner to various tracts, common areas, private 19 streets and pathways that were created or regulated through a number of different land use 20 permits granted to the original Broken Top PUD developer, including the 1992 PUD and 21 19,92 Master Plan. approvals. BTCA argues that when it acquired those properties, it stepped 22 into the shoes of. the original developer and the original permit holder, by virtue of. 23 BCC 4.1.1330(A), which provides that "[a] land use action permit shall be deemed to run 24 with the land and be transferable to [the] applicant's successors in interest." BTCA argues .25 : that it became. one. of the "holders" of those permits, and is therefore is entitled to request a 26 declaratory ruling to request an interpretation from the city as to whether petitioner's use of 27 Tract H is lawful under those permits. 28. Petitioner responds that the hearings officer correctly rejected BTCA's claims to 29 standing as the "holder of the permit." According to petitioner, the only permit that governs Page 16 I use of the subject property for purposes of determining whether petitioner's use of Tract H is 2 lawful is the 1992 site plan decision that approved the building on Tract H. Petitioner argues 3 that the 1992 site plan decision is specific to Tract H, and that she acquired that permit from 4 the original developer when she bought Tract.H in 2003. Therefore, petitioner concludes, she 5 is the sole "holder" of that permit. 6 Further, petitioner argues that BCC 4.1.1415(A) is intended to grant standing to 7 initiate a declaratory ruling request only to a very limited set of persons. We understand 8 petitioner to contend that the intent of BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1) and (2) is to limit standing to 9 initiate declaratory ruling requests to persons who have the most at stake in how the subject 10 property is used, specifically the property owner or the person who holds a permit or land use. 11 approval to use the property. We understand petitioner to argue that the city did not intend 12 the declaratory ruling process to be a vehicle for other private third parties, for example, 13 neighboring subdivision lot owners, to seek rulings on the permissible use of other lots in the 14 subdivision. That intent would be undermined, petitioner contends,. by BTCA's broad view 15 of the scope of the "holder of the permit," under which any subdivision lot.owner. would be 16 one of potentially hundreds of other "holders of the permit" (i.e., the subdivision approval), 17 and thus entitled to seek declaratory rulings with respect to the permissible use of any other 18 lot in the subdivision. 19, We agree with BTCA that the above-quoted finding by the hearings officer is 20 inadequate, and fails to explain the hearings officer's. conclusion that. BTCA is not "the 21 holder of the permit. It is not clear what the 'hearings officer meant by concluding that 22 BTCA is not a permit-holder "with respect to the subject property." As the -parties note, there .23 are at .least several "permits" that the original developer obtained that have some potential 1' To be .fair, the hearings officer may have felt no need for an extended analysis of,BTCA's'standing, given her conclusion that the planning director's joinder in BTCA's application was sufficient to initiate the proceeding under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(3). Page 17 I bearing on the permissible use of Tract H. Some of those permits apply specifically to Tract 2 H and no other properties, and others are general PUD or master plan approvals that apply 3 broadly to the Broken Top PUD and have. a less specific bearing on the use of Tract H. The 4 hearings officer made no findings as to which persons are the "holders" of which permits, for 5 purposes of establishing BTCA's standing under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2). The hearings 6 officer's finding that BTCA is not a holder of the permit "with respect to the subject 7 property" suggests that it may matter under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) which persons hold what 8 permits, but the hearings officer does not explain.or expand on that suggestion. 9 At this point we have more questions than answers. It is not clear to us that BTCA is 10 correct that by operation of BCC 4.1.1330(A) the owner of an individual lot or tract within 11 the Broken Top PUD is properly viewed as one of the successors in interest to the. original 12 developer, such that an individual lot owner such as BTCA is one of the "holder[s] of the 13 permit" and thus entitled to seek a declaratory ruling under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) to interpret 14 the terms of those permits with respect to the use of lots that BTCA does not own. Even if 15 BTCA is properly viewed as one of the "holder[s] of the permit" with respect to some of the 16 permits that the hearings officer considered, it does not appear that BTCA is a holder of all of 17 the permits that the hearings officer interpreted in her declaratory ruling. As petitioner points 18 out, it is at least arguable that only petitioner and not BTCA is the "holder of the permit" with 19 respect to the 1992 site plan. If that is the permit or one of the permits BTCA asked the 20 hearings officer to interpret under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2), BTCA may not have had standing to 21 seek a declaratory ruling regarding that permit. 22 As BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) is drafted, it is certainly possible that a "holder of the permit" 23 may only have standing to request a declaratory-ruling regarding the meaning of a "land use 24 permit" that the person holds. Unlike BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1), which specifically allows a 25 property owner to request a declaratory ruling "relating to the use of the owner's property," 26 which may be subject to many permits, and BCC 4.1.1415(A)(3), which broadly allows the Page 18 I planning director to initiate a declaratory ruling. "[i]n all cases arising under Section 2 4.1.1410," BCC 4.1.1415(2) can be read to grant standing to a "holder of the permit". only to 3 request an interpretation of the permit that, that person holds, not to seek declaratory rulings 4 on the meaning of other permits or other contested legal issues, such as whether a particular 5 use is "lawful" under applicable ordinances and other permits that the person does.not hold. 6 In other words, unlike under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(1) and (3), it may not be possible under 7 BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) to obtain a complete adjudication on the issue of what a particular lot or 8 parcel may be used for. Arguably, a declaratory ruling initiated under BCC 4..1.1415(A)(2) 9 serves a much more limited purpose. Where several plan amendments, zone changes or 10 permits govern the use of a particular property, the holder of only one permit might at best 11 obtain a ruling that the particular plan amendment, zone change or permit that he or she owns 12 does not authorize a disputed use of the property. Under this view, the permit holder could 13 not seek a definitive declaratory ruling regarding the meaning of other permits not held, or to 14 more general issues such as whether the disputed use is consistent with the city's zoning . 15 ordinance. As we said earlier, we have more questions than answers. 16 We conclude that remand is necessary for the hearings officer to provide. more 17 adequate findings and any necessary interpretations with respect to BTCA's contention that it 18 is the "holder of the permit" with respect to the various permits.that relate to the use of Tract 19 H. If this matter is to proceed any further based solely on BTCA's application for declaratory 20 ruling, the hearings officer will first need to clearly. identify the permit or permits that BTCA 21 requested that the hearings officer interpret in its application fora declaratory ruling. After 22 that step is concluded, the hearings officer will be in a position to. explain why she. believes 23 that BTCA either is or is not the "holder" of that permit or those permits, within the meaning 24 of BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2). Without attempting to exhaustively set ouA the hearings officer's 25 options once she has determined whether BTCA is or is not the holder of. the permit or. Page 19 I permits that are the subject of the disputed. declaratory. ruling, we set out below what appear 2 to us to be three possibilities. 3 The hearings officer may determine that BTCA is the holder of all the permits that are 4 the subject of the application for declaratory ruling. In that-event, she may simply adopt or 5 readopt her prior decision regarding the meaning of those permits with any additional 6- elaboration she may feel is appropriate. 7 Alternatively, the hearings officer may determine that BTCA is not the holder of any 8 of those permits. In that event, BTCA. may not initiate a declaratory rifling under 9 BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2) to interpret those permits and the hearings officer' should- dismiss or 10 . deny the application. 11 Finally, the hearings officer may determine that BTCA is the holder of some but not 12 all of the permits that are the subject of its requested declaratory ruling.' In that event, the 13 hearings officer will need to determine whether she can proceed with an application for a 14 declaratory ruling that is initiated under BCC 4.1.1415(A)(2), where the applicant is not the 15 "holder" of all the permits that are the subject of the declaratory ruling. If the hearings 16 officer concludes that she cannot proceed with such an application, she should either dismiss 17 or deny the application or permit BTCA to amend the application to omit any permits for 18. which it is not the holder. But if the hearings officer concludes that she can proceed with 19 such an application, notwithstanding that BTCA is not the holder of all the permits the 20 hearings officer is asked to interpret, it seems likely that issues will arise regarding the legal 21 effect, if any, of such a declaratory ruling with regard to permits that the applicant does not 22 hold. The hearings officer may wish to address that question directly.. 23 This subassignment of error is sustained. The cross-petition is sustained, in part. 24 The city's decision is remanded. Page 20 Certificate of Mailing I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 20077088 on November 5, 2007, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof .contained in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid.addressed to said parties or their attorney as follows: Edward P. Fitch Bryant Emerson & Fitch LLP PO Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756-0103 James HB Forbes Forbes & Schannauer LLP 835 NW Bond Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Phillip E. Grillo Miller Nash LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 3400 Portland, OR 97204 Stephanie M. Hicks Ball Janik LLP 15 SW Colorado Ave, Suite 3 Bend, OR 97702 Dated this 5th day of November, 2007. Kelly Burgess Debra A. Frye Paralegal Executive Support Specialist Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 13, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: I-5 to 99W Connector Project Update Prepared By: A.P. uenas Dept Head Okay 5;0~ City Mgr Okay !a ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL At the meeting on August 21, 2007, the project team representatives presented the range of alternatives that were developed for evaluation. At this meeting, the representatives will provide a status update to Council on the findings of the alternatives evaluation and discuss the remaining steps leading to a recommended corridor alternative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council discuss and provide input on the findings of the alternatives evaluation and on which alternative is preferred from the City's perspective. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The I-5 Connector is a joint project among Metro, Oregon Department of Transportation, and Washington County. One of the Council goals for 2008 is to support the connector project. Its importance to the City depends on the actual alignment chosen and the location of the connection point to Highway 99W. The project team representatives gave Council a project overview at the June 12, 2007 Council meeting. The project team returned at the August 21, 2007 meeting for a more elaborate discussion on the range of alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need statements established for the project. Since then, the criteria for evaluation of the alternatives have been developed, and the alternatives have been evaluated based on those criteria. At this meeting, the project team representatives will brief Council on the findings of the alternatives evaluation and request Council input on the project findings to date. This is another step in the process leading to selection of a recommended corridor alternative for incorporation into Metro's Regional Transportation Plan and into local plan amendments. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS Support for the I-5 to Highway 99W Connector Project was a Council goal for 2007 and is carried forth as a Council goal in 2008. Its construction has the potential to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 99W through Tigard. ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES At this point, the project does not have any cost implications for the City. The costs to implement the potential solutions will be developed and further refined as part of the process to select a recommended corridor alternative. i:tengVuslcouncil agenda summadesl&13.08 1-5 to 99w connector project update ais.doc Agenda Item # U Meeting Date: May 13, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: Council acceptance of the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Report and initiation of amendments to the T' d Transportation S stem Plan SP and Com reh si Plan text. Prepared By: Ron Bunch/Gus Duenas Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council is requested to receive the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Report, discuss its findings and recommendations with staff, and raise any questions or issues it may have. Council is also requested to initiate amendments to the City's TSP and Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the report's recommendations and those of the Highway 99W Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council direct the Planning Commission to hold public hearings to consider amending the City's TSP to incorporate the Tigard 99W Plan's and CAC's recommendations and make conforming amendments to the Comprehensive Plan text. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY This is the second time this matter has been before Council. The first time was in November 2007. On that occasion, two Councilors expressed concerns the report did not include frontage and backage roads among its recommendations. Staff reported back that frontage and backage roads are not feasible in this instance. They would 1) require significant purchase of right-of-way, have large impacts on private property and be very expensive; and 2) would, in most areas, not meet engineering/ safety standards because of constraints posed by existing development and street layouts. It was emphasized that the City should instead require future (re)development to connect parking lots and institute driveway access requirements. These practices would provide some of the benefits of frontage and backage roads. Additional background summary of the project process is provided in staff s appended memo (Attachment 1). The Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan developed and evaluated the following three alternatives: • Alternative A - Partial Widening Emphasis: This alternative would widen Hwy 99W to seven lanes from Interstate 5 to SW Greenburg Road, per the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) recommendations. This alternative also includes limited access management, intersection, transit, bike, and pedestrian improvements. Development of this alternative was a "have to" exercise because it reflects the current Metro RTP and the Tigard Transportation System Plan. • Alternative B - Access Management: This is the recommended alternative, which was also endorsed by the CAC. It incorporates a mix of improvements that emphasize strategies to reduce vehicular congestion, improve pedestrian access, intersection capacity, access to transit, and safety. This ]:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-13-08 AIS Council acceptance of Tigard 99NC' Improvement Plan Report.doc 1 alternative proposes 1) to reduce vehicular turning movements, including those associated with the large number of driveways; 2) construction of raised medians; 3) multiple intersection improvements; 4) improvements to transit stops, including some relocations; and 5) transit queue bypass lanes at four intersections and bike and pedestrian improvements. It is recommended that Council initiate amendments to the City's TSP and Comprehensive Plan to provide the basis to implement these recommendations. Attachment 2 lists the recommended changes to the City's TSP that would implement Alternative B. • Alternative C - Full Widening: This alternative would widen the highway to seven lanes for the entire length of the study area. This alternative would include some access management, bike, pedestrian, and transit stop improvements, but at a much more limited level than Alternative B. Alternative C is the most auto-oriented of the three proposals. It also has the highest cost and property impacts. The alternatives are described in greater detail on pages 1 through 11 in the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Final Report. The preferred Alternative B best addresses the evaluation criteria which include factors related to pedestrian, bike, transit, auto travel, safety, property impacts, and cost. Pages 75 though 81 (Appendix C) in the appended Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Final Report lists TSP amendments required to implement Alternative B. These are the same as listed in Attachment 2. The CAC further recommended that 10 principles that support Alternative B be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Chapter as either policies or action measures. These are provided in Attachment 3. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council may choose: ■ To not consider amending the TSP or make conforming Comprehensive Plan Amendments at this time; or ■ To consider adopting another alternative. CITY COUNCIL GOALS 1. Pursue Opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard. ■ Continue state and regional advocacy for transportation improvements in Tigard. ■ Promote Access Control Study on 99W. ■ Explore Light Rail on 99W. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Background,Memo from staff Attachment 2: Recommended Amendments to the Tigard TSP Attachment 3: Hwy 99W Citizen Advisory Committee Proposed Recommendations FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable. I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-13-08 AIS Council acceptance of Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Report.doc 2 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM A0~ TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the City Council FROM: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director Gus Duenas, City Engineer RE: Process Summary Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan DATE: April 30, 2008 INTRODUCTION The following summarizes the process used to develop the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan. Also addressed are traffic and capacity issues raised after the report was completed by representatives of a major property owner, and how they were resolved. BACKGROUND The Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Report was funded primarily by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), through its Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program. The Plan area encompasses approximately four miles of State Highway 99W Corridor between the I-5 interchange to the north and the Durham Road / 99W intersection on the south end. The City of Tigard contributed some funding and substantial staff time. The project was an intergovernmental effort that involved a number of agencies and jurisdictions including ODOT, TriMet, Metro, King City, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and Washington County. In addition, the City formed an 11-member Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) that participated in the "technical" development of the Plan. The CAC recommended adoption of the Plan's recommendations but also made several policy and program recommendations. These are appended as Attachment B. The City, the CAC, and participating agencies worked on the Plan for about one year from October 2006 to September 2007. The reason for developing the Plan was for the City, ODOT, affected agencies, and citizen advisors to propose transportation solutions to alleviate traffic congestion by improving the highway's performance. An added benefit of engaging the CAC was a thorough discussion of several policy and program issues. Adoption of the Plan's recommendations are needed to 1) ensure needed transportation improvements are incorporated as (re)development occurs along the corridor; 2) apply for transportation project funding from the state, metro, and federal governments; and 3) set the stage for future planning for high capacity transit (light rail) on 99W. 1:\LRPLN\Councd Materials\2008\5-13-08 Attachment 1 Council acceptance of Tigard 99W Improvement Plan.doc 1 It is important to stress that this is a conceptual transportation plan. Its implementation will require more detailed transportation planning, design, engineering, and public discussion. Coordination and agreement on specific projects and programs will require involvement by the Oregon Department of Transportation and other agencies, such as Tri-Met and Washington County. The Tigard 99W Plan is focused on solving transportation problems. It is acknowledged that an updated transit supportive land use plan is needed for the 99W corridor. This effort will occur after completion of the City's updated Comprehensive Plan. This is the second time this matter has been before Council. The first time was in November 2007. On that occasion, two Councilors expressed concerns the report did not include frontage and backage roads among its recommendations. Staff reported back that frontage and backage roads are not feasible in this instance. They would 1) require significant purchase of right-of-way, have large impacts on private property and be very expensive; and 2) would, in most areas, not meet engineering/safety standards because of constraints posed by existing development and street layouts. It was emphasized that the City should instead require future (re)development to connect parking lots and institute driveway access requirements. These practices would provide some of the benefits of frontage and backage roads. Following this, a major property owner's transportation consultant raised issues, based on their own independent studies about the Plan's recommendations to maintain a five lane section on Highway 99W. The consultant presented findings including higher traffic counts that suggested additional lane(s) were needed, especially in the vicinity of a large vacant/buildable parcel. This resulted in a several month delay involving review of the Tigard 99W Plan's traffic model. ODOT concluded the Plan's model was credible. The reason for the difference in the respective models, and their conclusions, is that traffic behavior on Highway 99W is essentially unpredictable due to high and unstable volumes. In other words, because traffic volumes are so high, traffic counts and behaviors show wide variability from one day/ time-period to the next. Because of this, ODOT concluded that one or two additional lane widths in the vicinity of subject property would not help the congestion issue. Therefore, ODOT is standing behind the Plan's original recommendations that the width of Highway 99W remain at five lanes and strategies other than road widening are most appropriate. This is also in line with City Council's desire to keep the overall width of Highway 99W within manageable limits. While work was being done to resolve the differences between the Tigard 99W traffic models, the designs for the Hall, Greenburg, and Highway 99W intersections were refined. Consequently, Figures 13 and 14 in the report have been replaced with updated intersection improvement concepts. 1:\LRPLN\Councd Materials\2008\5-13-08 Attachment 1 Council acceptance oFTigard 99\Y% Improvement Plan.doc 2 Attachment 2 - (Appendix Q Tigard 99W Improvement & Management Plan Recommended Amendments to the Tigard Transportation System Plan "Alternative B" TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 75 FINAL REPORT Appendix C Tigard Transportation System Plan Updates Limits". Update cost from $500,000 to $800,000. To implement the recommnended plan for Highway Page 1-17: Bicycle Master Plan 99W and the surrounding area, amendments should Update the description of bicycle lanes south. of be made to the City, of Tigard Transportation Gaarde/McDonald to Durham Road to note that System Plan (T'SP) to include modal improvements. these facilities are existing, not plaruned. Many of the amendments/updates are related to Page 1-18: Bicycle Action Plan Improvement List the general finding that Hwy 991' would remain as and Cost a five lane cross-section within the study area and would not be widened to a seven-lane cross-section Update ORE 99~ti' bike lane improvement cost from (as per the current TSP and Regional Transportation X1,300,000 to X275,000 Plan). The City of Tigard should update their TSP Page 1-25: Future Streets Where ROW is Planned to reflect the recommended Hwy 99W plan. The for More Than Two Lanes Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is also being Update figure to change Hwy 99W from 7 lane (red updated, therefore there is a potential to coordinate line) between Interstate 5 to Greenburg Road to 4/5 the City's TSP updates with the RTP updates.. lane (dark blue). A key element to the Tigard 99W Improvement and Page 1-30: Street Improvement Plan (Figure) Management Plan is die implementation of access management along H~vv 99~Y~ ~~Ziile the current Update figure to remove 7 lane improvement along Hwy, 99W from Interstate 5 to SW Greenbur1' g Road. 1:SP does reference access management on Hwy 99'\V, the TSP does not call out access management Page 1-31: Intersection Improvement Locations in the area between Interstate 5 and SW Greenburg Update Figure 8-20 to include intersection Road due to the potential to widen to seven lanes improvements at: in each direction. The update to the TSP should take into account providing for access management ORE 99~%/SW Durham Road along Hwy 991'% from Interstate 5 to Sk`i' Durham ORE 99W/SW Canterbury Lane Road through an access management plan. Local intersection improvements along Hwy 99X% should Chapter 2: Goals and Policy implement access management by utilizing the No updates necessary. The Refinement Plan is guiding access management principles outlined focused on future conditions. Any changes to previously. existing conditions should be done via a full. update The following text includes each potential to the TSP modification/ amendment to the current City Chapter 3: Existing Conditions of Tigard TSP for each chapter. Many of the No updates necessary. 1'he Refinement Plan is recommended modifications consist of specific focused on future conditions. Any changes to text changes noted in underline/overstrike: other recommendations existing conditions should be done via a full update provide general guidance so die e the TSP. City can make the necessary changes to text and illustrations in the TSP...All of these suggested Chapter 4: Future Demand and Land Use modifications support the findings in the Tigard No updates necessary: 99W Implementation and Management Plan. Chapter 5: Pedestrians Chapter 1: Summary Page 5-9: Table 5-2 Potential Pedestrian Projects Page 1-15: Pedestrian Action Plan List - Update Update ORE 99W project from "McDonald Street ORE 99W sidewalk project from "McDonald to to South City Limits" to "Interstate 5 to South City South City Limits" to "Interstate 5 to South City Limits". 76 C)rcgrm "Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS Associates TOANSPOPTATION SOLUTIONS Appendix C Page 5-11: Table 5-2 Potential Pedestrian Projects Chapter 8: Motor Vehicles Add pedestrian activated signalized crossing at SW Page 8-21: Figure 8-11 Future Streets Where 71st Avenue to project list with "Medium" ranking. ROW is Planned for More Than Two Lanes Page 5-11: Table 5-2 Potential Pedestrian Projects Updated figure to change Hwy 99\y% from 7 lane Add pedestrian activated signalized crossing at (red line) between Interstate 5 to Greenburg Road (yellow line). SW Watkins Avenue to project list with "Medium" to 5 lane ranking. Page 8-34 and 8-35: Last Paragraph Chapter 6• Bicycles Update test to "...The T.SP recommends: 1) mirzsenirrT ORE 991f-4 A, hiar, huften, +-5 and G/ GenbW:g RVUd Page 6-8: Figure 6-1 Bicycle Plan Alternative z~j Update figure. to include existing bike lanes just a f= 61r.rnhnfg Rm,~, :3) evtensii)e intersection imProvements north of SW Greenburg Road. - turning lanes, 42 revs ' . access management, Page 6-9: Figure 6-2 Bicycle Master Plan includinS the development of an access managerrrent plan (Framework Option) for the coz7idor; 5J) improvements to ORE 217 and I-S noted above; 6:U off system inrproLenrentr each ar freewap Update planned bicycle lanes south of Gaarde/ irnproiementr and arterials sztr.•b as lI'alnut extension; and McDonald to Durham Road to note that they are considetution of a western/ Yamhill Count , commuter existing. rail cor7idor." Chapter 7: Transit Page 8-37: Last Paragraph, first bullet • . Page 7-1: Paragraph 4, Line 3 Update text to `'ORE, 991Vourv, hern.r access Update test to park and ride at ORE 991VIPink management" vetme 74th flvenite)." . Page 8-38: Table, third. item Page 7-9: Table 7-2 Potential Transit Projects Update text to Update table with following potential transit This option would limit the project(s). (Updated Table Below) potential of the Tigard Triangle to serve the projected land use in the, fulure zvilhout locjjUd intersection jy4r•ovcmen1s. There L20rovements could include additional gi Oroach lams northbound and southbound on ORE 991 F Ili)l- horT Table 7-2: Potential Transit Projects Rank Project Description 7 Enhance transit Implement transit queue bypass lanes along ORE 99W at the following locations: reliability along . SW Gaarde/SW McDonald Street regional facilities • S\\% \UaLurt Street • SW Hall Boulevard (northbound) • SW Dartmouth Avenue (northbound) • SW 68th Avenue Work with TriMet to relocate transit stops along ORE. 99W (where appropriate) to allow for far side stop operations at signalized intersections to reduce potential delay- to transit operations. MCARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGGh18NT PLAN 77 FINAL REPORT Appendix C 677M bt:7~77Z'Trj f-5 ."d 2 i F. Page 8-42: Table 8-6 Project Number 21. Add asterisk. to project description that identifies that based on the recommendations of the Tigard 99W Improvements Plan, both the I'SI? and RI'P . should be amended to retain four/five-lanes rather than the current designation to widen ORE 99W to 7 lanes. Page 8-45: Table 8-7 Third Project Listed Add asterisk to project description that identifies that based on the recommendations of the Tigard 99W Improvements Plan, both the TSP and RTP should be amended to retain four/five-lanes rather than the current designation to widen ORE 99x' to 7 lanes. Page 8-47: Figure 8-19 20 Year Street Improvement Plan Update figure to remove seven lane widening project from Hwy 99NV Page 8-48: Figure 8-20 Intersection Improvement Locations Update figure to include projects at the following intersections: • #37 - ORE 99W/SW :Durham Road • #38 - ORE 99W/SW Canterbury Lane Page 8-49 through 8-51: Table 8-8 City of Tigard Future Intersection Improvements Update table to include specific projects and add projects at the following intersections: 78 Oregon'I'mm portation and Growth Nlanap ement Program M Associates Tnawsranrnnnn sn LUnaxs Appendix C Table 8-8 00, of Trgurrl) ut~ne Intersection Improvements Description No. Intersection 8 \lain/Greenburg/ORE 99W • Add eastbotmd left turn pocket • Add westbound left turn pocket 11 Hall/ORE 99\X/ . Rttain wesiburuid Light turn lane when E)R-E 99W widF-Hed ty 7 lanes • Westbound left turn lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction +2 - • , lanes +3 99W* 1 . Ret,rin eastbound right tun, inne; when E)RE 99.W' vvide-ned to 7 bries 14 Dartmouth/ORE 99W ' • Add southbound through lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction 15 72nd/ORE 99W • Southbound right turn lane • Northbound right turn overlap • Change to protected left turn phasing north/south 16 68th/ORE 99W • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions 25 ORE 99W/McDonald/ • Westbound right turn lane Gaarcie • Retain eastbound, right turn lane • 2nd Northbound left turn lane • 2nd Southbound left turn lane • Eastbound through lane • \Vestbound through lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions 30 \X/ahnut/ORE 99\l% , hums • Change to protected left turn phasing on Walnut Add westbound left turn lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions 22 - R, 99W/Canterbury Lan • Add westbound left turn lane la ORE 99W/Durham Road • Add northbound left turn lane TI ARD 99W INIPR.OVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 79 FINAL REPORT Appendix C (Updated Table on page 28) Chapter 9: Other Modes No updates necessary-. Chapter 10: Transportation Demand Management No updates necessary. Chapter 11: Funding/Implementation Page 1.1-7: Table 11-4 Pedestrian Action Plan. Project List Update ORE 99W project from "McDonald Street to South City Limits" to "Interstate 5 to South City Limits". Update cost from $500,000 to $800,000. Page 11-7: Table 11-4 Pedestrian Action Plan Project List .Add pedestrian activated signalized crossing at SW 71 st Avenue to project list with "Medium" ranking and cost of $200,000. Page 11-7: Table 11-4 Pedestrian .Action Plan Project List Add pedestrian activated signialired crossing at SW Watkins avenue to project list with "Medium" ranking and cost of $200,000. Page 11-8: Table 11-5 Bicycle Action Plan Improvement List and. Cost Update ORE 99W bike lane improvement cost front $1,300,000 to $275,000. Page 11-9: Table 11-6 Future Street Improvements Add asterisk to project description that identifies that based on the recommendations of the Tigard 99W Improvements Plan, both the TSP and RIP should be amended to retain four/five-lanes rather than the current designation to widen ORE 99W to 7 lanes. Page 11-11: Table 11-7 City of Tigard Future Intersection. Improvements Update table to include specific projects and add projects at the following intersections: (Table on page 30) 80 C)rc nn "I'ranspornaticm and Grog rh Managcmcntt Yn ram M Associates Tn ANSPOPTATION SOLUTIONS Appendix C Table 11-7 City of Tigard Futare Intersection Improvements • • Description • 8 Main/ X796 666 Greenburg/ORE S50t1 Qf199W tv 1311c, 0 . R-tain wntin-jundright tan, !a, e: when 991'' _ • Add eastbound left turn pocket • Add westbound left turn packet 11 Hall/ORE 99W t6t36 • 5750,000 . RK:1,dI1 W~,1711ULUrd right tLU11 ht=- when E)RE 99W' widened 1V 7 hUleN • Westbound left turn lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction t-' EMR:E $96H {~66 Railip"//eRE- . 99W RampsfE)RE . Retain enstbound Light tum hum w1m, EIRE 99W %videned tv q lanes 99W 14 Dartmouth/ • $266,E)OB ORE 99W $600,000 • Add southbound through lane • . • Add transit queue bypass lames in northbound direction 15 72nd/ORE 991fi% • Southbound right turn lane $566,686 • Northbound right turn overlap $300,000 • Change to protected left turn phasing north/south 16 68th/ORE 99W • _ $x56;666 1400,000 . NUIddJULUrd left turn !a,,%: • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions 25 ORE 99W/ • Vestbound right turn lame $966 666 McDonald/ . Retain eastbound right turn lane S1,500,000 Gaarde • 2nd Northbound left turn lane • 2nd So Ith bo n 1 left turn lane • Eastbound through lane • Westbound through lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbo>md directions 30 Walnut/ORE $246;666 99W • Change to protected left turn phasing on Walnut $600-000 • Add westbound left turn lane • Acid transit queue bypass lanes in northbound ands southbound directions 32 ORE 99\x%/ • Add westbound left turn lane S250-000 Canterbury Lane E ORE 99W/ • Add northbound left turn lane $250,000 Durham Road TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 81 FINAL REPOffr Attachment 3 Proposed 99W Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations 1. Prior to implementation of projects associated with the Highway 99W Corridor Plan, especially those requiring additional right-of-way or affecting property access, there shall be established protocols whereby affected property owners or businesses are made aware of pending improvements. Those that might be affected shall be informed and asked to be involved in the project development process as early as possible. 2. The City of Tigard shall state a position that alignment of the proposed I-5 / Hwy 99W Connector be established as one which reduces through traffic and freight movement on Highway 99W to the greatest extent possible; and that the City shall support this position and otherwise participate in the project as an active member of the I-5 / 99W Connector Steering Committee. 3. As part of the transportation management, planning and design process, the livability benefits of future Highway 99W improvements shall be publicly discussed and evaluated. 4. The City shall adopt Alternative B as part of its Transportation System Plan and prioritize its recommendations. Subsequently, the City shall, in conjunction with other agencies, jurisdictions, and stakeholders, develop action plans to implement the alternative's specific project recommendations. Action plans to implement Alternative B shall include design and engineering strategies, funding measures, and stakeholder and citizen engagement. Reasonable time frames shall be associated with the action plans. 5. Other transportation and land development projects within the vicinity of Highway 99W shall be evaluated to determine potential negative or positive impacts on the facility. Negative impacts shall be avoided or mitigated. Furthermore, it is important that solutions to Highway 99W problems be evaluated to assess impacts on other streets, and that negative impacts in these circumstances are avoided or mitigated and positive impacts promoted. 6. A land use planning effort shall be a priority for future City / state efforts to recreate the Highway 99W corridor. In particular, coordinated land use and transportation planning is essential to promote transit as a viable transportation option. 7. The City should be imaginative and "think outside the box" with the purpose of creating a safe, attractive, transit oriented, and vibrant urban corridor along Highway 99W. When there are obvious benefits to specific physical improvements, the City should request design exceptions from ODOT. 8. In the near term, the City and ODOT shall develop an Access Management Plan for Highway 99W. Each property identified as needing access management treatment shall be treated as unique. A one-size fits all approach should not be used. The economic vitality of businesses is important. IALRPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-13-08 Attachment 3 Council acceptance of'rigard 99W Improvement Plan Report.doc 1 Attachment 3 9. Implementing improved transit service should be an ongoing priority with the long- term objective of light rail service along the Highway 99W corridor. If light rail is not possible within the reasonable future, then improved bus service/rubber tired vehicles shall serve as an alternative until it is. 10. Highway 99W Action Plans shall seek to enhance the economic vitality of the corridor through transportation, aesthetic land use, and other improvements. In addition, staff resources shall be committed to coordinate business development and retention activities, and aid in communication among the business community and city government. f• I:\LRPLN\Council Materials \2008\5-13-08 Attachment 3 Council acceptance of Tigard 99W Improvement plan Report.doc 2 MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas, City Engineer Ron Bunch, Assistant CD Director RE: Highway 99W Corridor Improvement and Management Plan DATE: May 13, 2008 Councilor Wilson has expressed concerns regarding the recommendations of the Highway 99W Plan. The initiation of a process to adopt the Plan is on the Council agenda tonight. Attached is an email message with Councilor Wilson's concerns together with responses from Alan Snook from DKS. It is important to note that we are not asking for adoption of the Plan. The request is for Council to begin the adoption process by directing the Planning Commission to conduct hearings, receive input, and make recommendations to City Council. The adoption process through the Planning Commission provides a way to address the issues of concern and avoids creation of a separate public process to discuss the issues. The outcome of that process may result in a recommendation to adopt a 7-lane section north of Greenburg Road. Rather than take a step backward, we recommend that Council approve sending the Plan to the Planning Commission for initiation of the adoption process. Regarding the ultimate width of Highway 99W northeast of Greenburg Road, the following should be considered as we take the Plan through the adoption process: ■ The current plan does allow for intersection improvements and widening of the approaches. This means additional lanes (through and turn lanes) at key intersections. For example, a 7-lane section would be appropriate (and would be consistent with this Plan) on Highway 99W from northeast of Dartmouth Street through southwest of Greenburg Road, as the intersections with Dartmouth Street, both 217 ramps, Hall Blvd, and Greenburg Road all have traffic volumes high enough to merit additional through lanes. These intersections are so close together that it would make sense to extend the 7-lane section through all five intersections, with the possible exception of the bridge over Hwy 217. A 7-lane section would also make sense, for the same reasons, from the I-5 interchange through the 68th Pkwy/69th Ave intersection. Between 68th Parkway and Dartmouth Street, a 5-lane section could function reasonably well, as our observations indicate that there is some reserve capacity available on that section of Highway 99W (including the intersection with 72nd Avenue) if vehicles could get through the downstream intersections. ■ We agree that a 7-lane section would be compatible with access management. A 7-lane section with aggressive access management would be consistent with this plan, and would be the best option for the Dartmouth through Greenburg and I-5 through 68th sections. ■ Clarification along these lines could be made in the resolution adopting the plan, and copies of the resolution could be officially incorporated into the plan and distributed with all copies of the plan. The Walnut Street Extension will be evaluated as part of the Transportation System Plan Update. Because of the limitations in funding available through existing sources, it was not included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). If it is found to be important enough to elevate to inclusion in the RTP, that could be done as part of the TSP update. However, another priority project would most likely have to be removed to make way for it. Attachment: Email message from Councilor Wilson with responses by Alan Snook of DKS Associates c: Tom Coffee, CD Director From: Alan Snook [mailto:aws@dkspdx.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:00 PM To: Gus Duenas Cc: Randy McCourt Subject: FW: Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Gus, Here are some responses to Nick's concerns. Hopefully this helps out for tonight. See comments below. Alan Alan Snook Senior Transportation Planner DKS Associates 1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97210 PH: 503.243.3500 awst.G'D.dksassociates.com From: Gus Duenas [mailto:Gus@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:47 PM To: Alan Snook; Randy McCourt Cc: Ron Bunch Subject: FW: Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan The discussion with City Council is scheduled for tomorrow night's Council meeting. Any responses to Nick's concerns regarding the 7-lane vs 5-lane section? He is also concerned about the Walnut Street Extension not being given the proper emphasis. Of course, having it show up in Metro's RTP as part of the financially constrained system is really a City choice and not necessarily something you are responsible for. Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. q City of Tigard City Engineer (503) 718-2470 Work (503) 969-4188 Mobile gus@tigard-or.gov 13125 5w Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 972.23 www.tiaard-or.aov From: Tom Coffee Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 11:28 AM To: Ron Bunch; Gus Duenas Cc: Craig Prosser Subject: FW: Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Talked to Nick and as he states at the bottom - if we can answer his concerns tomorrow night he will support the initiation of the process. From: Nick Wilson [mailto:Nick@atlas-la.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:51 AM To: Craig Prosser; Gus Duenas; Tom Coffee; Ron Bunch Cc: Councilmail Councilmail Subject: RE: Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Hi Craig, Tom and everyone, The primary difference between the current TSP and the Study's recommendations is the reduction from 7 lanes to 5 lanes from I-5 to 217. The other significant feature isn't really a substantive change as one of emphasis: adding the word "aggressive" before access management. The other changes are relatively minor. I have several concerns: 1. When the existing TSP (also authored by Randy McCourt) says that "Level ofservice F conditions result in the Tigard Triangle without 7lanes. This option would limit the potential of the Tigard Triangle to serve the projected land use in the future. There were no subarea alternatives that preclude the need for seven lanes. "I need to see some pretty detailed justification for not increasing capacity. We already know that the market wants to build higher density in the Triangle and we cannot allow it because the existing infrastructure cannot get the traffic the last quarter mile. I don't think that we can look at the highway in isolation from adjacent land uses. We have been prepared to challenge whatever might be proposed in the Triangle on the basis that it would overwhelm 99 and now we are saying that we will not add capacity. Are we going to down-zone it? This needs lots of further discussion. The analysis looked at the traffic levels if Hwy 99W stayed with the current capacity along the roadway (meaning no corridor wide expansion to 7 lanes). It also looked at the impacts to the corridor if Hwy 99W was widened to 7 lanes. There was an overwhelming desire from residents of Tigard (as expressed through the public process) to not widen to 7 lanes based on the potential to increase traffic along Hwy 99W due to additional capacity becoming available, as well as analysis that indicated that a large portion of that new traffic was "through" traffic on Hwy 99W. The corridor was definitely not evaluated while being isolated from surrounding land uses. The Metro regional travel demand models (both base and future) were used to help evaluate the future growth in local and regional traffic, as well as the effects of additional capacity along Hwy 99W under Alternatives A and C. The regional forecast looks at employment and house growth from an economic standpoint - not a full build out of the available zoned land or the maximum vehicle trip land use. In reality, some land uses come in as big single projects rather than progressive development over time. Additionally, some uses generate higher vehicle trip levels because of the type of land use proposed within the zoning (for example a furniture store and Costco are both in commercial zones but have significantly different trip levels). That is why each land use requires a traffic study to evaluate its impacts. In some cases the size of use, phasing or trip generation may impose greater levels of impacts that will either need to be mitigated with improvements or refined site improvements. If the mitigation requires improvements that are not foreseen in the corridor plan or TSP, that would require further approvals and conditions from the City before proceeding with such concepts. This affords the City control over the balance of land use and transportation as developments come forward. In many other cases, the level of traffic is below those forecasted and does not merit this additional scrutiny. 2. The Walnut-Hunziker extension is mentioned at least three times in the report as being very beneficial both to the most congested section of 99W near downtown AND to the Triangle. But it says that it wasn't studied because it is not in the 2004 RTP. I'm wondering why it is not in the RTP since we already identified it as a helpful link in our 2002 TSP. So we missed the 2004 RTP update and there is another one coming up. At an estimated $22 million it is less expensive that Alternative B at $77 million. Should this not be our highest priority? It is not worthy of more study to see how it might impact Alternatives A and B? The Walnut-Hunziker extension currently is not in the 2004 RTP, but was evaluated based on a sensitivity test as to the effect it could have on Hwy 99W. It was not included in the full analysis because it was not part of the current RTP at the time of the project analysis. The project did identify that the Walnut-Hunziker extension would be beneficial to Hwy 99W (and the Tigard Triangle area) and should be pursued as part of the update for the new RTP, as well as retained in the update of the Tigard TSP. The extension allows for preservation of capacity along Hwy 99W. 3. Alternatives A and B are not necessarily incompatible. That is we could have an approach that includes both aggressive access management and a 7-lane cross section from 1-5 to 217. Was this option studied? The report identifies that there could be a mix of options. To help identify the alternatives in a more succinct manner they were grouped and developed into the three options (7 lane partial, access management, and 7 lane full length). This does not mean that the options/alternatives are exclusive from one another. They can be mixed if so chosen. For example, the segment between Greenburg and Dartmouth (over Hwy 217) effectively is 7 lanes wide approaching the freeway in the proposed plan. 4. Some of the justifications for the selection of Alternative B over alternative A were subjective and even erroneous. For example, the report states that Alternative B was better for the transit and pedestrian environments in part because the crossing distance is less with a 5 lane cross section and a median refuge. However, EVERY signalized intersection proposed in Alternative B in the Triangle except for 74th (the Theater entrance) has a 7-lane cross section and no median refuge because of the proposed transit cue bypasses and left turn lanes. And it is unsafe to encourage pedestrian crossing at any other locations. Another example: the transit cue bypasses shave 1 minute from the transit times in Alternative B over Alternative A. They only work if the bus does not stop after bypassing the cue. If the intent is to encourage transit use then stops are a good thing. If we are successful the one minute savings are a phantom gain. While that is true that all signalized intersections in the Triangle area have a longer crossing than a typical 5 lane cross section because of the implementation of transit queue bypasses, the alternative was evaluated on the entire corridor and not just on the Triangle area. Other portions of the corridor (at signalized intersections) retain the five lane cross section and even have medians in Alternative B and therefore it takes less time for pedestrians to cross Hwy 99W. Coordination with TriMet would need to take place to determine stop placement and/or consolidation along the corridor to better implement streamlining. The savings of a minute of travel time along the corridor for transit travelers took into account stops on the opposing (far- side) of transit queue bypasses. While that savings may seem insignificant, when travel times along the corridor are taking approximately 12-14 minutes in the future, the savings of a minute represent approximately a 7-8% savings in travel time. 5. Aggressive access control is going to be a hard slog. The TSP recognized this and downplayed its feasibility as a primary strategy by noting that it is "difficult to implement - could take 50 years to fully implement - minor capacity with phased or limited implementation - level of service still a problem" (page 8-35). We know from recent experience that access control generates vehement opposition. I think that we should pursue it but I think that it is a mistake to think that we can do it on a large scale in the short time frame needed to keep the problem manageable. Agreed that access management is not a short term solution, but rather a longer term goal along the corridor. The analysis was a 20-year planning horizon so it was not expected that the Alternative recommended would be implemented in a short planning horizon (say 5 years), but rather the plan would outline steps necessary to put the pieces of the puzzle in place over the next few years so that as redevelopment does occur beyond that point the plan can help guide/direct development along the corridor for access management. A significant part of the access management strategy is to handle changes when land use redevelopment occurs incrementally where solutions can mutually be sorted out within the context of new activities on the site. 6. The report mentions "optimized timing" on page 59. What is that? My understanding is that ODOT claims that the signals on 99 are already syncronized. The report hints at something that I suspect is more sinister (from a Tigard resident's standpoint). Does the term means that through traffic gets the green for a longer period of time and that the traffic that wants to enter or cross the highway needs to wait longer? This would effectively limit access to and across the highway, this should be very vehemently opposed Tigard residents because it favors through traffic at the expense of local traffic. Optimizing timing refers to changing signal timing along the corridor to change with growth in traffic. That typically means increasing the side street green time, buy may mean making modifications to the mainline green time as well. It really is the implementation of modifying the signal timing to adapt to changes in vehicle growth over time. 7. Finally, if we are going to send this language as proposed to the Planning Commission, let's at least get it right. A 5-lane cross section is not proposed from 217 to Greenburg. We already have a 6-lane cross section there and my understanding is that the projects currently being designed for Hall Blvd and Greenburg are proposing a 7-lane cross section. Agreed there are portions of the corridor that are not going to be 5 lanes in the future. The description of the alternative is slightly misleading because it characterizes the entire corridor by saying "5 lanes". There are current portions of the corridor that are 7 lanes, and proposed portions that are currently programmed to be 7 lanes. These segments (that were not 5 lanes) were all in place for the future analysis of this project. If you can address all of these concerns to my satisfaction by Tuesday, you've got my vote! O Nick Wilson Atlas Landscape Architecture 320 SW 6th Avenue, Ste. 300 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 224-5238 From: Craig Prosser [mailto:CRAIG@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:49 AM To: Nick Wilson; Gus Duenas; Tom Coffee; Ron Bunch Cc: Councilmail Councilmail Subject: RE: Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Nick, I have asked Tom Coffee to give you a call to see what more analysis is needed. From: Nick Wilson [mailto:Nick@atlas-la.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 08:57 AM To: Craig Prosser; Gus Duenas; Tom Coffee; Ron Bunch Cc: Councilmail Councilmail Subject: Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Hi Guys, I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing both the 99W improvement plan and the TSP and I need to let you know that I am not ready to support sending it on to the Planning Commission for public hearings. I'd like to see some more analysis before I can be convinced and I don't think it can be done by Tuesday. I don't know where everyone else is on this but since this is, by all accounts, Tigard's biggest problem, we owe it to ourselves to get this right. Nick Wilson Atlas Landscape Architecture 320 SW 6th Avenue, Ste. 300 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 224-5238 MEMORANDUM ~TIGAIRD: TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the City Council FROM: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director RE: Transmittal of Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan DATE: May 6, 2008 Attached is the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan that accompanies the May 13, 2008 Council Agenda Item Summary (AIS) on this topic. Please contact Gus Duenas, City Engineer, with any questions. Thank you. 1ALRPLN\Ron\Tmnsntitta1 sheet for 99W Plan.doc • • • • • • • Conceptual Planning and Technical Information for • • Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan • Final Report • • • • P, Prepared for: • City of Tigard • i 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 - 4 Oregon Transportation and Q8 -II Growth Management Program • ,ia ~j I'~f 555 13th Street, NE OR 97301 Salem, • Prepared by: DKS Associates • T 1400 SW Fifth Avenue • ,r,~ Suite 500 o Portland, OR 97201 • Otak, Inc. • ! 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • _ July 2007 • • • • • • • • Acknowledgements • • Project Management Team • • Gus Duenas, City Engineer, City of Tigard • Ross Kevlin, Transportation Growth Management Program, Grant Manager • • Technical Advisory Committee Citizen Advisory Committee • Ross Kevlin, Oregon Dept. of Transportation Rex Caffall, Tigard Planning Commission • Gus Duenas, City Engineer, City of Tigard Paul Owen • Greg Berry, City of Tigard Tom Fergusson • Ron Bunch, City of Tigard Daniel Barnes • Kim McMillian, City of Tigard Jesse Black • Sgt. Karl Kaufmann, Tigard Police Dept. Roger Potthoff • Jane Turner/David Wells, King City Cherree Weeks • Clark Berry, Washington County Tim McGilvrey • Mark Turpel, Metro Steve Boughton - Heather Boll, TriMet Sue Carver • Jerry Renfro, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue William Moss • • Consultant Team • DKS Associates • Randy McCourt, Principal • Alan Snook, Transportation Planner • Otak • Tom Litster, Urban Planner • Crista Gardner, Land Use Planner • James Todd, Civil Engineering • Leslie McClain, Project Assistant • • ECONorthwest • Terry Moore, Principal • Radcliffe Dacanay, Real Estate Mrkt. Analysis Rob Wyman, Real Estate Mrkt. Analysis • • • The Tigard 99 W Improvements Plan is funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management Program - (FGIVI), a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Lend Conservation • and Development. This TGM grant is financed, in part, by the federal Transportation Egui y Act for the 21st Century • (TEA-21), localgovernment and the State of Oregon funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or • policies of the State of Oregon. • i Oregon Transportation and Growth Managcment Program DKS f ssoeiateS ipGl.~?~u IAlIC l1 SUI UIIUhS • • • • • • Table of Contents Section I-Introduction I • Section 2-Public and Agency Involvement 3 • • Section 3-Developing a Recommended Plan 4 • Section 4-The Recommended Plan 10 • Section 5-Implementation Projects 36 • Appendices • Appendix A-Concept Alternatives and Evaluation 38 • Appendix B-Response to ODOTTechnical Review Comments 71 • Appendix C-Tigard Transportation System Plan Updates 75 • Figures • • Figure I-Typical Cross Sections 12 • Figure 2-Access Management 13 • Figure 3-Access Management 14 • Figure 4-Access Management 15 Figure 5-Access Management 16 - Figure 6-Access Management 17 • Figure 7-Intersections & Pedestrian Crossings 20 • Figure 8-SW Durham Rd. 21 • Figure 9-SW Beef Bend Rd. 22 • Figure 10-SW Cantu rbury Ln. 23 • Figure I I-SW Gaarde St./ SW McDonald St. 24 • Figure 12-SW Walnut St. / SW Walnut PI. 25 • Figure 13-SW Greenburg Rd./ SW Main St. 26 • Figure 14-SW Hall Blvd. 27 • Figure 15-SW Dartmouth St. / SW 78th Ave. 28 • Figure 16-SW 72nd Ave. 29 • Figure 17-SW 68th Ave / SW 69th Ave. 30 • Figure 18-Relocated Bus Stops 31 • Figure 19-Pedestrian Improvements 34 • Figure 20-Bike Lane Improvements 35 • Tables • Table [-Categories of Enhancement Concepts 6 • Table 2-Criteria for Evaluating and Comparing Alternatives 9 • Table 3-Comparison of Evaluation Criteria by Alternative 9 • Table 4-PM Peak Hour Travel Time Comparison I I • Table 5- Potential Project Ranking 37 • • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL. REPORT • • Introduction The Tigard 99W Improvements and Management This report provides a summary of those steps and Plan area includes approximately four miles of descriptions and illustrations of the recommended the State Highway 99W corridor between the I-5 transportation solutions. The intent of the plan is to ~ interchange at the north end and the Durham improve safety for all modes of travel and mitigate Road/99W intersection at the south end. The the negative effects of rising trip demand in order to - highway carries between 45,000 to 50,000 vehicles meet future needs of the corridor. Negative effects - per day. Of those vehicle trips, 53% are regional of trip demand can affect both transportation and trips not originating or ending within the study land use. corridor. The corridor has a variety of land uses The plan can be implemented through a series with the majority focused on retail/commercial of specific projects or new transportation services. Locally serving retail likely draws most planning strategies. A prioritized list of potential customers from within a '/a mile radius, while improvement projects has been provided along big-box retail or large scale commercial uses likely draw customer traffic from five or more miles away. with planning level costs. This is a conceptual plan; - Within a '/a to '/z mile corridor on either side of the implementation projects and related transportation highway there are significant residential uses. strategies will require further discussion and/ or approvals not yet obtained and will require Future forecasts indicate highway performance additional engineering studies. Additional . will continue to deteriorate as trip demand in the community outreach to potentially affected corridor grows. The Regional Transportation Plan property owners and to the public at large will (RTP) calls for a mix of interventions to address also be required. The plan has not been reviewed rising trip demand rather than just provide new nor approved by the City Traffic Engineer or the • transportation capacity. These interventions may State Traffic Engineer. Changes to Highway 99W - vary from plans for mixed-use development to land must meet the standards of the ODOT Highway use and transportation strategies aimed at mitigating Design Manual or received a Design Exception growth and rising trip demand. The primary focus from the State Traffic Engineer. Additional survey, of the Tigard 99W Improvements and Management engineering design, and analysis will be required - Plan is transportation strategies. to determine the feasibility and approval of the - Through a planning and public involvement process proposed improvements. - the project developed a concept-level recommended - plan for transportation improvements and - recommended additional interventions to meet future needs in the corridor. Development of the recommended plan included detailed analysis of needs, opportunities, market analysis of . redevelopment potential in the corridor, and - comparative evaluation of concept plan alternatives. The recommended plan was developed through a • planning process of four key steps supported by a public and agency involvement effort. The planning steps were: - • Establish inventory of existing conditions • Analyze needs, opportunities and constraints • Develop alternative improvement concepts - • Compare and evaluate alternative concepts - Orcgon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS ASSOCiateS - Tn AIWORIAitON S01, I/fIONS Introduction Continued Project Area Map • • • • c • • PROJECT AREA • • • Kum • • SW DUw+ RD • • `"`E 205 • • • • • • • • • • • • • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 • FINAL REPORT • • • • • Public and Agency Involvement • • To ensure support for the recommended plan from objected to the idea of widening the corridor to - community and agency stakeholders, the project seven lanes as called for in Metro's 2004 Regional included public involvement and interagency Transportation Plan (RTP). Over half were open • coordination. The City of Tigard identified and to the idea of some kind of access management • appointed members for both a Technical Advisory strategy. • Committee (TAC) and a Citizens Advisory • Committee (CAC). Members of the TAC represent ODOT, Metro, TriMet, Washington County, • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and the City of Tigard. Their project role was to meet with the • consultant team during each of the four key steps • to provide technical review and identify additional analysis or refinement of improvement concepts • that might be needed. • The CAC comprises a spectrum of citizens • including business owners, neighborhood representatives, representatives from the Chamber - of Commerce, and other citizen groups with • an interest in the Tigard 99W Improvements Plan project. The Highway 99W Improvements • and Management Plan was not intended to be a • visioning process. However, the CAC provided • valuable review and input for draft memoranda at the conclusion of each step in the planning • process. They also provided community perspectives • regarding the needs, opportunities, and constraints • for improving Highway 99W as a part of the City of - Tigard. • In addition to the five TAC and CAC meetings, • three Public Open Houses were held to engage - public input at three milestones in the project: • During the needs, opportunities, and • constraints step; • the alternative development step; and Intersection at SW1 Gaarde/SIV McDorra/d Ir,-; r s • the alternatives evaluation step. , *1 • ? P Stakeholder interviews were conducted to offer z z e • members from the business community an opportunity to express concerns or possible t • solutions to the transportation problems in the corridor. Out of twenty stakeholders invited, t • fourteen participated. The vast majority of • participants interviewed believed that congestion • and safety was a problem that could ultimately affect • their businesses. However, most of the interviewees • 3 Orcgon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS A&SoClateS - InANSPORIATI011 SOI V IIOMS • • • • • Developing a Recommended Plan • . The recommended Tigard 99W Improvement and some gaps located in the north portion of the Management Plan was completed through the four corridor near Interstate 5. integrated and successive steps previously noted. Each step involved thorough analysis that resulted The transit system serves approximately 6,000 in key findings that set the stage for the next step. daily riders that board and depart buses within the • Feedback from advisory committees and the public study area. Transit stops are on average 980 feet was used to refine findings of each step before apart and are typically located at or near signalized • crossings. However, there are some stop locations proceeding. • at unsignalized intersections requiring pedestrians to • Step I: Identify Existing Conditions cross Hwy 99W to access the stops. A thorough inventory of existing transportation An inventory of driveways along Hwy 99W was conditions for the Highway 99W corridor was also conducted. The corridor has approximately 100 • conducted. In addition, a review of prior studies existing driveways (most with full turn access) within was performed to help broaden the knowledge the study area. Many of these driveways occur in • of the study area and roadway network and the middle and northern portions of the corridor in intersections. Inventory included existing traffic close proximity to existing signalized intersections operations (including lane geometry, historic and and existing interchanges with Hwy 217 and • - existing traffic volumes, and traffic travel times) Interstate 5. as well as an evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian • facilities, transit service, and intersection operations. Step 2: Identify Needs, Opportunities and This inventory included intersecting local streets Constraints - and the on/off ramps for I-5 and OR 217. The This step was important in the development and • findings from the inventory suggested the need for eventual evaluation of alternative concepts. Corridor multimodal transportation improvements along the deficiencies were analyzed for all modes of travel in • Corridor. order to identify specific future transportation needs The analysis of the existing conditions indicates for the corridor. Future needs analysis considered • a number of intersections along the corridor that the likelihood of a future 1-5 to Highway 99W . fail to meet existing performance standards or are connection. The I-5/99W Connector Study is a near capacity for motor vehicle operations. Six parallel project currently underway that is detailing • of the twenty study area intersections have this out the recommended roadway alignment to characteristic. These intersections act as bottlenecks connect Interstate 5 to Hwy 99W south of the study • (congestion points) along the corridor that can area. As part of the future forecasting for this study, • degrade travel times and produce significant delays. a generalized alignment for this project was in place Peak travel times along the corridor were also in the Metro Regional Travel Demand Model. - collected and the results indicated that on average, A "toolkit" of potential improvements was it takes motor vehicles 11 to 12 minutes to traverse developed, listing the pros, cons, and applicability • the corridor study area in comparison to off-peak of various enhancements. Opportunities and - free flow travel times that are approximately 6 to 7 constraints for implementing enhancements were - minutes. also identified. This information was used to guide - In addition to the motor vehicle conditions, development of improvement alternatives in the inventories for alternative modes of travel were next step of the plan process. Preliminary criteria • conducted. The results revealed a number of gaps in for evaluating and comparing conceptual alternatives the existing sidewalk system as well as substandard were also developed in Step 2. • sidewalk widths. This creates a discontinuous Key needs identified included: • pedestrian network along the corridor. The bicycle . is mostly complete; however, there are Bicycle facilities -filling in gaps in the bicycle network . TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 • FINAL REPORT • Developing a Recommended Plan Continued network, local/regional connectivity and suggest that Corridor redevelopment should reducing bike/vehicle conflicts. be structured and concentrated to create a - commercial identity for the Corridor and . • Pedestrian facilities - filling in gaps in the should be supported by a focused public policy. sidewalk network, upgrading existing sidewalks to a consistent design standard, and improved The current zoning and comprehensive plan • pedestrian crossing of Highway 99W designations within the study corridor do not encourage or require mixed use (residential and • Transit service and facilities -improving transit commercial) developments, although mixed use ~ travel times, access to transit, driveway and developments are allowed in several of the zones transit stop conflicts and identifying poorly served transit areas. within the corridor. Instead, the current zoning and - . site development standards facilitate the continued • Motor vehicles - inadequate capacity at development of relatively low density residential and intersections, congestion delays for through strip commercial. travel, access locations and growing traffic . volumes on side streets. As initially conceived, the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan could have continued Step 2 also included a Real Estate Market Overview to examine potential land use changes. That - Objectives of the overview were to evaluate examination may have resulted in recommendations . potential for redevelopment in the corridor and for new zoning and/or site design guidelines, along identify opportunities for land use and site design with evaluation of the transportation impacts. regulations that may contribute to achieving project However, given the City of Tigard's on-going objectives. examination of current zoning as part of their - Highway and auto-oriented commercial Comprehensive Plan update, with expectation of - development is the dominant fronting land use. staff to recommend changes, it was decided not to This automobile centered development pattern pursue a parallel study as part of this project. contributes to traffic congestion along this segment of the Highway 99W corridor. From an economic 991V looking Northeast from Hnvy 217 Interchange perspective, extensive redevelopment along the corridor is not probable in the short-run. In the long-run, there are opportunities for redevelopment ` 1"•' • but they will be capitalized on more extensively d S and more quickly if supported by targeted public ° investments. Following are key findings about real estate market conditions and trends: i u ..r r, • Expected growth in Washington County and the City of Tigard suggests the possibility and need for intensifying land use in the Corridor. - • Increased densities in the Corridor support regional public policy. - • Improvement-to-land value ratios suggest the possibility for long-run redevelopment. - • Modest local retail strength and strong competition from nearby regional centers . S Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS.QSSoCiateS . ipag5A0R UrrOH SCLtlrI0M5 Developing a Recommended Plan Continued • Table 1: Categories of Enbancement Concepts Low Hanging Fruit Medium Hanging Fruit High Hanging Fruit • Access Management through • Filling in gaps of sidewalks and • Widen Hwy 99W to a seven driveway closure. bicycle network. lane facility from Interstate 5 to • Minor intersection capacity • Implementation of Intelligent Greenburg Road. . improvements. Transportation Solutions along • Implement high capacity transit Redesigned curb radii at Hwy 99W system that services Hwy 99W. - - intersections. • Small scale land use • Local connecting (or backage) redevelopment. roadways. • Location specific transit improvements. • Large scale redevelopment - • Site design review to provide better direction for pedestrian • access, bicycle amenities and transit access. i Step 2 also identified a general strategy to Step 3: Alternatives Development help prioritize implementation of potential This step developed concepts that support the enhancements. The strategies were metaphorically purpose and goals of the project and address characterized as "fruits hanging from a tree." transportation deficiencies identified in the • Descriptions of the three types of enhancements corridor. One goal of this project is to identify follow: improvements to the corridor that enhance and • "Low Hanging Fruit"- enhancements and encourage alternative modes of travel; therefore, strategies that are relatively easy to implement each alternative concept provides multimodal considering factors such as low cost, minimal enhancements that include continuous sidewalks impact to right-of-way, minimal impact to and bike lanes. modes of travel or land uses, and maximum ' As part of the sensitivity analysis for future - perceived benefit to alternatives modes of travel conditions, various locations along Hwy 99W (non-single occupancy vehicle). were looked at to see if some parallel roadway • "Medium Hanging Fruit"- enhancements connections could be made to help provide and strategies requiring additional effort to alternative travel paths to Hwy 99W for motor implement considering factors such as a right- vehicles. Due to the diagonal orientation of Hwy of-way needs, project cost and funding, and 99W within a grid system of roadways, the potential . time frame to implement. to provide or connect a parallel roadway is difficult. • "High Hanging Fruit"- enhancements Some locations had a definite potential benefit for . and strategies that take a significant effort shifting traffic volumes from Hwy 99W, such as the • to implement due to funding requirements, SW Walnut Street extension to the east connecting significant impacts to adjacent properties/ to SW Hunziker Road. Other locations would be right-of-way, and/or the potential for multi- more difficult to implement due to the residential - jurisdictional coordination that would require a land uses adjacent to the commercial land uses that . long period of time. Additionally, these projects front Hwy 99W. A parallel roadway would need typically require significant public involvement, to align through residential neighborhoods for a as well as an often complex environmental significant distance in order to provide enough of a review process to comply with the National connection to attract vehicles away from Hwy 99W. . Environmental Policy Act (N EPA). Due to its infeasibility, the creation of frontage/ • backage roads was not included in the alternatives. • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 6 FINAL REPORT • • • Developing a Recommended Plan • Continued • Variations between concepts included retaining across the street). Driveways were also identified • the current five-lane cross section for the highway for further examination for closure, consolidation, • versus a seven-lane cross section (highway or relocation where feasible along the corridor to • widening), the locations of additional travel lanes reduce turn conflicts and congestion. This would from widening, the type and location of transit apply particularly for properties with multiple improvements, and the extent of potential access driveways, access to side streets, or within 200 • management strategies in the corridor. The basic feet of intersections. In this concept, the transit • tools of access management were the same in each environment is enhanced by both relocating bus • concept-raised medians and driveway closure/ stops and by the addition of transit queue bypasses consolidation. Variations between concepts are at five intersections: summarized below. • • 68th Avenue Alternative A: Partial Widening • Dartmouth Avenue • Consistent with 99W corridor improvements described in the Metro 2004 Regional Hall Boulevard • Transportation Plan (RTP), this alternative would Walnut Street • widen Highway 99W to seven lanes from Interstate • 5 to SW Greenburg Road. Because this was the Gaarde/McDonald Street recommended solution for 99W in the adopted This alternative was evaluated as a "no-widening" • RTP, it was necessary to include it as an alternative option with the goal of minimizing right-of- • in this project in order to verify at the corridor-plan way impacts. However, it does include some • level whether it should still be the recommended intersection widening to provide either new turn • solution or if another alternative would better meet lanes and/or transit queue bypass lanes (Figure 2-6). the project objectives. This alternative includes Intersections that would be widened are: limited access management strategies focused within • • the interchange access spacing area in the vicinity of 99W and 68th Avenue -Transit queue bypass. Highway 217 and Interstate 5. Localized intersection 99W and Dartmouth - Transit queue bypass, • capacity improvements are also included in this plan southbound through lane. to allow for adequate intersection operations. • 99W and Hall Boulevard -Transit queue • An enhanced transit environment is achieved by bypass, westbound turn lane. relocating up to ten existing bus stops and adding • transit queue bypass lanes at two intersections • • (SW Walnut Street and SW Gaarde/McDonald Bicyclists at bus stop along 99 IV Street). South of Greenburg Road, local capacity • improvements are included where intersections will have future deficiencies. Alternative B: Access Management Strategy • This alternative explored the effects of reducing a' the excessive number of driveways identified in • Step 2. It proposes corridor-wide strategies to=y. • `ley xr~:2; Wt' reduce turn conflicts and congestion resulting i • from turn movements and egress and ingress • associated with those driveways. Strategies include rrx raised medians along 40% of the corridor's length • to preclude left turns (drivers would instead make f ;t U-turns at intersections to access destinations a ~r • 7 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS id.3SOCiateS • IRAWOIIIATIOU SOLUTIONS • • • • • • Developing a Recommended Plan Continued • 99W and Greenburg Road - Eastbound/ design (including a landscaped buffer) than what westbound left turn lanes. currently exists along the highway. More significant • 99W and Walnut Street - Transit queue bypass, impacts to adjacent properties would result from westbound left turn lane. areas of the highway widened to seven lanes or from additional lanes added to specific intersections • 99W and Gaarde/McDonald - Transit queue to improve the performance of vehicles and/or bypass, northbound/ southbound left turn transit. lanes, eastbound/westbound through lanes and • The final technical memorandum documenting eastbound/westbound left turn lanes • the development of alternative concepts has been - 99W and Canterbury - Westbound left turn included in Appendix A. _ lane. • 99W and Beef Bend Road - Southbound right Step 4:Alternatives Evaluation turn. In Step 4 each of the three concepts was evaluated • 99W and Durham Road - Northbound left and compared by applying criteria developed • turn. in Steps 2 and 3. The evaluation criteria were . • both qualitative (non-numerical) and quantitative • Alternative C: Full Widening (calculated). The criteria used to develop alternative - This alternative would widen Highway 99W to concepts are summarized in Table 2 (page 9) seven lanes for the entire length of the study and the comparative evaluation of concepts is • corridor. This alternative allowed a comparison of summarized in Table 3 (page 9). As a part of this • the costs and benefits of widening only a portion evaluation, building impact and right-of-way costs • of the corridor (Alternative A per the RTP) versus were assigned to each concept. If the proposed widening the entire corridor (Alternative C). No improvements extended beyond the existing right- transit queue bypass lanes or turn lanes were of-way, additional costs were assigned for the included as these would create excessively wide purchasing of additional right-of-way and in some pedestrian crossings that would be problematic both instances the taking of affected buildings. • for pedestrians and for signal timing. 99W looking SoutGulest towards Hwy 217, example gap in This concept also includes limited access sidewalk network • management strategies that will reduce the potential for collisions as well as enhance the through capacity for vehicles. As with Concept A, access management would be limited to a I/4 mile f t + distance from the I-5 and OR 217 interchanges. ^ • Access management is not as aggressive as in • Concept B, which proposes raised medians 3 - ; and potential driveway closures/consolidations throughout the corridor. - Step 3 also completed two other significant tasks. First, it finalized evaluation criteria to guide development of alternatives and to comparatively • evaluate alternatives. Second, the impact of each - alternative on adjacent properties and buildings was mapped and compared. Some widening of the highway footprint is needed in each alternative • since each alternative features a wider sidewalk . TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 8 • FINAL REPORT • Developing a Recommended Plan Continued "!.'able 2: Criteria for Evaluating and Co»eparing Alternatives - Category Criteria Measure(s) Pedestrian • Connectivity • Adequate connections - • Crossing distance • Distance in feet • Bicycle • Connectivity • Adequate connections Transit • Facilities • Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings for Stops • Bypassing queues • Enhanced Pedestrian Environment at Stops • Intersection queue lengths Motor Vehicle • Intersection operations • Level-of-service • Queuing/storage for • Volume-to-capacity vehicles - • Queuing in feet Safety • Driveways and conflict • Frequency and number of occurrences - points Property Impacts • Right-of-way impacted • Square feet • Building impacted - Costs Dollars • Construction and Right-of-Way . Acquisition When evaluation criteria were applied, Alternative The summary of evaluations is indicated below. B: Access Management was determined to Detailed evaluations and summary findings have best meet the criteria and project objectives while been included in Appendix A as Alternatives • carrying the fewest negative impacts. Evaluation and Comparison. - Table 3: Comparison of Eva/nation Criteria by Alternative • Evaluation Criteria Concept A Concept l3 Concept C Pedestrian D - Bicycle o E - Transit 0 0 ID a Motor Vehide FEI 0 Safety D ■ 0 - Property impacts and Cost O 0 E - Overall Rating 0 0 Eva wUbn Sr," 0 0 0 0 ■ - Pam Medium Good 9 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS &SoCiateS • 19ANSPOPIAMN SOLUtIONS • Developing a Recommended Plan Continued This is a conceptual plan that requires more detailed for this concept would be: analysis and refinement, which usually happens in • Raised medians • the process of preliminary engineering prior to • a construction project. Elements proposed that Driveway closures, consolidation or relocation. affect ODOT facilities will require review and - Raised medians are recommended along most of approval by the State Traffic/Roadway Engineer. corridor north of SW Gaarde/SW McDonald • the This conceptual plan appears feasible to construct. However, issues that become apparent in a more Street, placing medians along approximately 40% of ' the corridor's length. Drivers would be allowed to • detailed refinement process may lead to plan make U-turns at intersections to access destinations modifications, which may include changing or ~ eliminating some design elements. across the street. Medians already in place and - functioning to limit turning movements would not Specific design issues regarding the recommended be replaced as part of the is concept. However, they plan were raised by an ODOT reviewer during this are assumed to remain in place and be functional • planning process. The project consultant's responses part of the access management concept. For cars • are included in Appendix B. to be allowed to make a U-turn at a signalized The recommended plan retains primary features intersection, ODOT requires a minimum distance . of Alternative B, the "no widening" alternative. of 52 feet between the outside edge of the left • The plan maintains a five-lane cross section with turn lane and the curb edge of the opposing lane. • enhanced continuous sidewalks, planter strips, At some intersections where improvements are • . proposed on 99W,, attaining this minimum distance ~ and bike lanes (Figure 1). There are exceptions to may require additional width in a raised median. • the five-lane cross section at two locations. One exception is the intersections where additional This issue should be addressed during preliminary turn lanes or transit bypass lanes are proposed, engineering for intersection improvements. in which case the cross section is wider than five Raised medians can be a concern for emergency lanes. The other exception is the overpass of the vehicle turning movements in response to an - existing railroad lines near downtown Tigard. incident. Final design and implementation should • There is no center turn lane on the overpass and be coordinated with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue the cross section is limited to four travel lanes. Key regarding acceptable U-Turn or travel times to improvement features are: mid-intersection properties fronting the highway. It is possible the median design could allow for rolled • Access management strategy to improve safety and reduce travel delay. curbs and designated turning areas across medians • for emergency vehicle use. However, emergency • Intersection improvements to reduce vehicle access needs should not be construed to congestion delay. eliminate raised medians as an effective tool in • Transit enhancements for travel time and reducing travel delays and increasing safety for pedestrian access. typical vehicle traffic in the corridor. Pedestrian and bike enhancements. Potential closure/consolidation of access driveways throughout the corridor is preliminary and only at An Access Management Concept the planning level (Figures 3 through 6). These are candidate properties, used only to model potential In comparison to other concepts, greater emphasis changes in traffic congestion. They do not represent is placed on an access management concept. Access an access management plan. For planning purposes, management would be applied throughout the determination of candidate properties for driveway - corridor rather than limited to interchange areas for closure/consolidadon was based on one or more of 1-5 and OR 217. The primary implementation tools the following criteria: • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 • FINAL. REPORT Developing a Recommended Plan Continued • Properties with multiple access points; The preparation of an access management plan properties abutting side streets that can provide includes extensive outreach and coordination with • • alternative access; and affected property owners. Access management plans ~ are often done as part of preliminary engineering • driveways within two-hundred (200) feet of prior to construction projects so that driveway congested intersections or intersections that closures and relocations can be built as part of the have higher collision rates. construction project. This process could be applied • Implementing access management will have positive along the 99W corridor in Tigard or the city could • effects on both corridor safety and congestion. As pursue development of an access management plan separate from any construction project. However, a safety improvement, it reduces vehicle collisions and reduces vehicle/bike and vehicle/pedestrian no construction project on 99W should proceed conflicts. As a congestion improvement, it can without an access management plan prepared in - reduce delays in the corridor while retaining a five- conformance with these guidelines to maximize • lane cross section (the "no widening" alternative). benefits to safety and mobility: When combined with proposed intersection Multiple driveways on 99W serving a single - improvements, congestion delays can be even property should be reduced to no more than further reduced. Applying the Metro Regional Travel one driveway on 99W. Demand Model to specific corridor intersections' • Properties that abut side streets should have traffic analyses indicated an increase in travel speeds access by way of side streets and not 991V, and along the corridor due to reduced conflict points their driveway connections to 99W should be resulting from access management. This increase in closed. speeds corresponds to a potential decrease in PM peak hour travel time of approximately 8% in the To the greatest extent possible, adjoining northbound direction and 10% in the southbound properties should share a single, consolidated - direction. The travel time in the southbound driveway. In these cases, internal crossover • direction is longer due to heavier volume flow easements can be used to provide access to during the PM peak period. Access management can individual properties that now rely on direct be expected to have similar benefits to travel times access to 99W. • in the northbound direction during the AM peak • Determination of driveway closures and period when vehicle volumes are heavier in that relocations should consider operational needs - direction. of affected businesses. Operational needs may Before access management can be implemented, an include, for example, the need for tanker truck - access management plan for the corridor must be access and circulation at a gas station, but does developed. An access management plan, as defined not include the perceived need for direct vehicle by ODOT, lists specific locations for driveways and access to and from 99W. - driveway closures, consolidations and relocations. • Table 4: PM Peak Hour Travel Time Coirlparison [Vith and U/ithout Access Management • • Direction Existing PM Peak Alternative B:WithoutAccess Alternative B:With Access 1 Management Management Northbound 11 min 0 sec 12 min 50 sec 11 min 50 sec Southbound 12 min 30 sec 15 min 30 sec 14 min 0 sec SOURCE: DKS'Assodates . Orcgon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS &SoCiatLS • 1AAW5FGRJA1tQ11 SQt UIIONS • • Figure 1 ®1"i1 Cross Sections _ r s I ary s. t fl SN, , J iin N 4T ~ `t +v phi c W ry JT ~ ~ n dG i' ,v iNjti rn a° o'h ~Y cam., n p- a' e n ~ 1!l1GR la ~ Z p~ J~4S IVOTE. Try landscaping to be planted in the light-of-way is subject to ODOT LEGS approval to ensure that plantings do not obscure sight distance and pose a safety hazard. Landscaping is subject to a maintenance Center Turn. Flee Lane Criss Section i, agreement between ODOT and the City of Tigard. Center Median Fire Lane Cross Section Four Lane Cross Section Rail Road Overpass i Lanes 9 Lanes T iP"c'u.1 Cross Section At T'ilp c al Noss Section Y x ME a ~yR>e i F AI 4 WON" .'f' Q IL Il? 17ci J12~t W a .n rc _ i• A .fin 1 8' ff' 6' i2' 12` Landscaped !2' 6' IZ' 41 ' Walk Planter Center Turn Planter 'walk Walk Punter Median Planter walk Lane 1.DO' ROIL ~ Iocj g;CW E i DKS Associates liar 4 a Gomm 12 10, Figure - Access Management 0' 750' 15D0* l ? i I too ION s O ~ / Na y% °1y~3 -M ~~Ly m'r'LL_r"`~ s c s° t44"5 fit J ~ r 401 ~rv ~0 } vp~ ® D , SAV ~Nq r'' A SN~~V tOSt - S1VoYill Fd7,4 R n ~ F ~ I ONO L ~"hu Up d wJ 5EoP~_ K I d r W d I f E LEGEND ZDAKS Associates - brivewai Mov fic2hors Modeieo Study Area inters action t - Comer Malian Figure 0' 400' , i v. i Vim; A ' y v~ n r ,e < b prsh~, y yd' „Y 0 ax re .'x.. tr " #I ~ rPtr ~ ~ ~ k & r , ,y az e Y ~h#p x 7 r tY' m, w ap. ? rg A. - - - - - - - - - NOTE Red dots,dent:ify daveway mcdificabons assumed `or i 49 , t !ra(fc n cdefing pure ses- i hese 40 u - 40 1_ 1 r i 3 rti~ ventlfied b' $PPi.y"ln the crte>,e listed under Access Management Concept. All dii%ewc:3 In the cor.,dor ' w* . '4x~ • may be Sn,-,.t to c~asure, CDRscifidati0n or !?iOCaiiO"`h*!w oroPerty rede, -lops rr :'Chen an access - - p ~ . 48 maragemen, pear. is prepared These driveway daasm Ytiii be 'Iaterm!neC through ine applipat.s, D° D;.;;c:,;[{ 5I che' relgon Adm: 6st"at!ae Rules '3tN "p,, j mw gem ..'u - - - - - LEGEND Associates 61 DKS rte: `edian Piamer S?r!G i Pmentmi Dri4aways Affected v mom" a Concrete Sidehaik by Access Mnageme .t amopm i~ Figure 4 r-- - 0' 406' Iwo, yy N S r I " o f$ r r,+ ! VIXXD r rvrv n nC P.. g 2 re > a 0. Y Y "u4 t ti A h Y i ro" n. Y ,I p w r. x An „b F ' F r y i I NOTE a Red dots ident:ft driveway modifications ass'tr?ed for ; . traffic nodeling purposes. Thes8 iriaetkay5 o+iere dent;fied by appiPing the c to is I:sted under Access Management Corced'..Ali r;r!rev.ays ;r, the cor rdor ma r be SUhi$Ct to r G51:r5 CL'f51h''.atlof, it ,'>l.'i:dtlbt, @- ( Yaher: Gt'Gpe'"y' "ed6Ve,Gra'.tr Vi^eP an ,C255 iTia^agemen1 plan is prepared. These dn'Vevtay deCiC _IGn i Ge i8ieh' s t+i?. nir;eq (ttt'Jqh f#'e arpiratf,, of DMus" i 1 or the Grecors Adchnistfat'ee toles f !regu:ahons regarding access rr ia{ agsrn`m1 LEGEND t DKSAssociates Planter Step I a Doter.. vrays `f eced '+af 7 ive Certer Median '✓0%'Cr! to Side'NaiK ri Amess Ma+n+agemert i - - t''' Figure a, 200, 400' , s " m. t r Y~ c. aw$~4' Id a rytlf r , If( y 1' P d t17 n ` t. J' ~ ~ I4 ~ fi I`' ( 71 rM ff ` ~ N p ~ W4x i Y+rz+grox . 5 J -~t.~.^tL, s.. rnwJ ~~u Y '+Z„ .:,m 'rz. ff erg, • . r' . i rA I > ) q pp •np i cm pew _ ~4 r 4 ~j yr• `,>M~G gp + u.e~" ` . l Kr ~+y' q `~iY A1R ` 'P'~.i ~,p. • A ~+~uA ~f I ~ .s r m. il y: NOIE Red 'jots denti y driveway mad ilcat ons assumed for trafic imodeiing purposes. Thiele rinve`h''ays were 1 Identi le'd by applying the crteria listed under AcceSS .d,- r,• ~ ' , Management Coreptt,. All dn+; ewa'ps in t e SOrr;d.r . ,y, e t e qu 1 rt...jrr` S may C5 SutJBCt tC.:!OSL'ro.:o!13Oi1~2ilOn or relDf.3t:On when propertt rede~-!GGs or sO.erl an :access manauerner,: l)lar prepared "rase o°,veway s; . decisions +Vtsi GC determined th(;'t;gh 'f'tc a,'~.p!icarcr of ( a. `t.•.2 i 'J S`G:: 51 J t'r - (s').I Fi_`i+In'$irC-iYe :t+iif.'.. ( $ IreC'-jlat;o- regarding access managstnentt k'y . r----- - . LEGEND .'Jt, ~LI tiuJ DKS Planter srno P4tenfial Dr''vewaVs Affc^tec ANWOM r-iiil(.'i CLe J(IA1NG!k by li"ess nIar.^igeirl.".m MWINSM - - - - - - - - - - - in 411 F i tjre - ! J ZG6' d00 i : t ' ( I , { w r ION 46 f Y ~s a I . ~ , ~ Y '4CB8 , x' s i w e 'eta .~a tR+.`. e ~ ~ ~ + ( IAA yi Ja x4. i,• x a x b., ks±i~~:iyE! ',,p' ^ Ye ' ,axis "'•SM..•:; , i q ~r t y V j a P r~ I .fit. 1 1 r ( i •~Xn ..•'N' ~X , nP o . i r NOTE f Red We dc'r y ^nve'rray r odifi„ations assumed if.r ' traffic modeling f•u'C.,ws F^ese dnve~Nay3 were ' 'a2n"Ailed by apeiy,ng .fre Gf?Cr:a iisted upler ccee> `A,.-tpg!:tr°n! Cor,,eot A! dn,.ewavs uhe' orri'dor mq'_,e s byrt t4 cir5ufe, mniolida:ivn or relocann x;`ieP ;ir%e.ty re3e'ar!ops x `N_en 2'i ac, Css k 1 ireragv re.m pi, ,s pre`,8'cl . Fcs: t- qe: v3, z ~ B I d+-Cist,,rs },dl Ce determined t+:=C,t gP to aPv C2'';"k m D; l~3ir)n Jl :o tl e R Ies ,rsgu a;:, ns regaming a;ce , ariagem* nO j LEGEND _ /103003h ells (1 Arfs..z 1, ~ NfS t'3.n..iF1 .18 Sf"{;7 J.d t v 9'1t,a' .i,ve. "fj^",rte ~-wnk by t'-.ccrsss Management lei • • • • Developing a Recommended Plan • Continued • Intersection Improvements Bypass lanes will significantly improve bus travel • time along the corridor, as well as reducing vehicle Intersection improvements are focused on changes delays behind loading/ unloading buses. Queue to the design of the intersection configuration bypass lanes must be designed with adequate length • (primarily adding turn lanes to ensure the for buses to bypass the 95th percentile vehicle • intersection meets 20-year performance standards) queues at the intersection. • and transit bypass queue lanes. Nine intersections have been identified for improvements. Figures Transit stop relocations along the corridor are also 7 through 17 are conceptual illustrations of recommended (Figure 18). Relocation to a "far side" • recommended changes to these intersections: stop placement at signalized intersections allows • transit vehicles to clear an intersection and stop • 99W and 68th Avenue -Transit queue bypass. on the opposing side to load/unload. Passengers • 99W and Dartmouth - Transit queue bypass, crossing intersections after disembarking from a southbound through lane. bus are more visible to motorists. Queue bypass • lanes with far-side stops also provide improved right • 99W and Hall Boulevard -Transit queue turn opportunities for vehicles. Detailed design • bypass, westbound turn lane. and amenity upgrades for stops were not included • 99W and Greenburg Road - Eastbound/ in the recommended plan. However, a high level w westbound left turn lanes. of amenities and design should be maintained throughout the corridor. • 99W and Walnut Street -Transit queue bypass, westbound left turn lane. • 99W and Gaarde/McDonald - Transit queue • bypass, northbound/southbound left turn • lanes, eastbound/westbound through lanes and eastbound/westbound left turn lanes • 99W and Canterbury - Westbound left turn • lane. w 99W and Beef Bend Road - Southbound right • turn. • 99W and Durham Road - Northbound left • turn. • Bus Transit Improvements The recommended plan improvements include r bus transit queue bypass lanes at five intersections • (Figure 18): SW 68th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street • • SW Hall Boulevard • SW Walnut Street • SW Gaarde/McDonald Street(s). • • T[GARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 18 • FINA[. REPORT • Figure 7 ® intersections and Pedestrian Crossings i X G I RIP SSnn im"" ~.a'. ~ ly T',C fl1, w y X rt u 4 s sit ~ ~ j ~YSr d I aw sx3e' n i P5~ c ~ 5-,N gtEF flc.{G vD ~ ~r hi✓: I i A i~ 1 L 47IY >r pp~~D lb "'0 - D7KS Study Area Intersection (acczptaule Operations) Transit Queue Bypass Lane As~+ oa ¢e 'ht, . GOneeptual irrte=see on'mprevements New Paees.nan Crossing sn 401 Figure ® Durharmy cd 1 1+ , r ,.r u, r 17 µ$a fry ~ t fl ~ lei 4 8 S w. wm^ of y ? r ~.n. a. lei Sn ION lei a x ION n .n ,t lei CbWMAxW.+ MnWi.! N w~1{ CS y. ,F Ya yp t d 3 k >5 VW t a lie .w^x~ n ro 'rakAna uwwwu- ,.,a way ro,+-.» ~ ,q niamv +fnh.., wyp 401 1 101 tt~a f { S x ION lei { 4F is ,t ,a~ !{,iji ~u 14>k,~j. ~ ' d~ dl~~E+~~a''' • lei ~ w ow 'iz* a ~ ^ ' NOTE ( SIG6Yv8~k, `-x'ar.I9r tmpro,emem SAY not "e interpreted as elimmai ng o- °mpac{ ^c f, 6 r~. eAist l drwa`Na,S 4 fLF i , _ _ a. ! EGEND DKS s s<o e , t~e.,me. lm: amen<. ~',aJnCrc'te S!helcS Plan .ar'S:iip ~~e.sterl9..Clar: .,US Stop U 2t3y',3..n5 tan, 'Y rr,z,~ ~ " - - - - 411 Figure 19 m of end - W So' 100, t nk 1 v 1 Y e 4 ti r Y,~~ ~ I k' 'X'• yf ~ )f~ 111 ~1 tft~l..:. S e 'A+.rvy 4 t~V, ~f Y 01 5 , 644 yl \ily a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nq v ...,.:'t' 401 40 ION ION ; a a, r. 110 v a~; Lxs vi ? rv it y " ION 2wm INS w';w;,::..; Slig+tt&tk/Pi3(±1fY L'rprO'8.7:Pti;S Shnli''j not ' . be Irterptetad as e«mmatinn or !mpa:6nyr,. dnoways L. LEGEND Conn e--e Jii PlaniSr st"I.,^: Center Md a" Bus Stop Di:ev2 3yoaa53 Lan,5 (:nr n',c{i t Im.J"OYcf'^2^i 22 40 ~ ~ •»,aanrv .:s~a~'.ua?a:`'~'^;1~,~s,~~.~,~,.g~N;-"~~,+tyre,.,..W~C, .t;~,,r;;~,,. ~i ` i y h ~ k a ~Y ^ xA y. . 1 u~y:*„pt v „ , dire ~A§ da 3 yY "tkF ...r......,vw .epvx.x.a aAxn:pr aror~ w. ws:. ,..Mr y ,F . t a P i f#^ 40 r ~ti't sa, n ~ ( 9 Y P i` r^,~ re + fi ..wl f7r~rr y a„,„ ,.u!r , 3 e,; a-k Pia^.er:mpm err ems =howl rrrrr d , of lmroari •f„ ,f, .°4 y . 3., i" M1v, r:, ry~p dmewaY3 IEGrND ~.'g~ DKS Associates 'may ~^.:'~Cd i..:>~ ^'rez - - ' r„i14,~ 6 Jit12.§'3in Pid^icf S'.!ip r.,2{':'Ef iVd8~~i8n `etas Stop ,nel:oU~ Bj ::3S5 Lane ?'.aQp(!?EiiV iffCf04'8!^6q° AMOMM NOMMOM Figure 11 - SW Gaarde St SW McDonald St - f O~ 50' t - p^, + ,I ~ Myd ^a~.c l.. I ~:.+~~I (r:1 I Ir1~I~f111 t~l ~n(~I : t Yr ~i w.,, . I 4 M 4 ~'.WL RoYr.v tr, y tt ~ th. 'r✓r', ' P nay '.4+., r', 8+y t ~ ~ ~ 5 reN jy,1v t , yit;K~~r } r n.: « t a; 391,¢$# 1Fit' Pi 4'g.~ d a , _w 1 y ,11)1' i i ~ x , , " Vii, 'l r I'„ f~1~ n ~ x; ✓ r ^ I NOTE r "°°wN x y t t, .1 :1 r x x 1 Stdewaik'P'a^ter minnro,+an@^ts should not ~e rilegieted as a't "rmati,:L or I!nf8t:'trf^y " r s <;r.'Fi A 'A t I amst•rq an tewaa'/s e LEGEND .DKS.Assoda 4Sic.J ✓8!'n8r:i , .,G^.(n.5 Jt 2Jt2=i{ PdrriPr j?r;r , . Caric., `ar PF,nid': a$ '?Grr Queue ~}✓355 t3tls e._ ~a2urr..:`tYCt it'tl~:rv' _ t ~i - i Figure 1 - Est t / shut P1 , 0' SC' #00' ~i iron ~ r VR ~ LM1 " ' r a .n ~1 r r { .p3~,ij`k ~ .~xap.. ✓hi••4~'' i~{4.+'}'' t/ 1 ~ , , r fY ° r if~.,t ° u~ tF~ ~ 4`5 v~, r•`t ° {7f aea+p n 9y' n .wy,. .y G nY ~~t~ "w ~E. Pom > , " P } d 3 >f 4 A r to ~ g j 5 aP-'"„r,•~ •'d> N`P ~'e• 4 j+} r v ~ s \ .d gy s, ^ri aedvF, 4 ~Y`d~* , .w. ~i t ~ Ah< xu ~ ~ mR. ~ ~ ~ "A' 4` ~ aa;' t~'' , z A ~yN"~ 3j, % E , ~ a qr , l >ti ~y f§g1 x - t+~ :Y r a, w. y+F.... ...ter,. ,';°jf'$'^p",:, >v 'St3ti+`t~ - 'r.>fi'"w rt.. , n : tom.. } Manwk+.:+., w+ rrt~n n w .w. .r. n .w. # y '..A'r .i;P •5{,...'""~y'..v w.'F+5 ^MgN"` ,r.. "n ,A.')..}.• W W %rn 1H Pmkx7~ ,ektJ}} ~"iw ~ { 'v k. ""'^^""-^^TR`f ' "Nv '%~y yrv iN y 1 SS nvk x d 1 b~ .v:. 1 . A'iN L , v ri, ,~Y. „Y Pn+lex\yw' +1rt Palo t +hYVi "9~WA4~^p.k4e,~i"t^ W%WL~ 1M19k,YOl+~ 1 K ln`~~ d{ °f,1 d Oa,Yd %f§f d+~•+kMha+v):tYY,d<V f d} YS#5'.> Y' W xYe , esst ' w PtQ, Y3.. °)v' . h.n.'W+LUtaia' `w~, kiwi ~KK,Y#' "....xri- , a 4•~s~la Ltxn P"'km$' cxl ~ n„wY>F^F.+h t, r,'n ~ tv ~,•a!~S'• a.~„&m,s;Y,.a + "'".'a+.., .`:s...~ rr' '~'a„ Y :'e.'+?+tt`~~":'"4``bw,~:::w..:;"' ±~~1'. Y. ,is'r:'''~.. , ...An.. ,~'s•.: >w a .kr ..J ` &,S " '4.k±t:r£~h$''`~,'w"~f'k~at~•~+"v~3'P4a'~&imrds,..r..:f-r;~".'e' ' ,"t'^~t,'.,:... ,:,n rv~!^,.:::~ 41 4 A$ n v ~bd .rvw ~ • t u i Arc ~ ~ v"" ~trpw, tr z' 45 !v T « vb rMl~{1 ~ ~ ~ X ~ 1~ g R ~d` $ 4utr fffi i"3 ~~~>d`ddm', , * it ~ y', N ' NOTE ~ ~sEJ ~ ~ T';?7{3~fJ`Fia"1.?(~1i~~3rrJ: ~t"8-",$ C~; i-:;:,,Y (t`J} 'u;.to { ~ ' n,e .Y ~ 'b. % M&: 7 ~ ,~'f"~~yt~'a',~,Y ~ tiJ'' ;t'.e'fE^,'8ts.''! a5 ? ~,nas.{ts~'.r r'.u2~'in~, , 7, d r. 4 R ~ ,Vt xA`''~ : " SfsUrig .'bf'•r?rlv,n.J~ 't' n ~tV ty.f,k ~'j,>t;. ',"•s.5",~;:fi rt LCVC'Y , ocotes - .:d?143i+ i.. - " vl3nl?' Si^',) centef mer:{an &US sto, Ou ,u-`v B"ass Land v:' leni - M, Ur~ G7 Figure 13 - Greenburg Rd SW airs t w 7-411 b q } rA S r sd, v.. s r 'x"t ^ "',w.w=r+'9 d+' `zs, v _ A^in~ ~"r~.V'W;rW,G b' . 4,4~riw~ % 5~• ' ..}zZ;~„ g,t M t""a,' ",~M' izzz ':w r', ~k)x •i ~ r".N', ay~t, zw~,' ~~~~',y~'re:,,µ~„s~,~' ""$Tr ' M~+"~~^s~tt; r'•#r v r ~~aa~ x a,, y, a=:- sr Y~ ~r , PV t `un n ? { Agrf s 5 rt' ..1` FTi.d!' rtXV~d r' ~r q~~{ dr'~"y+'{•` ,~'",1 1 wk rPw t s Q , e ;Y d + xwt ? % y r r 9; , ar r, 1 `'~N r• „.7 a't~. 'Yi Yr.nY M }jk 3: p,.~ , . ~'f ;is "ri 4" xs 3 '~,~ti'7,t,. 4 a* x ) ,a x 't'rtarx , v .~'a' t, a u ~ » y r' dt r• 4a" s 5 x # 4 4''ax s az rv x x s EY' I ~ ~ z e a" ~ ~ ~ t x ` ~ rk } i ( ~ ~ ~ ,T„3~~F• ~ fi e ~r„ , dh 1%E{;,,. T ~ ~ rh , r'• ~ ~ ~ v'' +i, , a~ " ~ 4=~wry~'^.1'9~'.~~+~'~~ Tea v b,yxi a ,gyp. - a t R 1 1 1 r. 3 < a, ^'g pta"xf ryt f 4Sr ``x~~"n '%P 1 n~~,~, a3 H. .a x~a ~ r, s t { m`~~~ #'+~"ttyas~~^%N^ ^°y~s 7~•P [ , I w%,p 1i ..3`". .off, j `r'P " „t )}r~,'x%at +;5, pkdtY '-Tk^~ p. , klty ~ 1,f i ~ Sx s ^nrt § , , T ~f4et allF~N T'X' Mt M1 r~ , a n t n rt , I f u L NL t } ~ - I ,,pprc yR . Io' n ^ r'•r b" x", wr n +:e3-.'f x . 4". d9t' M Ao, Sari r x w .t. 'y.. rnn 'N wvtr ~?tr+1 e J „ r a,i r r '~p , 40 r M~ 0 wit n k , , `tq v, , .A N"~ d r."S 'alts` » 1 fiA : u Fad' a `i , r rl x p h , .w„ oil `l;OTF Fp«~ j r E""iO. C'?5?F?'t~ShC,.I~"C iWtw4, 6m.. 1 „4' c,YV~Vr'u'r'-'I3I?.a j, , F r .f i :9"G;E'.Ed 85 sry-{ri3° [ z}j,'s:`$1'°Y3 < ^,y " d£y' n • `,e',» 1 ~1 SSS fr ,i-!`Jev8 ~.,.,J •Yvr " 'd r - - _ _ st}s^ a=te" .F.u. _ ~ _ ~ ~'_~wb>:. 7_'' tp ' DKS - ~--t~'a.. €.,is. c;J , ~A .3a t- -r~'" e.` a,n "„xs•, J l5 „ Et<zJ „t., r •r# x;v „-"n °Y, *+n'~: y~Rrv r Figure 14 - Halt Blvd 1:' ' . .wf - - ...___-•-.,.n-'_" H F"g :'F",• i'~^i',ftiyRT."'.,....;~"^,'*~,,; _,.v,. ,.,y,.v.-._;.,..,_.,y,.;...".....,-....,,......_..,...,~-.c: r:_,,Tr„ s oc w r r t ~y f ,WsyY.~ r'rxy kC t 'k+r; 1 e, ,x .v, , ^ €k'' axr)ta v, t ' 't r ' .r. ,'SaT'm ,4,'&,~" ty i mom! r , ."kffi,k r j mvd„gx$+, k" 3 '1+mT+t' t ^T 4" d .t` ~vr,~¢. i Cu~~~y S'sn'e r ,t f P x:. S ';•,"p ~M1" x 444 m'~ r ,;x+d a" • r. sE~ r R ~ . Y. q x ~ , n : Y. ~;1R`✓ W ~p~ q `yp r nay 5" r ^ ~ r ~ 'rn r, a rS, „ 3 :"i''{(km.~, nY'" a,{rv''` oJ'"s S ,v' s 4 "u' A" kY. , +LA,#. r AMY N9 fy+, ).'a.:~')wa Y sP; ^ fy~! 3 F ,}N,~.,v4'X.x C,~ ,A, ' y .W, kr.A„'. n ~'mxz~~4 a 1k " ~ ".u~`la~,~:($ fir. t °."a V,N. "~:.,,f`~,Y '{e',: ^ t•# ~"dnAa7~ ..C c ) . n 3/. MS ^S Fk y 4 4 1 .1 n r ^i Y'n t( ;P v v';#?. k w , .uWVV A t " ` 4 "v'' i.~' { '~,t t i q~ N , . ~ ~.*~Nw~5~~x4yyx,~~ h a~ w~ s, ~.x ~ 4 z r'A „u ~ ~ y-nrea ~nrT~'.*@r d' F .NY )fre , + Y i rP § a % z„ a y Y~^ D-k ~~1 .t~" k. ~ q 4 r't .I d& GC' m •a < r x " S P~~i'; 7~,,x«Y„`^k''r~"a`xrdr~n$i''3^j',~~§~ r p~ t „fi ri,.~ r rx`~i _ ~Pgr yuD "b ~f` ~ ' p D'4 '..¢r k$ ya ) ~ " y m--.w M = w- - . ~t"'~"'"--°.+; --row-"~r:_°»-="~ ~ t+„F +^m ^ % tw, • yY a t r r 11 111k, a r i. a1 `l ' SL 5 A ~ #S 4 F, ~ 8 ' rG,+• Aw ..,rt t tSt. ^ .I. S°, „~tt f wn. ~,yW)w n. w1 x n tN 1, 1 ,P'£r, x)k y .41v g., l ~ ,4A °a.. ' " 1 tt ' a Jr),'rY av+S l d( • %y;, ~ a ~ :;,{"fit rB~' w.ct r ?,r,~~ r s o 6 rn .)u i Ywl*t YV t N' '@t ` ' n), x n & "•s'' } 7" a,« . S u I ,A"t'rtt ~ >fi . a ~ I~ r^.. ~a j a„ ~ s* e5 ' %"n° e repyp 41 4V py rv ° §fy r1 Y P in''~~ j vJ "'t3!Yicr !^"i:;G: Pil2gri5 i :3E r'e'; as wrina'~'g flt2r~sr~:4 n i zt . rGcND Ass()E 4 tes i ; t`,Di`~'C-Se `;',nr.:N3;'r =j.f-;•r.r Gy ."t-'" c. a3e^3t: CiC~ %3Pdc N-asz -ars' ' Figure 15 - Dartmouth t / 78th Ave 40 rvR JtYR~i'a j , 40 d '4t. t h(f t x' nt m r ~,Q+' Min d.l~ ~ r•. Y R y' ip, 1h!!' Rty' t' ~b ' 40 C' wy'~5 rs^) " A "I Mimi: 'd F%' a ~ ~q 1.. yNN' »w.a(m..aw~.mewV :xi• J , . ~ RY n'F ! wnKu ei ,e i s.. n,.. u.•.wmlkarv t..i "W°~+' ,ms^' i i ~ 3 ' S ( t : : S ~3 f t a ; 7 `4 ~ ~ wri,i"x.'.um~.^mYr:,,. l,.x. w`...... , „ - ,..tx »w. v ri ,xta, w.:u., ~ 5 ~ S 'n \ ~t 1 i + , .k } x tt : - 3 y y ~n ~ ,~rol&,.w+aw«° „ i `qW. ^xz.A1^W,MrvnaSU'iNnA rv ps 1 ~ e nvr, „ .ry + H s .s J i 4 n ' .,..~i~N(r :Y v.d+~ , eY xn~, e+.,0... rx; jiar 1 +d^„ ro?x~' %d r, v t ,..t c:~ R,. .ti. :..:..r ':..'Jn a~!+ • 'P^. ~ .RJ>~',1~`/~!~ "~+bt'A..: ' i' d § + ~W ~ ~ S Ir .di1 t'. ,h .T ' u E"A'1 M f e i. r t~ N u n n , S ~t. 1 ~ k ~ • ` 40 NOTE '.Y ~ °m a $'~rrc"~,~'+ x§`$ 'R+'~,+'~'w,,• na~ fit." < SdewaildPlanter$Morolemlertsshould not I 78 ntE,r'c;ev as ^i ~+jr!V6 k='t r nn -d x.. ; U , - - - - - - - - - - - F C LEGEND all DKS socot s Pii3'7[cY S:(IrJ Wen>£. Medan B,,. SiU" oJ}JE B'.'.^.aS>!_a.'~S ..iern;efn L"!!. `d'@ - Figure 1 - 72nd Ave : 0 50' 106 4 h sK the N' j ~ ~ + . w s. , x7 r f " ~z v ~ f y y y 4 .fit: ✓f .'l~"w`", d N. .i`. « 1 ! "e r y u ku~,l, v~ ,tRt + , ~ ~ „~"^w..a ~ y ~"f aFi. ~~Yt„• .,'imu nd ~a P~ w W~ ~ r :t lig t , tY T ~ { i• n &z , , s i ' ; ~ . ~q"~ £:•1 mkt ~ e w ti: ~ D Y!~ Aepv.< I YXir r: C Je t!YF~t It~~S NOTE ..d:n,`:E?;s?~i°+~85 ailrPi^2:;^^.~':r:^.~&G!InG 'i '.:.n• .a"', 1'.`if t:. LEGEND DKS Associates Planter S'n Center Medan Bus Si0u - Ct'Jeeue S'f pass :lane `i cCrv!gi~-J Im,Cr`~Y«,r5n+ i - - 40 Figure 1 - 68th Ave 169th Ave 1 a 1. t>' Y" I y" r d ar a. x r n. a, ii a. ti.N.. i d a v n a " L yyryryss~ rv ..M..n."x.x..... n.:m, e un. >~r vrn. i n n of v. " ~Y / f Y w 1Ywx J ,vp v ,a fi. h too r x a "x• i ti ~,k, °kv x & " n " x Y' }~C NO~P a y ( Jiv'r`yf%]!fiif ~vfl''.. „^.1(}(D lt?{~'C:iaS should ^..-,i - - - - - - - - - LEGEND ""i^i8'E 51c9''.u?iiz n`e. ~It :i~ iet vEc,4:2.1 B'is 5'01 'O'.:aue B y',raas LanE imp,. n, fi Figure - Relocated Bus Stops ....0 759' 4500' } 1 - - r= i ty 4~ i ' `~aJAr Sp~,ci 1 ry v ~ ~ it swr n y vy S r_ VSy Hq t~ ~3G<c ~ nq ai c A z sh'Gn,~ROc ,yq, ST ~j 51VV30, 41NRD s ry , h5 i f =I l- - - _ LEGEND Study Area In.ersacficn Tarsit Queue Bypass ano New Bus Stop ccaYott DKS Associates New Bus StOP L9nations 31 - - - - Developing a Recommended Plan Continued • The Future of High Capacity Transit in the Gaps in the existing networks were identified in 99W Corridor Step 2: Existing Conditions Analysis. The issue of High Capacity Transit (HCT) in the Upgrading current sidewalks as necessary to 99W Corridor was raised by the TAC and CAC meet the proposed design standard of eight- as well as the general public. Metro's Regional foot walkway and four-foot landscape strip. • Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies 99W as a high Pedestrian crossing improvements. capacity transit corridor. However, the RTP does not indicate the specific mode of high-capacity Filling in the gaps in the existing sidewalks system • transit, and it indicates such transit improvements will provide pedestrian connectivity along the - on 99W as lower-priority, to be achieved in the corridor. The recommended sidewalk design longer term, rather than being a higher-priority, (for filling in the gaps and for upgrading existing short-term project. Because there is no specificity sidewalks) is an eight-foot walkway and four-foot or certainty with regard to HCT, it was not reflected landscape strip. Sidewalks segments that meet or • in the evaluation criteria or listed as a transportation exceed these standards would not be reconstructed. improvement as part of this project. ~ The recommended plan also provides pedestrian - Three types of transit modes or facilities are advantages by avoiding seven lane highway - generally considered to provide high-capacity widening. Widening intersections increases the transit, or HCT. They are Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), time required for pedestrians to cross, which in Dedicated Busway, or Light Rail Transit (LIM. turn requires longer red lights at traffic signals. e Each mode usually requires a dedicated lane, free Longer red times can affect the roadway's efficiency • of any other through vehicle traffic, to function for through travel. The plan also provides raised - effectively. Different design standards apply to each medians along a significant portion of the corridor. mode; which in turn can affect lane and overall This allows for potential pedestrian refuges for right-of-way widths. Widening the highway to seven crossing at unsignalized intersections. lanes does not guarantee that an HCT facility could Two specific locations are recommended for new • fit in the right-of-way. pedestrian activated signalized crossings. These Retaining a five-lane cross section with an access two locations are at SW 71 st Avenue and SW - management focus does not preclude future HCT. Watkins Avenue intersection. The 71 st Avenue - When plans for HCT become more specific with location improves pedestrian access to an existing a selected mode and vehicle type, assessments of transit stop. SW Watkins Avenue improves right-of-way needs and other impacts can be made pedestrian access where current intersection at that time along with preliminary alignments and spacing significantly exceeds accepted standards for . proposed station locations. Until that occurs, the convenient pedestrian crossing. Implementation of . City of Tigard might consider strategies such as these (as well as design components) would need to building setbacks for new development to preserve be determined at a later time when an engineering physical space for right-of-way expansion to include study is completed to determine if the locations HCT in the future. If anything, access management meet warrants for pedestrian crossings as well as . strategies may become even more aggressive if HCT what type of crossing treatment is most appropriate - is implemented. for the safest design possible. Final design of the new pedestrian crossings will be subject to ODOT Pedestrian Improvements approval. Meeting signal warrants and spacing requirements may limit or preclude where additional Enhancing the pedestrian environment involves signalized intersections could be implemented. three key improvements (Figure 19): Access management strategies for closing or • Fill in the gaps in the existing sidewalk system. consolidating driveways will also reduce potential . TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 32 FINAL REPORT Developing a Recommended Plan Continued bike/vehicle conflicts thereby improving safety Installation of secure bicycle lockers that could for both users. Pedestrians accessing transit stops be implemented through redevelopment of will also benefit from reduced conflicts between properties along (or near) Hwy 99W. - stop locations and driveways located near those stops. This will be a significant improvement in the pedestrian environment for transit. The continuous landscape planter strip as part of Lxannple uayfinding signage the sidewalk enhancements provides an opportunity to add tree canopy or understory planting to the • edges of the corridor. This enhancement has visual appeal and would add walking comfort for pedestrians. Any landscaping to be planted in the right-of-way is subject to ODOT approval to ensure r that plantings do not obscure sight distance and pose a safety hazard. Also, landscaping is subject to a maintenance agreement to ensure that MOT is ' ` • not responsible for maintenance. Bicycle Improvements Recommended bicycle improvements include filling in the missing gaps in the highway bike lanes • r (identified in Step: 2 Existing Conditions) and - upgrading the railroad overpass with bike facilities (Figure 20). Much of the corridor already includes bike lanes consistent with ODOT's design standard. r1' • However, segments in the north portion of they, - corridor lack bicycle lanes. The overpasses of the s existing railroad near downtown Tigard and the Hwy 217 overpass also lack sufficient bike facilities. The width of the existing structure will not allow 1"botop-aph tonaeg of BikrPordandoq - six foot bikes and maintain the required travel • lane widths for vehicles. The most feasible remedy Example bike lane and raised median • for this constrained condition would be to attach and cantilever additional structure to the existing overpass to provide a directional bikeway on each side. Bike safety on the corridor will also be enhanced through access management strategies in the recommended plan. Access management reduces the potential for bike/vehicle turning conflicts. In addition to continuous bicycle lanes and reduction r • in conflict points, other enhancements could include: fs • Wayfinding signage to connect regional and local bicycle routes. • • 33 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS AssoCiateS . TRAUS?ORIAtION SOLUTIONS Figure 1 - Pedestrian Improvements I+ ` 0' 750' 1500' t I i I x +S' Y e `nl PiaN}' m '~S7 ~ b Via'! I 49 C s Nf . s. i i SlMgGt, ti*n+ i i v r 40 FJi 6 - - - - - LEGEN.-C) - - cx s rg Ca s n adadvaik Ex stin Sidewalk odar i ooe to ps' n and g Railroad Ovemass ~ New Paden _ an Crossing SOWN= ograde Sidewalk to Standard - - - - - - - - - - - Figure 20 - Bike Leas improvements W 750' 1 soo, i i ~ 1 40 i +a+-r<C yJ ' vi 3 ,f`~" yatK'I6~ h ~ r I S PA ~ N~a""! r Y { ~a ht ~ fiq N ~ i t 3 9 . I d' `.r r i I I z ~ it LEGEND _ - ~a Existing Gaps 'n Bike Lanes ,.x~T.".:v+r FX73tIi10 ,~i;iSE 3`7E5 to Jt3(i(1artai n ~sociime s DKS = Adc ti:k2 "DRAY en Rsilroad Ove~pass Implementation Projects • Rebuilding the entire 99W Corridor in a a specific process when implementing Access single project would be extremely expensive Management Plans (OAR 734, Division 51). The and disruptive. Therefore, it is preferable that process involves an inventory of existing facilities, improvements be built as smaller projects phased development of access control measures, and public • over time. Smaller, phased projects can compete involvement at both the individual property owner • better for scarce transportation funding because level as well as the general public. The entire process they are less expensive; however, they still provide is aimed at providing a plan that is beneficial for the • noticeable benefits to all highway users because corridor as well as the property owners along the • they can be targeted to address the most crucial corridor. problems sooner, and less crucial problems later. • Table 5 (page 37) summarizes the individual • improvements along the corridor. Project ranking • reflects potential benefits to various modes of travel. A specific improvement may benefit one r or more travel modes. In addition, the ranking of • the intersection improvement projects takes into - account the overall intersection performance in the future. The worse the performance the higher w priority for improvement. All intersections on this list fail to meet the operational standard at the - end of the 20-year planning horizon and should • be monitored based on their performance. If a particular intersection's operational performance degrades faster than predicted in this project's traffic analysis, it could be reprioritized to reflect the • greater urgency for a solution to be built sooner. It should be noted that the City of Tigard may - have additional priorities, such as improvements - to cross-town connectivity involving side streets. These considerations may influence the timing of implementation independent of the ranking in Table 5. As can be seen in Table 5, some projects occur generally along the corridor rather than in specific • locations such as intersection improvements. - Examples include access management, transit stop relocation, and construction of bicycle lanes and sidewalks. These types of projects can be implemented along the corridor in phases or as an • integrated element in a larger improvement project. Access management is a significant element of the - recommended alternative. To fully implement access • management along the corridor a complete access management plan would need to be completed. The Oregon Department of Transportation follows • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 36 FINAL. REPORT - Implementation Projects Continued Table 5. Potential Pr ject Ranking Based on Individual Location Needs and Benefit - • Rank Location Description/Improvement Approximate Cost Estimate 1 99W/Gaarde/ Transit queue bypass, northbound and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ $1.5 Million McDonald southbound left turns, eastbound and - westbound through lanes, eastbound and westbound left turns 7 99W/Dartmouth Transit queue bypass, southbound through ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ $600,000 lane for 500 feet 8 99W/Walnut Street Transit queue bypass, westbound left turn ✓ ✓ V/ V/ I $600,000 2 99W/1-5 Add northbound through lane for ✓ ✓ ✓ $300,000 • southbound capacity/access to 1-5 5 99W/Durham Rd Northbound left turn ✓ ✓ ✓ $250,000 w 6 99W/Beef Bend Rd Southbound right turn ✓ ✓ ✓ $300,000 10 99W/72nd Avenue Southbound right turn pocket ✓ ✓ ✓ $300,000 4 99W/Hall Blvd Transit queue bypass, westbound left turn $750,000 3 99W/Greenburg Eastbound/westbound left turns ✓ $500,000 9 99W/Canterbury Westbound left turn $250,000 11 99W/68th Ave Transit queue bypass ✓ ✓ ✓ $400,000 - 12 99W/Watkins Install signalized pedestrian activated ✓ $400,000 Avenue crossing i 13 99W Corridor Perform an access management study ✓ ✓ ✓ $200,000 Access Management that specifically plans out the medians and - driveway improvements for the corridor 14 99W Center Median Install raised center median with low level V V/ 1$180 per low maintenance landscaping for access linear foot management • 15 Transit stop Upgrade and relocate existing transit stop ✓ ✓ ✓ $10,000 per - relocation/ to be consistent with transit queue bypass site improvement implementation. Install shelters and other - appropriate transit amenities at transit stops. 16 99W Corridor Infill Install sidewalks where they currently do ✓ $65 per linear sidewalks not exist. Upgrade sidewalks to include 4 foot - foot landscape strip and 8 foot pedestrian - zone. 17 99W Corridor Infill Install 6 foot bike lanes where they ✓ $50 per linear bike lanes currently do not exist. foot • SOURCE: DKS Associates • 37 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS,4SSOCiateS - t4-US'Q-tlpN SOlV tI0M5 • • Appendix A • • • • • • • • Appendix A-Conceptual Alternatives and Evaluation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 38 FINAL REPORT • • • • • • Appendix A • • ,s.~ r rf r S'~t. .t `1`kCjt^ S^ ~~+`,Y~ ~ ~'Fk~ y. 7- t~?;y a .F ° {x'jh i- .fi x-.a`.jt R~~, ~,n U3. w.c'-~' fry ~'e .'+•4{,. }CONCEPTS • . DEVELOPMENT • • • • INTRODUCTION • The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the process for the development of • concepts for the Tigard 99W Improvement Plan, as well as describe the concepts developed that will be evaluated and compared in a later task. • Previous efforts for the Tigard 99W Improvement Plan project have documented - existing data related to pedestrian, bicycle, transit and roadway operations and conditions. This inventory of data was utilized to help document a set of • needs/opportunities/constraints that were then used to help develop concepts that • address the deficiencies in the corridor. The next phase of this project focuses on developing concepts that support the purpose • and goals of the project. A primary goal of this project is to develop concepts that • enhance and encourage alternative modes of travel, while reducing the reliance of auto • travel. • For the purpose of the development of concepts, "themes" have been developed that • focus treatments on a primary component to implement along the entire corridor. The • corridor has four focus areas that allow for a more refined and detailed evaluation. • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Three different concepts have been developed for this phase of the project and have • individual themes focused on enhancing the connectivity and operations of the corridor • in different ways. Inherent to all concepts is providing a balanced multimodal • environment especially related to pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements. Therefore each concept will contain bicycle lanes, as well as sidewalks with landscape • buffers all built to the ODOT standard. The following matrix summarizes these • concepts. • • • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 1 • Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 40 • • • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • • Table 1: Concepts Descriptions • Concept General Description • Concept A This concept focuses on widening Hwy 99W to seven (7) cross-section from Interstate 5 to SW Greenburg Road. • Access management is also a part of this concept, and is • focused within the interchange access spacing area (1,320 • feet) from Hwy 217 and Interstate 5. South of SW Greenburg Road local capacity improvements area • implemented where intersections have future deficiencies. • Concept B This concept focuses on implementing aggressive access • management, not only within the access spacing areas of - Hwy 217 and Interstate 5, but also targeting properties along Hwy 99W that have multiple access points, and • those properties in close proximity (200 feet) of • intersections with high collision rates and/or congested conditions. Another integral part to this concept is the - potential implementation of local parallel connecting roadways to help reduce the reliance on Hwy 99W for • travel within the study area. • Concept C This concept is primarily focused on widening Hwy 99W • the full length of the study corridor (from Interstate 5 to SW Durham Road). Access management would also be • implemented along the corridor to help reduce the • potential conflicts between motor vehicles and all modes of • travel, as well as enhance the through capacity of the • corridor. This concept is not as aggressive on access management as Concept B. • SOURCE: DKS Associates • • It is not expected that any one concept is going to be the single solution for Hwy 99W, • but by representing the concepts that have multiple elements (across multiple focus areas) it allows for a "mix and match" of elements that are the most appropriate to each • specific area as well as the entire corridor. • • • EVALUATION CRITERIA • As part of this task, evaluation criteria were used to help develop the concepts. These evaluation criteria were developed to help balance enhancements to all modes of travel • along the corridor. The following table summarizes criteria themes for used to help • develop the concepts. • • • • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 2 • Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 41 • • • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • Table 2: Evaluation Criteria for Developing Concepts - Theme Criteria used for Concept Development • General mobility Provide for adequate traffic operations. • Provide for adequate storage of vehicles (queuing). • Alternative modes Provide for safe and convenient connections for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. • Freight movement Provide for connections and design considerations for freight - to/from the corridor as well as along the corridor. Safety Reduce or minimize the number of conflict points between • modes of travel. Design standards Meet access spacing standards at interchanges. • Meet access spacing standards between signals. • Meet roadway design standards for all modes of travel. Property impacts Minimize impacts to properties and buildings. • Cost Minimize cost to implement project while providing a balanced • multimodal corridor treatment. - SOURCE: DKS Associates • These criteria were used to help develop concepts for the corridor, and will be used • again in later task(s) of this project for the evaluation of the concepts. ALTERNATIVE MODES • As part of the development of concepts, alternative modes such as bicycles, pedestrians and transit all will be addressed equally for addressing deficiencies. That is • to say that no matter what concept, the improvements to the bicycle, pedestrian and • transit environments would be the same. The following summarizes the potential improvements being considered as part of the concepts development for the alternative - modes. • Bicycle Enhancements • Each concept includes the enhancement of the bicycle environment by providing for a • six (6) foot bike lane along the entire corridor. Much of the corridor includes bike lanes • today that meet this criterion. There are however some areas in the north portion of the corridor that would require the addition of bicycle lanes, and overpasses of the existing • railroad near downtown Tigard and the Hwy 217 overpass where the existing bicycle • facilities do not meet this criteria. • In addition to these bicycle lanes, other amenities such as signage and additional • secure bicycle lockers could be implemented. Signage would allow for wayfinding for • bicycle users to connect to other regional (and local) bicycle routes to/from Hwy 99W. • Bicycle lockers could be implemented through redevelopment of properties along (or . near) Hwy 99W and are only considered as part of concepts in that capacity. • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 3 • Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 42 • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Pedestrian Enhancements • Each concept includes the enhancement of the pedestrian environment by providing for a four (4) foot landscape buffer and an eight (8) foot sidewalk along the entire corridor. • This assumes that even locations that have existing sidewalks would be upgraded to provide for this twelve (12) foot section. There are some areas that would only contain • the eight (8) foot sidewalk. These areas are where the provision of a landscape buffer • would be a cost burden to provide with little enhancement. The two areas where these occur are on the existing rail overpass, and the existing overpass of Hwy 217. • • Additional Pedestrian Crossings • In addition to the provision of continuous sidewalks with a landscape buffer along the corridor, the provision of additional pedestrian crossings across Hwy 99W were also • considered to allow for better connectivity. The Metro Regional Transportation Plan • indicates that full street connections should be implemented no more than 530 feet • apart. This is to help provide connectivity and accessibility within urban areas for all - modes of travel. All signals along Hwy 99W (with the exception of one) are spaced further apart than 530 feet. Figure 1 summarizes the existing pedestrian crossing • locations on Hwy 99W. • Figure 1: Existing Crossings of Hwy 99W and Potential New Crossing Locations • 1,400 1,250 1,300 800 1,000 1,630 720 430 1,000 1,000 2,680 670 700 630 1,020 1,040 650 1,270 1,330 United - Access Availability • o: W J a in cn in in ~ y co in in in in in 00 -g a 10 E 21 19 • T N Td O d fi jp S~ .2 f0 N N O ^ ~ I'D m d W y C = co • ODOT Interchange Access Area • X -No New Access • b°2 - Potential New Access • • Based on the existing access spacing for crossings there are five locations that may be areas to potentially implement new pedestrian crossings. • The speeds vary along Hwy 99W between 35 to 45 miles per hour, and the average • daily traffic ranges from approximately 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles. Given that Hwy 99W • is at a minimum 4 lanes wide, sometimes with a median, the most appropriate crossing treatment for pedestrians would be a marked signalized crossing for safety reasons. • However, meeting signal warrants and spacing requirements limit (or preclude) where • additional signalized intersections could be implemented. There are other means to get pedestrians across Hwy 99W beyond signalized • crossings. These include such measures as marked unsignalized crossings, pedestrian • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 4 • Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 43 • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • median refuges, or a combination of the two. However, as previously mentioned, due to • the speed, volume and nature of Hwy 99W any unsignalized crossing of Hwy 99W • would need to have an engineering study and be well justified. The engineering study addresses multiple factors including safety, public involvement, pedestrian • volumes/demand, collision history (3-5 most recent years), pedestrian desire lines for • walking, sight distance, lighting and spacing to name a few. • Other Pedestrian Enhancements In addition to upgraded sidewalks with landscape strips and the potential for new • crossings, additional enhancements to the existing crossings could be implemented as • well. These could consist of pedestrian countdown timers, pedestrian wayfinding . signage, and enhanced striping for crossings (to name a few). Examples of these treatments are shown below. • CENTi~M~ALL • `r'THEATRES ENTRY , • i% G1 JOE'S BE57 BUY ~ of • • Pedestrian countdown Pedestrian wayfinding Enhanced crossing markings timer signage • • Transit Enhancements • Each concept will also contain enhancements to the transit system that can be • implemented as part of the existing transit network and does not related to • implementing a new high capacity transit (HCT) system. • The location of these types of treatments could vary between concepts, but are focused • on providing a better transit environment and interaction with other modes of travel along the corridor. In addition, these enhancements should provide more reliable transit • travel times and help to reduce delay to transit travel. The following summarizes the transit enhancements being considered for each concept. • • Stop Relocation All transit stops will be evaluated as to the potential.to relocate to a "far side" stop • placement at signalized intersections. A "far side" transit stop refers to a transit stop that is on the far side of the travel path through the intersection. The purpose of this is • to allow transit vehicles to get through an intersection and stop on the opposing side to • reduce potential delay at a signal for buses, as well as potential delay for motor vehicles that may be traveling behind a bus. • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 5 • Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 44 • • • DKS Associates Appendix A TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Queue Bypass Another enhancement to the transit environment consists of creating a transit queue • bypass lane. This is a separate through lane at signalized intersections for transit that right turn vehicles can also utilize. Typically transit stops are then located on the • opposite (far side) of the intersection. This separate through lane for transit can receive a green light to get through the intersection slightly before the general purpose through lanes so that if there are no patrons utilizing the stop on the far side of the intersection • the bus is able to get a head start and jump the queue of vehicle that are waiting at the intersection and merge back into the general purpose lanes on the opposing side of the • intersection unimpeded. Figure 2 shows the general configuration for a typical queue • bypass lane. Figure 2: Intersection Configuration with and without Transit Queue Bypass • • WITH Transit Queue Bypass WITHOUT Transit Queue Bypass ~ J III t ~ O Ljy ~ 0 l ~ ~ two O O ~ III ~ • Even with a far side transit stop, a bus without a queue bypass can block through vehicles because the bus is stopping in the vehicle travel lane. With the transit queue • bypass the bus is allowed an area to pull out of the through travel path. However, a bus must then merge back into the general purpose travel lanes. The queue bypass must also allow for right turning motor vehicles to utilize it. This • removes the conflict of right turning vehicles turning in front of the queue bypass if it • were a transit only lane. An additional benefit of moving the right turning vehicles into • the queue bypass lane is that they are now out of the through travel lanes allowing a - less congested (reduced delay) environment for through vehicles. • Queue bypass lanes can also be implemented, and typically have the biggest impact to reduce delay, at signalized intersection that do not have transit stops. Stop placement • for transit service along Hwy 99W does not allow for this condition because stops have • been placed at all signalized intersections. However the benefit of jumping the queue before the intersection still is beneficial to reducing delay and improving transit service reliability. The queue bypass lane must be designed with adequate length to be able to access it given the 95th percentile through vehicle queues at the intersection, otherwise buses and right turning vehicles can not access the lane. Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 6 Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 45 • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A w TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS I. Transit Amenities • Improving access to transit service and the reliability of that service is not the only • enhancement to the transit environment. In addition to the previously listed enhancements, transit amenities can also be implemented. Typically these focus on w improving the actual transit stops themselves, or the access to information related to w transit. Criteria for installation of a shelter is determined by TriMet to be approximate 30 • daily on/off patrons per stop. All concepts include enhancing the transit environment by • providing shelters (where applicable) and adequate waiting space for patrons of transit. w Connectivity Enhancements w Each concept could also contain enhancements to roadway connectivity that could be w implemented as part of any concept. "Roadway connectivity" means filling in gaps in the street system to give drivers alternative routes to 99W. Topography and man-made • barriers (such as railroads and freeways) limit the potential for additional connectivity. The purpose of these types of connections is to alleviate congestion on Hwy 99W. One example of this is the identified project in the Tigard Transportation System Plan of w connecting SW Walnut Street to SW Hunziker Street. w CONCEPTS DESCRIPTION During the Needs, Opportunities and Constraints analysis, focus areas along the • corridor were identified based on similar characteristics. These focus areas help to break up the corridor and focus treatments along the corridor in specific areas. The four • (4) focus areas identified were: • • 1-5 to Hwy 217 • Hwy 217 to Walnut Street • Walnut Street to Gaarde/McDonald Streets • Gaarde/McDonald Streets to Durham Road w As previously identified, treatments are not specific or confined to one particular focus • area, and may span between focus areas or along the entire corridor. The treatments are aimed at providing enhancements to all modes of travel and provide a balanced • transportation system. • The following describes the concepts developed for this task with supporting graphics that give a general overview of treatments/elements for each concept by the individual focus areas. w Concept A: Partial Widening/Local Capacity Improvements • The primary focus of this concept is to create a seven (7) lane cross-section of Hwy - 99W (three through travel lanes in each direction with a center turn lane) from Interstate 5 to SW Greenburg Road. This is consistent with the improvement on Hwy 99W w outlined in the Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition to the widening in • the north portion of the corridor, localized intersection capacity improvements were - implemented to allow for adequate intersection operations. w Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 7 w Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 46 • • w DKS Associates Appendix A TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS w Access management was also considered as part of this concept, but it was focused 41 within the interchange access spacing area defined by the Oregon Department of Transportation which prohibits full intersection access (private or public street) within w 1,320 feet from a signalized intersection of an on/off ramp. The access management technique employed in this area was to install a median in this area, which would modify • all existing driveways (or public roadways) from full access to right-in/right-out access. Pedestrian and bicycle enhancements were implemented along the corridor by providing bicycle lanes at a minimum of five (5) feet on both sides of the corridor, and a i four (4) foot landscape buffer that is curb tight to the roadway with an eight (8) foot sidewalk adjacent to the landscape buffer. Transit enhancements focused on relocating existing transit stops to minimize conflict for the pedestrian/bicycle environment as well as enhance connectivity to the transit network. In addition to these transit i enhancements, queue bypass lanes were implemented at the more congested intersections to allow buses to travel in a dedicated lane (for transit) and bypass existing queues on Hwy 99W. Figure 3 summarizes the elements of Concept A and breaks the corridor into the four focus areas. Concept B: Access Management The primary focus of this concept is to maximize access management along the * corridor. This was developed by using the similar access management found in Concept A (a median within 1,320 feet of the highway interchanges with Hwy 217 and I- 5). Additionally, the access driveways along the corridor were evaluated to determine which properties had multiple access points and where multiple access points to one property existed the driveways were highlighted for potential consolidation and/or closure to allow only one access point. i Another access management technique employed was to identify driveways within two- hundred (200) feet of intersections that had been shown to have higher collision rates • than other intersections on the corridor and/or near congested intersections. Driveways that met these criteria were then evaluated to determine if consolidation or closure could be accomplished to help minimize potential conflicts near congested intersections. If r closure (or consolidation) was considered for a driveway in these areas, particular concern was taken to make sure that concept safe access was still available. This concept represents a highly aggressive access management option along the corridor. A full access management plan would need to be conducted to determine the full impacts of implementing a median, closing a driveway, and/or consolidating i driveways to allow for shared access for properties. That type of exercise requires a much more in-depth analysis than is allowed for in this project, and would require a detailed public involvement plan to coordinate with all affected property owners. Those elements would be necessary if this type of an concept was pursued. w Local capacity improvements at intersections would be implemented to allow for acceptable traffic operations at study area intersections. In addition to that, local r - Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 8 i Task 4.1: Concepts Development April 30, 2007 47 TJ s , ~ [I 1, z ~ i i - sus- <I . 1 ^ 4 Ilk. ^a`~ 40 z 40 40 41 40 40 49 x DKS o la s Appendix A T TANS P0R!$i ION Sr}I.Ui10NS connectivity that would parallel Hwy 99W would be implemented (where feasible) to help lessen the reliance of Hwy 99W for local trips using the corridor. Similar to Concept A, pedestrian and bicycle enhancernents would be implemented along the entire corridor, while transit enhancernents would focus on stop relocation and queue bypass lanes. Figure 4 summarizes the elements of Concept A and breaks the corridor into the four focus areas. Concept C. Fall Widening This concept is a uses elements from Concept A and B, and also, continues the widening of Hwy 99W south of SW Greenburg Road the remainder of the study corridor to SW Durham Road. In addition to this widening, access manaaement would be implernented consisting of medians and driveway closures and/or consolidations, but would not be as aggressive as found in Concept B. Similar to the prior concepts, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements would be mplemented along the er?tire corridor, while transit enhancements would focus on stop relocation and queue bypass lanes. Figure 5 summarizes the elements of Concept A and breaks the corridor into the four focus areas. SUMMARY Three concepts have been developed to apply tf?roughout tine four focus areas The three concepts all include enhancernents to the pedestrian, bicycle and transit environments by providing. 0 Bicycle lanes along the entire corridor; i landscape buffer and sidewalks along the entire corridor, 0 Transit enhancements either via stop relocation and/or queue bypasses, Additional pedestrian crossings across Hwy 99W and S Transit stop relocations. One concept focuses on partial widening 1o seven (7; lanes from Interstate 5 to Greenburg Road, with localized capacity irnprovei-nents at intersections forecasted to be deficient Another concept focuses on aggressive access managernent and localized intersection capacity improvements. The last concept focuses on widening to seven (71 lanes for the whole corridor. While there is no one "magic bullet' to address all deficiencies along the corridor, the diversity of the concepts developed help to explore many of the potential mix of options to better the transportation environment along the corridor. A selection of various techniques from all concepts may be the recommended treatment for the corridor. Tigard 991A,' tmpmvei,.ent Rpm F:u}e "U Tesk 4 1 Goiia pPs Nweloprrrent .N)ni 30, 20A49 i k rr 401 t i _ a^ m. _ f aes owl sit 0 ow. owl A owl i owl ION .@ - _ - - owl f, a ION owl i ION ION owl ION ~y , t ~ ~s . j~ I I 49 i E - , a 4:4 le- + 4 ~z w • • Appendix A • • J8 .4 + e 1 ,til~ S t a t k ,.~y t>. t w ° ti 4,r v'r Sf ti ' 71 • r ALTERNATIVES : - - - = 'EVAL'UATION COMPARISON • • • • INTRODUCTION • The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate and compare the previously outlined • set of alternatives. This evaluation and comparison helps to determine an appropriate preferred alternative to take forward for final recommendation. • Previous efforts for the Tigard 99W Improvement Plan project have documented existing conditions, needs/opportunities/constraints of the corridor, and developed - alternatives to address deficiencies of the corridor. These alternatives were then evaluated using a set of criteria that contain both qualitative (non-numerical) and quantitative (calculated) measures of effectiveness. • The recommended alternative will be the option that best supports the purpose and . goals of the project which has a primary goal of enhancing and encouraging alternative modes of travel, while reducing the reliance of auto travel. • • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Three different alternatives were evaluated and compared for this phase of the project. Each was evaluated and compared by applying criteria developed previously to help develop the alternatives. While it is not expected that any one alternative will solve all • the deficiencies in the future along Hwy 99W, the goal is to identify a solution that, on • balance, best supports project objectives, including multi-modal travel needs, while • minimizing negative impacts. The following is a brief summary of the findings within this memorandum for each of the criteria evaluated: w Pedestrian - All alternatives contain the same pedestrian improvement widened sidewalks, separated from the roadway with a landscape strip. . Widening of Hwy 99W creates longer pedestrian crossings, requiring longer red lights at traffic signals to accommodate walkers, which can reduce the • operational efficiency of signals for vehicle traffic, especially through traffic on 99W. Alternative B has a slight advantage over other alternatives by providing • raised medians along a significant portion of the corridor, which allows for • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 1 52 • Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation May 24, 2007 • • • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • potential pedestrian refuges for crossing at unsignalized intersections. This could make 99W less of a barrier for pedestrians. Bicycle - All alternatives contain the same bicycle improvement of bike lanes along the entire corridor. But alternatives that add travel lanes to 99W could • negatively impact the bicycling environment by making the highway more intimidating to cyclists crossing the road or making left turns. Similar to the pedestrian environment, a wider cross-section of Hwy 99W could be detrimental . to bicycle travel along Hwy 99W for bicyclists that need to traverse from the bike lane across the corridor to make a left turn at intersections. • Transit - All alternatives include relocating transit stops to help minimize impacts • with existing driveways for pedestrians and bicycles. Areas where the corridor are widened to a 7 lane cross-section do not allow for transit queue bypasses due to the additional width (right-of-way) necessary to implement them. Therefore areas where queue bypass lanes are not implemented would require transit to operate in the general purpose traffic lanes. This could create delay for • transit service. Alternatives A and B both contain transit queue bypasses, however Alternative B has the opportunity to implement more than Alternative A. • Alternative C has no transit queue bypass lanes. Alternative A would save approximately 1 '/z minutes of delay to bus travel times, while Alternative B would save approximately 2'/2 - 3 minutes of delay to bus travel times. In terms of - right-of-way impact, Alternative C would have the equivalent right-of-way impact of adding a dedicated transit lane along the entire Hwy 99W corridor. • Motor Vehicle - Alternatives that add travel lanes provide additional vehicle capacity, which can improve intersection operations and reduce congestion. However, the additional capacity is almost fully consumed by traffic demand between Interstate 5 and Hwy 217, and then pumps additional vehicles south of • Hwy 217. The widening for Alternative A, as recommended in the Regional Transportation Plan, stops at SW Greenburg Road, so additional vehicles added - to the corridor south of that degrade intersection operations even further because the additional capacity is not available, and more localized improvements are necessary that include additional travel lanes in each direction in the SW Gaarde/McDonald area. Alternative C widens the corridor the entire length, but past the downtown area volumes taper off to a level where the additional • capacity is more than what is typically needed for the 20 year planning horizon. The addition of the SW Walnut Street extension is beneficial under any • alternative because it helps to decrease the volumes on Hwy 99W between SW Walnut Street and the Hwy 217 northbound ramp by providing an alternative • access to the south for the Tigard Triangle area and downtown Tigard. Safety - Additional access management through the use of medians and/or • driveway closure/consolidation is beneficial to safety because conflict points are eliminated, reducing the potential for vehicle crashes. Alternative B has the highest reduction in potential conflict points by 70% along the entire corridor. Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 2 53 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • DKS Associates Appendix A 0 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Alternatives A and C focus access management within the interchange areas (1,320 feet) and have the potential to reduce collision points by up to 75% in the - interchange areas. The raised medians used extensively in Alternative B reduce - opportunities for left turns directly into driveways, but this alternative allows for U- turns at intersections, so that destinations across the road are still accessible. • Property Impacts and Costs - Based on the right-of-way necessary to implement each alternative there is a different level of impacts to properties associated with property only and widening that impacts buildings as well. Alternative B has the least amount of property and buildings impacts at approximately 953,000 square feet. Alternative A has the next highest impact to property and buildings at approximately 1.16 million, while Alternative C has the . highest impact at approximately 1.58 million square feet. Consequently, Alternative C has the highest cost associated with implementation due to that larger right-of-way from widening, and the cost associated with the physical infrastructure of widening itself, while Alternative A has the second least cost and Alternative B has the least cost for implementation. Table 1 summarizes the • right-of-way and costs associated with each alternative. • Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives Right-of-way RO /Buildin Impacts and Costs ROW Impact Building Impact Construction Cost Total Cost • (s q. ft. (s q. ft. millions millions - Alternative A 921,000 241,500 $27.27M $91.13M Alternative B 742,000 211,300 $23.18M $77.13M Alternative C 1,269,700 315,300 $32.14M $117.53M - SOURCE: DKS Associates & Otak, Inc. EVALUATION CRITERIA As part of this task, evaluation criteria were used to help compare and evaluate the alternatives. These evaluation criteria were developed for all modes of travel in the 99W corridor. Some of these evaluation criteria are qualitative in nature, meaning • there is no clear numerical way to measure their effectiveness, but they can be assessed based on their expected or perceived effect. Other criteria were quantitative in nature, meaning they could be measured using a numeric value to gauge the effectiveness of an alternative for comparison. The following table summarizes the criteria used, whether the criteria were qualitative or quantitative, and the typical - measure of effectiveness for comparison. • • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 3 54 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • DKS Associates Appendix A 0 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Table 1: Criteria for Evaluating and Comparing Alternatives Category Criteria Measure(s) Qualitative Quantitative • Pedestrian Connectivity Adequate connections X • Crossing distance Distance in feet X Bicycle Connectivity Adequate connections X • Transit Facilities Enhanced environment X • Bypassing queues Queue lengths X Motor Vehicle Intersection Level-of-service X - operations Volume-to-capacity X • Queuing/storage for Queuing in feet X vehicles - Safety Driveways and Frequency and number X conflict points of occurrences Property impacts Land impacted Square feet X - Building impacted Cost Dollars Estimated construction X cost • Average square-foot cost of impacted land and buildings • SOURCE:, DKS Associates While the quantitative measures of effectiveness will have a calculated (numeric) value, the qualitative measures will be assessed on a scale of 1 to 5 where a lower score represents less of an opportunity to meet the goal of the project and a higher number represents a high likelihood to meet the goal of the project. The following sections of this memorandum summarize the evaluation and comparison • of each alternative using the previous identified categories and measures of effectiveness. Each alternative is evaluated individually within each category, and then • a comparison of all alternatives is made at the end of each category. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT The following summarizes the evaluation by alternative, and comparison of alternatives i for the pedestrian environment. Alternative A: Partial Widening • This alternative includes the enhancement of the pedestrian environment by providing for a 4 foot landscape strip, and an 8 foot sidewalk along the entire corridor. This fills in • the gaps along the corridor where sidewalks do not exist today, as well as enhancing the existing locations along the corridor where many of the sidewalks that exist today are sub-standard. The landscape strip buffers pedestrians from traffic, creating a safer, more inviting environment for walking. The widening from a 5 lane cross-section to a 7 lane cross section from Interstate 5 to Greenburg Road (approximately one-third of the study corridor) creates a wider cross- section for pedestrians to cross Hwy 99W. Under this alternative the new cross-section • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 4 55 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • DKS Associates Appendix A TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS is approximately 24 feet wider than currently exists. This additional width requires additional time for pedestrians to cross the roadway, which can affect signal timing by keeping vehicles stopped longer on 99W. This reduces the road's vehicle capacity. One additional signalized pedestrian activated crossing has been added in this alternative at approximately SW Watkins Avenue. This location was selected due to a long segment of roadway with no existing opportunities for safe pedestrian crossings. - This crossing has been added to help improve the spacing of potential pedestrian • crossings of Hwy 99W to better enhance connectivity within the study area. In addition, there are currently bus stops at this intersection that are served by an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. The new signalized pedestrian crossing will allow for a safer opportunity to cross Hwy 99W to access transit. Alternative B: Access Management This alternative is similar to Alternative A in that it contains a four (4) foot landscape strip and an eight foot sidewalk along the corridor, however the corridor is not widening at all and retains a five lane cross-section. This allows for shorter side street crossing • times, which in turn has less impact to motor vehicle and transit traveling along the main corridor (Hwy 99W). The alternative also contains raised medians along most of the corridor north of SW - Gaarde/SW McDonald Street. The raised medians allow for a pedestrian refuge at - unsignalized locations to aid in additional crossings of Hwy 99W. Similar to Alternative A, an additional signalized/marked pedestrian crossing is located at the SW Watkins Street intersection. In addition to that crossing, one more • signalized/marked crossing is proposed at SW 71St Avenue. The new signalized pedestrian crossing is located at an existing unsignalized transit intersection, so the new crossing will aid in safe crossing of Hwy 99W for transit access. Alternative C: Full Widening Similar to the previous alternatives, this alternative includes the enhancement of the pedestrian environment by providing for a four (4) foot landscape strip, and an eight (8) foot sidewalk along the entire corridor. The entire study corridor is proposed to be widened from a five lane cross-section to a seven lane cross-section. This creates longer crossing distances for pedestrians as well as requires longer crossing times for • pedestrians. This additional crossing time can affect the main throughput for motor vehicle capacity and operations by taking time away from the main corridor. Similar to Alternative A, one additional signalized pedestrian activated crossing has • been added in this alternative at approximately SW Watkins Avenue to aid with crossing Hwy 99W and service an unsignalized crossing with existing transit stops. Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 5 56 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • Evaluation • There is no quantitative (numeric) way to evaluate the pedestrian environment, however • a qualitative (value based) assessment can be made. Each alternative has been • evaluated for the pedestrian environment using various criteria. • Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives for Pedestrian Environment •:C~~teria`'~ ' t ' r ~F " . Alternative :A ' ' Alternative.' B : `Alternative" C' • Connectivity/Facilities 19 ■ R _ • Additional Crossings 19 G 19 • Crossing Distance ❑ U ❑ Overall Rating D o • Evaluation Scale • ❑ El IE o ■ • Poor Medium Good • • Based on the qualitative assessment in Table 2, both Alternatives A and C have • approximately the same affect on the corridor for the pedestrian environment. However, Alternative B has a slight advantage over the other two alternatives due to the fact that the crossing distances are less which can affect operations on the main corridor for motor vehicle and transit services. • BICYCLE ENVIRONMENT There is not differentiation for the bicycle environment between alternatives. All • alternatives include bicycle lanes (designed to standard) along the entire study corridor • length. If anything, alternatives that provide for widening Hwy 99W may make crossings • of Hwy 99W more intimidating to bicyclists, and add an additional lane to traverse when traveling along Hwy 99W if a cyclist wants to take a left turn. • • Evaluation • Similar to the pedestrian environment, evaluation for the bicycle environment is based • on a qualitiative (non-numeric value based) assessment. Each alternative has been evaluated qualitatively and is summarized in Table 3. • • Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives for Bic cle Environment • x t 1. d w,, x a y a . it , Alternative`:A; at146-' B AlternativC • Connectivity/Facilities ■ ■ ■ Left Turn Traversing El 1E ❑ _ • Crossing Distance El F21 ❑ • Overall Rating 0 D • Evaluation Scale • ❑ o El a ■ • Poor Medium -Good • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 6 57 • Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • DKS Associates Appendix A TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Based on the qualitative assessment in Table 3, the bicycle environment in Alternative A has both positive and negative attributes that end up balancing out from a qualitative assessment. Alternative B shows a slight improvement due to filling in any gaps in the • existing network. Alternative C shows a lower than average environment due to the wider distance to cross Hwy 99W and traverse if left turns are to be made by bicyclists. - TRANSIT ENVIRONMENT • The following summarizes the evaluation by alternative, and comparison of alternatives for the transit environment. Alternative A: Partial Widening • This alternative includes the enhancement of the transit environment by providing transit queue bypass lanes at two intersections (SW Gaarde/McDonald Street and SW Walnut Street), as well as relocating up to ten existing bus stops that currently are located where they require pedestrians and bicyclists to cross over existing driveways. The transit queue bypasses could save up to 1 '/2 minutes of delay to bus travel times. Including transit queue bypasses within the section of the corridor to be widened would not be advisable because it would create a nine lane cross-section at intersections. Alternative B: Access Management w Similar to Alternative A, this alternative includes transit queue bypass lanes and transit stop relocations along the corridor. However, due to the fact that this alternative does not include widening to seven lanes, additional transit queue bypass locations were considered. The alternative includes transit queue bypasses at five locations; SW 68th Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street, SW Hall Boulevard, SW Walnut Street and SW - Gaarde/McDonald Street(s). Implementing these queue bypasses could save approximately 2 '/2 to 3 minutes of travel time delay for buses. The provision of a median in this alternative allows for a pedestrian refuge that can be used for crossing Hwy 99W for access to transit stops at unsignlized intersections. The same transit stops were considered for relocation as in Alternative A. Alternative C: Full Widening Due to the full widening of the corridor to seven lanes, no transit queue bypass lanes were considered. However, the same transit stops were considered for relocation as in previous alternatives. It should be noted that the wider roadway also makes a longer crossing distance at unsignalized pedestrian crossings. Evaluation • The transit environment is based on a qualitiative (non-numeric value based) • assessment. Each alternative has been evaluated qualitatively and is summarized in Table 4. Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 7 58 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • Table 4: Comparison of Alternatives for Transit Environment • 1101, ,rit i$ . Alternatw..eflA t 9;YAiterniW` 4B y V %e'Alterriative:;,C • Transit Speed 0 El - - - - • Access to Transit Stops-_-______ 0 El - - • Transit Stop Relocation 0 0 FE] D Overall Rating Rl • Evaluation Scale a v ■ • ❑ El • Poor Medium Good • • Based on the qualitative assessment in Table 4, the transit environment in Alternative A • and C have both positive and negative attributes, that end up balancing out from a qualitative assessment. Alternative B shows a slight improvement due to allowing for • pedestrian refuges to access transit at unsignalized intersections and the additional • transit queue bypasses (beyond those implemented in Alternative A). • • MOTOR VEHICLE ENVIRONMENT • The following summarizes the evaluation by alternative, and comparison of alternatives • for the motor vehicle environment. As part of the evaluation and comparison of the • alternatives, the 2025 No-build operations were also considered to serve as a baseline • for operations to compare to. The 2025 No-build conditions represent the scenario where motor vehicle growth within the corridor occurs naturally through regional and • local growth, but no improvements are built to accommodate it. • • No-build Conditions • As part of the comparison, the future 2025 motor vehicle forecasts were developed and evaluated to determine which intersections would require mitigation to achieve • adequate operations even if no alternative were implemented. This helps to determine • a set of base improvements that would most likely be necessary. Approximately 11 of • the 20 study area intersections exceed acceptable operations by 2025 during the PM • peak hour. • By 2025, demand along the corridor and side streets would require some type of • optimized timing to allow for progression at a different level than is currently in place. • As part of the potential mitigation strategy under a no-build scenario all intersections should be coordinated and optimized. In addition to signal optimization, the volume • levels by 2025 (during the PM peak hour) would most likely be fairly consistent over the • hour and would not have "peaks" that may exist today. In other words, the volumes • expected in the future are consistently heavy along Hwy 99W and would create • conditions where little variation in the "peak" volume would occur. This would in turn affect the "peak hour factor" (a factor that is applied to intersections to represent a surge • in volume at a specific period over the peak hour) by increasing it to levels that could • exceed 1.0 v/c. • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 8 59 • Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • Even with the previously identified conditions, some intersections still do not achieve • adequate intersection operations and would require additional mitigation to operate at • acceptable jurisdictional levels. Mitigation was pursued where feasible to achieve a • level-of-service of D or better, and a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.95 or better. This mitigation was considered "right-sizing" the intersections to allow for proper operations. • This was done for all alternatives where intersection operations did not meet • jurisdictional standards. • However, even "right-sizing" the intersections there were two intersections (Interstate 5 • off-ramp and SW Gaarde/SW McDonald Street) that would require significant mitigation • to achieve these standards. Therefore If mitigation could be identified to achieve LOS E • and V/C ratio of 1.0 or less additional mitigation beyond those levels were not pursued. • While this does not meet the ODOT standard of V/C ratio of 0.95, a design exception could be pursued to allow this level of operation. Figure 1 summarizes the 2025 PM • peak hour intersection operations as well as potential mitigation. • • Alternative A: Partial Widening As previously mentioned, this alternative widens Hwy 99W from a five lane facility to a • seven lane facility from Interstate 5 to SW Greenburg Road. The remaining portion of • the study corridor remains at five lanes. The widening attracts additional volumes to the corridor within the widened area and further to the south. Generally speaking the • additional lane of capacity attracts between 800 to 1,000 vehicles in each direction between Interstate 5 to Hwy 217, then the volumes taper off in each direction further to • the south achieving approximately 400 to 500 vehicles in each direction near SW • Gaarde/McDonald Street(s), and approximately 100 to 200 in each direction down near SW Durham Road. • There is still some additional mitigation south of SW Greenburg Road that is necessary • to achieve acceptable operations in the SW Gaarde/McDonald and SW Walnut Street • areas by adding an additional through lane in each direction. This "right-sizing" to • achieve acceptable operations creates a "mini-widening" south of the partial widening. Based on these inputs, Figure 2 shows the 2025 PM peak hour intersection operations and potential mitigation to achieve adequate intersection operations. • • Alternative B: Access Management - There is no additional capacity via widening in this alternative so the same base geometry applies. The access management creates restricted access by limiting left • turning opportunities at many unsignalized intersections and driveways. To better • accommodate circulation along Hwy 99W in this alternative u-turns were allowed at • signalized intersections where medians were placed on the approach to a signalized • intersection. Volumes were then adjusted from the future forecast to take into account these additional turning movements. • • • • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 9 so • Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • O 9901-5 NB ON-RAMP © 99W169THAVE168THAVE © 9SWI72ND AVE 99W174THAVE-Park & Ride DKS Associates Tigard 99W Corridor SdtUAY ,7-r, TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS ppen ix V- te NO SCALE s "~44AN 99W 7 2,7 s 44 -1 15, 0 T I¢ © 99WIDARTMOUTH ST O 99W/SR 217 NS ON-OFF RAMPS O 99W/SR 217 SB ON-OFF RAMPS Q 99W1HALL BLVD m ~rP ~1 ST ~ ~ `bo PARK ST 0 99WIGREENBURG RD/MAIN ST M WIJOHNOD DRT/ 99WMALNUT ST ® 99WIGARRETT ST 99W ~rY,y1' r r ti y RD Intersection Dewy LOS VIC Delay LOS VIC f f Y x Q Interstate 5" 99W > 80.0 F 1.12 78.0 E 9.98 M ✓ a yr c © SW 691h Avenue/Hwy 99W 35.8 D 1.00 22.5 C 0.89 g~L ~'rG Q SW 72nd Avenue/Hwy 99W 52.4 D 1.07 29.3 C 0.89 SW 74th Avenue/Hwy 99W 5.8 A 0.83 8.8 A 0.83 N Q SW Dartmouth SUHwy 99W 70.1 E 1.06. 42.5 D 0.83 0 Q Hwy 217 NB/Hwy 99W 22.7 C 0.88 24.9 C 0.77 ® 99WIPARK ST 99WISHOPPING CTR DRIVEWAY ® MCDI/DNA D ST TI 99WI112TH AVICANTERBURY LN Hwy 217 SB/Hwy, 99W 192 B 0.89 19.5 B 0.89 Q SW Hall Blvd" 99W > 80.0 F 1.13, 46.3 D 0.91 Q SW Greenburg Road" 99W 74.1 E 1.11 36.3 D 0.95 / SW Johnson SUHwy 99W 24.2 C 0.86 34.8 C 0.86 "'Wet DURHAM RD m SW Walnut StreeUHwy 99W 41.1 D 1.00 29.6 C 0.90 SW Garrett SlreeVHwy 99W 4.9 A 0.77 3.3 A 0.77 DRIVEWAY r~ f~h g'rrpu i 7r (1) Tigard SW Park StreeVHwy 99W 14.5 8 0.90 18.2 B 0.90 Market Place/Hwy 99W 25.8 C 0.90 28.8 C 0.90 7 ® SW Gaade/McDonald SVHwy 99W > 80.0 F 1.34 ' 63.1 E 0.98 (D SW Canterbury Lane/Hwy 99W 30.1 C 0.98 13.7 B 0.91 99W/BULL MOUNTAIN RD (D 99WIBEEF BEND RD 99W/ROYALTY PKWY 99WIDURHAM RD m SW Bull Mountain RoadlHwy 99W 30.4 C 0.93 23.4 C 0.89 m SW Beef Bend Road" 99W 60.8 E 1.06 15.9 B 0.86 Q) SW Royalty ParkwaylHwy 99W 58.5 E 0.93 37.2 D 0.85 m SW Durham RoadlHwy 99W -80.0 F 1.13 43.7 D 0.92 f LEGEND ~ ~j~~ l7ce r r -SWdylntersepicn6 Number sNolMeelJurisdictional Figure -Operational Standard 2025 NO-BUILD ® . Signalized Intersection 4 : EAsiingLane CemSguraticn INTERSECTION GEOMETRY c}- ModitiedMew Lane Configuration AND OPERATIONS O 99W145 NB ON-RAMP © 99W169TH AVE168TH AVE © 99W172ND AVE O 99WI74TH AVE-Park & Ride TRANSPOTATION SOLUTIONS l[$RAssOCiateS Tigard 99W CorIiPPI, Ix Ay Q~ D r r kv ~ erj NO SCALE O f .,tr 11Ile. 99W 7 217 T 5 / a Iz ©99WIDARTMOUTH ST 0 99WISR 217 NB ON-OFF RAMPS O 99W/SR 217 SB ON-OFF RAMPS O 99W/HALL BLVD na ¢ c? ~oHN V►Y ~ N PARK ST P O 99W/GREENSURG RDIMAIN ST 99WIJO WOOD DRTI QD 99WMALNUT ST 99WIGARRETT ST 99W 2025 ND-Build ti tv ~'l RD McDONALD ST Intersection Delay LOS V/C Unmitigated Delay LOS VIC r > fir ff Y x Q Interstate 51Hxy 99W 78.0 E 0.98 56.0 E 0.97 M a Q SW 69thAvenue/Hwy 99W 22.5 C 0.89 27.2 C 0.87 fy f f _,-,,,,,,,NtA1y,~ c'41'rG © SW 72ndAvenuelHwy99W 29.3 C 0.89 36.4 D 0.93 fiy f~ D !H BGq` 0 SW 74th Avenel v 99W 8.8 A 0.83 7.4 A 0.10 N Q SW Dartmouth SUHwy 99W 42.5 D 0.83 46.5 D 0.85 g typ Q Hwy 217 NB/Nvry 99W 24.9 C 0.77 24.6 C 0.86 ® 99W/PARK ST 99WISHOPPING CTR DRIVEWAY ®MCDIONALD ST T/ (D99WI112TH AV/CANTERBURY LN Hwy 217 S81Hwy 99W 19.5 B 0.89 21.6 C 0.95 Q SW Hall BWd/Hwy 99W 46.3 D 0.91 49.3 D 0.95 t Q SW Greenburg Road/Hwy 99W 36.3 D 0.95 47.1 D 0.86 ~y a SW Johnson St/Hwy 99W 34.8 C 0.86 49.6 D 0.99 r, L Ike, (D SW Walnut SlreeUHwy99W 29.6 C 0.90 22.1 C 0.80 "ll DRIVEWAY X* G) SW Garrett StrnVHwy 99W 3.3 A 0.77 22.0 C 0.84 _7F art rr~ will, 9yr~ Z ~1 ® SW Park SlreeUHwy 99W 18.2 B 0.90 24.0 C 0.95 401 Tigard Market PlaceMwy 99W 28.8 C 0.90 36.0 D 0.94 ® SW Gaarde/McDonald SUHwy 99W 63.1 E 0.98 44.7 D 0.89 Q) SW Canterbury Lane" 99W 13.7 B 0.91 20.6 C 0.94 Q 99WBULL MOUNTAIN RD 99WIBEEF BEND RD 99W/ROYALTY PKWY 99WIDURHAM RD I& SW Bull Mountain Road/" 99W 23.4 C 0.89 25.6 C 0.93 SW Beef Bend RoadMwy 99W 15.9 B 0.86 19.7 B 0.92 SW Royalty ParkwayMwy 99W 372 D 0.85 56.7 E 0.92 L LEGEND SW Durham ROadMwy 99W 43.7 D 0.92 44.8 D 0.94 ~t I~ ~y Ir ,Dpes NOt Meetftiard ioral FIgUfE 21 -Study Intersection 8 Number DDara~ Standard ®-Slgnal¢edlmen IJW 2025 ALTERNATIVE A 4--EdsUrgLane Cortgmabon INTERSECTION GEOMETKY p- Mod9edMew Laren Configuration AND OPERATIONS • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • • • Alternative C: Full Widening • The full widening of Hwy 99W from a five lane facility to a seven lane facility attracts additional volumes in the north portion of the corridor similar to Alternative A, however • the south portion of the corridor (south of SW Greenburg Road) has slightly higher volumes due to the additional capacity to the south. Generally speaking the additional - lane of capacity attracts between 800 to 1,000 vehicles in each direction between Interstate 5 to Hwy 217, then the volumes taper off in each direction further to the south • achieving approximately 500 to 600 vehicles in each direction near SW Gaarde/McDonald Street(s), and approximately 200 to 300 in each direction down near SW Durham Road. • SW Walnut Street Extension to SW Hunziker Road • As a sensitivity test, the regional travel demand model tested the effectiveness at relieving traffic from Hwy 99W by implementing the SW Walnut Street extension from • Hwy 99W to SW Hunziker Road. This project is not in the financially constrained • Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), however it is in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan. The addition of the SW Walnut Street extension is beneficial under any • alternative because it helps to decrease the volumes on Hwy 99W between SW Walnut Street and the Hwy 217 northbound ramp by approximately 300-400 vehicles in each - direction. The extension provides an alternative access to the south for the Tigard Triangle area and downtown Tigard. This is one of the more congested areas of Hwy 99W, so any project that would help relieve this area would be beneficial. However, due to the fact that the project is not in the 2004 RTP it was not included in this analysis. Evaluation • The motor vehicle environment is based on a quantitative (numeric) assessment. The • traffic operations and queuing are the two criteria used to evaluate and compare the • alternatives. However, it should be noted that a qualitative assessment was also • evaluated base on the level of effort for widening Hwy 99W because that could be • considered "mitigation" due to the additional capacity added to the corridor. Detailed operations can be found in Figures 2 - 4. Each alternative has been evaluated and is • summarized in Table 5. • Table 5 Comparison of Alternatives for Motor Vehicle Environment - k • 4 w, . n u Alternative A { _ ,Alternative. B3 s`;;AlternativewC" Traffic Operations 0 [i] o Overall Rating ❑ 0 0 • Evaluation Scale ❑ El o o ■ • Poor Medium Good • • • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 12 63 • Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • O 99W11.5 NS ON-RAMP © 99W169TH AVEI68TH AVE © 99W172ND AVE O 99WI74TH AVE•Park & Ride DKS Associates Tigard 99W CoroPPen~ xuLy Q TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS 3 06 NO SCALE O ~ ~ 'f1 P d1 1P 99W U-TumA9ovnd ~ A 217 T Q" Q 5 ~ Iz © 99W/DARTMOUTH ST 0 99WISR 217 NB ON-OFF RAMPS 0 99W/SR 217 SB ON-OFF RAMPS Q 99WIHALL BLVD moo. ~I I op Are sT M 1P N 'r ti g PARK ST P T/ 99W/WALNUT ST 99W/GARRETT ST Q 99WIGREENSURG RDIMAIN ST 9M9APLEWO O SDR IPA 99WgY I Ct6RU y 40 kr, s t Q RD Intersection Delay LOS Vic Delay LOS Vic Q Interstate 5/Hwy 99W 78.0 E .0.98„ 56.8 E 0.88 C7 t M c © SW 69th AvenuelHwy 99W 22.5 C 0.89 20.2 C 0.87 SW 72nd Avenue/Hwy 99W 29.3 C 0.89 28.4 C 0.88 010 9 0 ty GqY G SW 74th Avenue/Hwy 99W 8.8 A 0.83 10.9 B 0.89 SW Dartmouth S11" 99W 4245 D 0.83 44.3 D 0.86 e Q Hwy 217 NB/Hwy 99W 24.9 C 0.77 27.6 C 0.86 ® 99W/PARK ST Q) 99WISHOPPING CTR DRIVEWAY ® MCD/OWALD ST TI 99WI112TH AVICANTERBURY LN Q Hwy 217 SB/Hwy 99W 19.5 B 0.89 22.5 C :.0.9611, Q SW Hall Blvd/Hwy 99W 46.3 D 0.91 44.6 D 0.90 Q SW Greenburg Road/Hwy 99W 36.3 D 0.95 35.9 D -1.00- ' y~ ~gc Q) SW Johnson SVHwy 99W 34.8 C 0.86 28A C 0.86 5~_ Y~s 1~s I DURHAM RD (D SW Walnut StreeVHwy 99W 29.6 C 0.90 46A D SW Garrett StreeVHwy 99W 3.3 A 0.77 7.0 A 0.76 DRIVEWAY D SW Park StreeUHwy 99W 18.2 B 0.90 14.9 B 0.90 Tigard Market Place/Hwy 99W 28.8 C 0.90 22A C 0.87 SW Gaarde/MCDonald SUHwy 99W 63.1 E ,0.98 _ 67.3 E 0.98 SW Canterbury Lane/Hwy 99W 13.7 B 0.91 18.1 B 0.92 99WISULL MOUNTAIN RD 99WIBEEF BEND RD 99W/ROYALTY PKWY ~i 99WIDURKAM RD m SW Bull Mountain Road/Hwy 99W 23A C 0.89 24.5 C 0.91 SW Beef Bend Road/Hwy 99W 15.9 B 0.86 16A B 0.87 SW Royalty Parkway/Hwy 99W 37.2 D 0.85 42.3 D 0.87 m SW Durham Road/Hwy 99W 43.7 D 0.92 46.9 D 0.93 rr % LEGEND Figure ~ ' Doe s Not Meet Jurisdictional Study trltersection 8 Number Ope rafionalStandard 2025 ALTERNATIVE B Signalized Inlerseclim 4 basting Lane Configuration INTERSECTION GEOMETRY 4= - ModlfiediNew Lane Configuration AND OPERATIONS O 99W/1.5 NB ON-RAMP © 99WI69TH AVE/68TH AVE © 99W172ND AVE O 99WI74TH AVE•Park & Ride DKS Associates Tigard 99W CorrippenIX `dor SdIx Ay - C ! TRANSPORTATION SOLUileNS a,,,,d r NO SCALE ' titP 'f1P P s9w ~y 217 T O' Q 5 7 ~ ~ Iz q ¢ © 99WIDARTMOUTH ST O 99WISR 217 NB ON-OFF RAMPS O 99WISR 217 SB ON-OFF RAMPS 0 99WIHALL BLVD c m a ~ff ~ ~hN s xl 0 PARK ST P O 99WIGREENSURG RDIMAIN ST Q) 99W/JOHNSON S TI Q 99WMALNUT ST ® 99WIGARRETT ST . O~j MAPLEWOOD DR `-rY- N~ g1- 99W 1 lly ti D RD M 'ALD T Intersection Delay ' LOS VIC IT. Delay LOS VIC r a ~ fY x Q _ Interstate 51Hvey 99W 78.0 E 0.98. 48.2 D 0.92 b r ;41_6 © SW 69thAvenue/Hwy 99W 22.5 C 0.89 23.6 C 0.89 %Q SW 72nd Avenue/Hwy99W 29.3 C 0.89 31.6 C 0.95 ~ wD ~N ~qy Q SW 74th Avenue/Hwy 99W 8.8 A 0.83 7.8 A 0.83 NN SW Dartmouth SVHwy 99W 42.5 D 0.83 44.2 0 0.92 Q Hwy 217 NB/Hwy 99W 24.9 C 0.77 22.7 C 0.91 ® 99WIPARK ST 99WISHOPPING CTR DRIVEWAY ®A WIG ALRD ST TI 99W/112TH AVICANTERBURY LN / Q Hwy 217 SBfHwy 99W 19.5 B 0.89 31.9 C 0.95 Q SW Hall Blvd/Hwy 99W 46.3 D 0.91 32.7 C 0.91 t Q SW Greenburg Road/H" 99W 36.3 D 0.95 36.6 D 0.91 a SW Johnson StlHwy 99W 34.8 C 0.86 21.4 C 0.82 t f1~1~ ~ jt t , m SW Walnut Street" 99W 29.6 C 0.90 21.6 C 0.85 G SW Gamed Street/Hwy 99W 3.3 A 077 3.1 A 0.68 DRIVEWAY ~ ~ 1 r ® SW Pads SlreeUHwy 99W 18.2 B 0.90 8.4 A 0.80 7 rr~r~ Tigard Market Place/Hwy 99W 28.8 C 0.90 16.7 B 0.77 ® SW Gaarde/MCDonald SVHwy 99W 63.1 E 498 47.0 D 0.92 SW Canterbury LanelHwy 99W 13.7 B 0.91 13.5 B 0.80 SSWBULL MOUNTAIN RD 99WBEEF BEND RD 99WIROYALTY PKWY 99WIDURHAM RD m SW Bull Mountain RoadMwy 991Af 23.4 C 0.89 18.8 B 0.81 SW Beef Bend Roadit" 99W 15.9 B 0.86 17.6 B 0.86 (E) SW Royalty Parkway/Hwy 99W 37.2 D 0.85 32.8 C 0.80 SW Durham Road" 99W 43.7 0 0.92 51.1 D 0.96 %0 LEGEND _ Figure O (B - Swy Intersects 8 Number Does eatlNotonalMeet Junsdictlorel , SWKWd 2025 ALTERNATIVE C ® - Sk nd..d Intersection 4- - Existing LaneConfigwaton INTERSECTION GEOMETRY a. ModitiedAlewLane Configuration AND OPERATIONS • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • Based on the assessment in Table 5, the motor vehicle environment has similar • operations on an aggregate level due to the fact that the alternatives that widen Hwy • 99W allow for additional capacity to help mitigate intersections, while the alternative that - does not widen the roadway mitigates the problem areas. • • SAFETY • Safety is an important component to evaluate because it encompasses all modes of • travel. Two elements area specifically quantified through the evaluation and comparison of alternatives: number of conflict points at driveways, and number of • driveways. • • Currently within the study area Hwy 99W has approximately ninety-eight driveways • which the majority have full access (right and left turn access). A two-way driveway intersecting with a two-way roadway has approximately nine "conflict points" - locations • where the travel paths of vehicles intersect, which therefore are potential locations for crashes. Closing the driveway would eliminate all motor vehicle conflict points as well • as pedestrian and bicycle conflicts. Modifying the driveway to a right-in/right-out access. reduces the potential conflict points from nine to two. Figure 5 illustrates these conflict • points and the potential for their reduction. • • Figure 5: Conflict Points for Full Driveway Access vs. Right-in/right-out Access Ri ht-inlRight-out Access • CONFLICT DIAGRAM CONFLICT DIAGRAM • Three leg Three leg intersection of intersection of • a two-way a two-way street and an street and a • unrestricted right-in/right- • side street or out side street driveway or driveway 1 L-S, 0-7 .~r • • I,Y t y r t. i• 4 ) • ~ 1 CONFLICT POINTS CONFLICT. POINTS O UeMI.o - 3 p 0.1097.9 1 X DN.rong - 3 DNer0 Ing - I X 0W.0 0 TOt.I TOW . 2 • The potential reduction of conflict points helps to evaluate the safety of a corridor at a • qualitative level to compare alternatives via access management. The following • summarizes the evaluation by alternative, and comparison of alternatives with respect • to these two elements. • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 15 ss • Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • Alternative A: Partial Widening • As a means to address safety within this alternative, access management has been considered within the interchange access management area for Interstate 5 and Hwy • 217 (1,320 feet within the interchange area) and to close any driveways on parcels that front Hwy 99W that more than one access point. This is being done to help reduce • conflict points for motor vehicles with other motor vehicles as well as pedestrians and bicycles. The closure of some driveways also helps to improve through capacity on the • corridor by only allowing access at specific locations rather than at multiple locations that are too closely spaced (e.g. parcels with multiple access points). • Currently the study corridor has approximately 98 existing driveways. Using closures as a criterion, approximately 20 driveways could be closed. This would result in a • decrease of approximately 20% in the total number of driveways in the corridor. This would reduce potential motor vehicle-to-motor vehicle conflicts by approximately 180. • Approximately seven of these driveway closures would occur within the interchange access spacing areas. This correlates to 63 conflict points eliminated in the access spacing areas. In addition to driveway closure, raised medians are proposed within the access spacing areas (for Interstate 5 and Hwy 217). This would change full access driveways to right- in/right-out driveways reducing the number of potential collision points from 72 to 16 in • the Interstate 5 area, and from 81 to 18 in the Hwy 217 area. In total that is approximately a 75% decrease in potential collision points within the interchange areas. • Alternative B: Access Management • This alternative has the most aggressive access management in place by using all of the same techniques implored in Alternative A, but also implementing additional raised medians along other areas of the corridor, as well as closing some additional driveways • to create a shared access between adjacent properties where feasible. Areas targeted areas for this treatment were those within 200 feet of signalized intersections, in an w effort to optimize safety and efficiency at intersections. Alternatively, a driveway could be closed on Hwy 99W wherever a property has feasible alternative access via a side street, as long as the side street driveway was in a safe location and would not create another safety problem. It should be noted that any strategy that would involve closing driveways and/or relocating driveways would require a detailed access management plan that species the • locations, impacts and actions for providing property access. That detailed access management plan was not part of this scope of work and would need to be taken on as a separate project beyond the work conducted in this effort. Using the additional aggressive access management could add up to fifty-one (51) • additional driveways to the list of potential driveways converted from full access to right- in/right-out. This would reduce potential conflict points from approximately 459 to 102. • This represents a 75% decrease in potential collision points between vehicles, and a • 70% decrease in potential collision points at driveways along the entire study corridor. Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 16 67 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • DKS Associates Appendix A w TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Alternative C: Full Widening This alternative is less aggressive than Alternative B, but includes some additional access management beyond Alternative A through targeting intersections within the 200 foot influence area of signalized intersections. Driveways in this area were closed and/or consolidated where feasible to remove potential collision points near signalized intersections. w Using these criteria Alternative C would close and/or relocate up to 29 driveways r resulting in the removal of up to 261 potential collision locations. In addition to that, implementing medians in the interchange access management areas could result in w converting up to 17 driveways from full access with 153 collision points to right-in/right- out with 34 collision points. This alternative would have an overall reduction of collision points along the corridor of approximately 57%. Evaluation Safety is based on a quantitative (numeric) assessment. Each alternative has been • evaluated and compared and is summarized in Table 6. Table 6: Comparison of Alternatives for Safety t;Cnteria~4~ s-. ,mot ~AltelrnativeA : Alternative B Alternative t • Reduction of motor vehicle ■ collision points Reduction of pedestrian/bicycle ■ r collision points Overall Rating D ■ D Evaluation Scale ❑ O R o ■ w Poor Medium Good Clearly Alternative B has the highest level of potential to affect the reduction of collision points along the study corridor. However, Alternatives A and C also help reduce the potential for collision points within the interchange areas which area highly congested areas on the corridor today. PROPERTY IMPACTS AND COST An extensive evaluation of impact to property and buildings associated with each alternative was conducted. The purpose of this assessment was to determine if the widening associated with either a roadway widening, or pedestrian improvement • extended beyond the available right-of-way, and it would be necessary to purchase right-of-way to implement the alternative. In addition to assessing the property impacted, the potential impact to existing buildings was also evaluated. The widening of a project may not only impact right-of-way, but it may also affect a building and require that the building be taken as well. w Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 17 68 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • • Using this criteria, analysis indicates that Alternative B has the least amount of property * and buildings impacts at approximately 953,000 square feet. Alternative A has the next highest impact to property and buildings at approximately 1.16 million, while Alternative • C has the highest impact at approximately 1.58 million square feet. Consequently, • Alternative C has the highest cost associated with implementation due to that larger right-of-way from widening, and the cost associated with the physical infrastructure of • widening itself, while Alternative A has the second least cost and Alternative B has the least cost for implementation. • • In addition, costs associated with construction only were developed for each alternative to help determine a total cost associated with each alternative. Table 7 summarizes the • right-of-way and costs associated with each alternative. • Table 7: Comparison of Alternatives Right-of-way/Property Impacts and Costs • ROW Impact Building Impact Construction Cost Total Cost * (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (millions) (millions) • Alternative A 921,000 241,500 $27.27M $91.13M Alternative B 742,000 211,300 $23.18M $77.13M • Alternative C 1,269,700 315,300 $32.14M $117.53M SOURCE: DKS Associates & Otak, Inc. • Evaluation Using the values calculated and the potential impact to properties and/or buildings, • Table 8 summarizes the evaluation and comparison of each alternative. • • Table 6 Comparison of Alternatives for Safe =Alternative Ay Alternative. B Alternatwe'C r Impact to properties ❑ U ❑ • Impact to buildings _ El 0 El • Cost (not including ROW) E D El • Overall Rating D • Evaluation Scale • Poor Medium Good • SUMMARY • Using the prior criteria the overall ratings have been summarizes and compiled to be • able to compare all aspects of each alternative against the other alternatives in an • aggregated level. The following table summarizes all criteria elements used for evaluation and the ranking for each alternative. • • • • Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 18 69 • Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • • • • • DKS Associates Appendix A • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS • Table 7: Comparison of Evaluation Criteria by Alternative • Evaluation Criteria Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Pedestrian D D p Bicycle D O • Transit D El • Motor Vehicle ❑ E O Safety o ■ p Property impacts and Cost El ❑ • Overall Rating lil El • • Evaluation Scale ❑ El a a ■ • Poor Medium Good • Based on the comparison in Table 7, it would appear that Alternative B would has the • better overall affect on balancing modes of travel and allowing for connectivity. In fact in • almost all criteria evaluation Alternative B scored the best. While Alternatives A and C • do have improvements associated with all modes of travel to help enhance the operations of the corridor, the widening inherent in both of the alternatives creates adverse affects to the pedestrian environment, as well as difficulty to implement significant transit enhancements. In addition, the widening of Hwy 99W seems to favor • the motor vehicle environment by adding through capacity along the corridor rather than - more localized improvements at intersections. • Under Alternative A, the additional lane of capacity in each direction is fully utilized in the future operations, and adds additional volumes in the southern portion of the corridor that is not widened and has some operational difficulties even today (specifically at the P&W railroad overpass and at SW Gaarde/McDonald Street). • The widening for Alternative C adds a significant amount of capacity to the corridor, however the addition of volumes in the southern portion of the corridor does not need • an additional through lane in each direction. • The addition of the SW Walnut Street extension to SW Hunziker Road decreases the • volume on Hwy 99W between SW Walnut Street and the Hwy 217 northbound ramp. The extension provides an alternative path to allow additional access to the Tigard • Triangle area. This improves the operations of intersections within that area on Hwy 99W without having to add additional capacity in a constrained environment. • • While there is no one single measure to address all of the problems along Hwy 99W, • this evaluation and comparison is aimed at providing both a qualitative and quantitative • analysis for separate criteria components to determine how the individual components that make up the alternatives operate so that a preferred alternative could be • constructed based on how the smaller pieces of the puzzle fit together. It may be determined that a mixture of different elements from each alternative may be the • preferred alternative to take forward for recommendation. Tigard 99W Improvement Plan Page 19 70 Task 5.1: Alternatives Evaluation & Comparison May 24, 2007 • • Appendix B • • • • • • • • • Appendix B-Response to ODOT Technical Review Comments • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT H[ MANAGEMENT PLAN • FINAL REPORT • • Appendix B Conceptual Design Comments from ODOT 99W/71st Technical Review Comment: Can 71st be as a BIRO? Does the NB • An ODOT reviewer provided comments and left turn lane (median) need to be there? Potentially, questions regarding elements of the recommended the SB traffic could get into this turn lane and try plan for Highway 99W improvements. Comments to get to businesses on the east side of the highway, . and the responses from the consultant team are unless the proposed continuous sidewalk will take summarized below care of that. It is important to remember that this is a conceptual Response: It does not appear that making SW 71 st • plan. Implementation through specific projects a right-in/right-out (RIRO) would have adverse will require more detailed analysis and refinement, affects with the proposed mitigation in Alternative which usually happens in the process of preliminary B. However, details like this should be finalized engineering prior to a construction project. during the Access Management Plan that should be Elements proposed that affect ODOT facilities will part of implementing access management on the • require review and approval by the State Traffic/ corridor. Roadway Engineer. Greenburg Road • Intersection Improvements Comment: Is there currently a trap lane, SB 99W to . WB Greenburg? Recommended intersection improvements A included changes to the design of the intersection Response: Yes, current conceptual plans show a • configuration and transit bypass queue lanes trap lane in the southbound direction on 99W at SW Greenburg Road. Additional southbound capacity 99W/I-5/64th Intersection (through lane) is needed at SW Hall Boulevard Comment: Currently the NB right lane is a trap upstream, which leads to a southbound trap lane. lane to 1-5 ramps. Can we create a 2-2-1 split from If this is undesirable it would be recommended in this existing 2 and eliminate the trap lane? further design efforts to modify the southbound Response: A 2-2-1 split can be created, and was (trap) right turn pocket at SW Greenburg to a 0 done in Alternative 1 and 2. This concept could be through lane that merges south of Hwy 99W. a incorporated into Alternative B and is not fatally Johnson Street 0 flawed. This detail could be designed in further 0 preliminary engineering efforts. Comment: The right turn taper rate seems short? - Is it because of the bridge end? 99W/69th Intersection Response: Currently SW Johnson Street has a • Comment: WB 69th to NB 99W right turn radius southbound right turn pocket for approximately 100 can be tightened up so it won't appear a free right. feet. The current conceptual proposed alternative The current layout may cause some confusion retains this turn pocket. • because of the NB thru/right lane from the • southerly approach and the appearance of a free Johnson Street - Park Street right turn from the easterly approach. Tightening Comment: Can un-signalized intersections be up the radius may also help the pedestrian crossing RIRO? What happens it a raised median proposed distance. in this section? r Response: This design level detail can be Response: It seems that unsignalized intersections incorporated when the project is forwarded on could be converted to right-in/right-out (BIRO). to the preliminary engineering level of detail for However, details like this should be finalized during . design. the Access 72 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS f4SSoCiateS • 1RApSPaR tRft01! SOI L'110 fiE Appendix B • Walnut Street curves. This is a detail that should be finalized in • Comment: SB 99W to WB Walnut taper does not preliminary engineering. appear to be very clear. Where's the bike lane at this Comment: Was a shy distance next to raised intersection? medians included in these conceptual plan Response: To help accommodate queuing as well illustrations? as the transit queue bypass lane at SW Walnut Street, Response: Every effort was made to incorporate the right turn pocket/transit queue bypass lane standard design details at this conceptual planning • was extended all the way back to SW Mackenzie stage. A two foot shy distance was incorporated • Street. The transition occurs at the intersection of into this conceptual phase. SW Mackenzie Street. This layout could change to accommodate the transition after the SW Mackenzie Comment: Is access management part of this Street intersection in further preliminary design effort? If not, is there a proposed access to efforts. the funeral home near the Hwy 217/Hwy 99W interchange ramp terminal? The current access Queuing Bypass Lanes location should be addressed in some way. Comment: Generally, between the thru movement, Response: Access management is part of the left turn movement and right turn movement, proposed alternative, and full details of all access - whichever one longer in the queue will dictate where points that would be affected would be finalized the turn taper begins. Unless it becomes excessive during the Access Management Plan that should be or impractical in length for these turn lanes. (Please part of implementing access management on the call Canh for clarification). corridor. Response: Queuing was taking into account for Comment: Is there an Access Management Plan as this preliminary conceptual layout. Similar to the separate part of this project? comment, the longest queue was accommodated where it was practical. Response: This project did not develop an access management plan. Each alternative that was Medians and Access Management evaluated had an access management concept. The Comment: An access management concept recommended plan describes an access management applied throughout the corridor is part of the concept. Implementation of the access management . recommended plan. The primary implementation would require an access management plan pursuant tools for this concept would be: with OAR 734, Division 5. . Raised medians • Driveway closures, consolidation or relocation. Raised medians are recommended along most of the corridor north of SW Gaarde/SW McDonald Street, placing medians along approximately 40% of • the corridor's length. Comment: Some median deceleration distance/ curb reversing curves appear to be short. Please check the decel distance). Response: Every effort was made at the conceptual planning stage to incorporate ODOT standards for acceleration, deceleration, turn pockets and reverse • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 73 FINAL REPORT - r Appendix C • • • • • • • • • Appendix C-Tigard Transportation System Plan Updates • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 75 FINAL REPORT • • Appendix C Tigard Transportation System Plan Updates Limits". Update cost from $500,000 to $800,000. To implement the recommended plan for Highway Page 1-17: Bicycle Master Plan 99W and the surrounding area, amendments should Update the description of bicycle lanes south of be made to the City of Tigard Transportation Gaarde/McDonald to Durham Road to note that • System Plan (TSP) to include modal improvements. these facilities are existing, not planned. Many of the amendments /updates are related to Page 1-18: Bicycle Action Plan Improvement List the general finding that Hwy 99W would remain as and Cost a five lane cross-section within the study area and would not be widened to a seven-lane cross-section Update ORE 99W bike lane improvement cost from (as per the current TSP and Regional Transportation $1,300,000 to $275,000 Plan). The City of Tigard should update their TSP Page 1-25: Future Streets Where ROW is Planned to reflect the recommended Hwy 99W plan. The for More Than Two Lanes . Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is also being Update figure to change Hwy 99W from 7 lane (red updated, therefore there is a potential to coordinate line) between Interstate 5 to Greenburg Road to 4/5 • the City's TSP updates with the RTP updates.. lane (dark blue). i A key element to the Tigard 99W Improvement and Page 1-30: Street Improvement Plan (Figure) , Management Plan is the implementation of access management along Hwy 99W. While the current Update figure to remove 7 lane improvement along • does reference access management on Hwy Hwy 99W from Interstate 5 to SW Greenburg Road. TSP d . 99W, the TSP does not call out access management Page 1-31: Intersection Improvement Locations • in the area between Interstate 5 and SW Greenburg Update Figure 8-20 to include intersection . Road due to the potential to widen to seven lanes improvements at: in each direction. The update to the TSP should take into account providing for access management ORE 99W/SW Durham Road • along Hwy 99W from Interstate 5 to SW Durham ORE 99W/SW Canterbury Lane Road through an access management plan. Local • intersection improvements along Hwy 99W should Chapter 2: Goals and Policy implement access management by utilizing the No updates necessary. The Refinement Plan is guiding access management principles outlined focused on future conditions. Any changes to previously. existing conditions should be done via a full update . The following text includes each potential to the TSP. • modification/amendment to the current City Chapter 3: Existing Conditions of Tigard TSP for each chapter. Many of the No updates necessary. The Refinement Plan is • recommended modifications consist of specific focused on future conditions. Any changes to text changes noted in underline/overstrike; other existing conditions should be done via a full update • recommendations provide general guidance so the to the TSP. City can make the necessary changes to text and illustrations in the TSP. All of these suggested Chapter 4: Future Demand and Land Use • modifications support the findings in the Tigard No updates necessary. 99W Implementation and Management Plan. 0 Chapter 1: Summary Chapter 5: Pedestrians A Page 5-9: Table 5-2 Potential Pedestrian Projects Page 1-15: Pedestrian Action Plan List - Update Update ORE 99W project from "McDonald Street ORE 99W sidewalk project from "McDonald to to South City Limits" to "Interstate 5 to South City South City Limits" to "Interstate 5 to South City Limits". • 76 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS.QSSOCiateS • i11AMS?QRI ON SOLUMHS • 0 Appendix C • Page 5-11: Table 5-2 Potential Pedestrian Projects Chapter 8: Motor Vehicles • Add pedestrian activated signalized crossing at SW Page 8-21: Figure 8-11 Future Streets Where i 71 st Avenue to project list with "Medium" ranking. ROW is Planned for More Than Two Lanes • Page 5-11: Table 5-2 Potential Pedestrian Projects Updated figure to change Hwy 99W from 7 lane Add pedestrian activated signalized crossing at (red line) between Interstate 5 to Greenburg Road SW Watkins Avenue to project list with "Medium" to 5 lane (yellow line). ranking. Page 8-34 and 8-35: Last Paragraph Chapter 6• Bicycles Update text to The T Q-) reconuuends. 1) 7nider'tirtg Page 6-8: Figure 6-1 Bicycle Plan Alternative ' Update figure to include existing bike lanes just of 6, reubwX fbait, 3) extensive intersection improvements north of SW Greenburg Road. - turning lanes; 42 a ressive access management., Page 6-9: Figure 6-2 Bicycle Master Plan including the development of an access management plan (Framework Option) for the corridor; 54 inrprovewents to ORE 217 and I-S Update planned bicycle lanes south of Gaarde/ noted above; 641 off-gste»e improvements such as f eervay Improvements and arterials such as Walnut extension; and • McDonald to Durham Road to note that they are .74 consideration of a western/Iamhill County commuter • existing. rail corridor. " Chapter 7: Transit Page 8-37: Last Paragraph, first bullet e . Page 7-1: Paragraph 4, Line 3 Update text to "ORE 99[11 reverrdr &nm access Update text to park and ride at ORE 99111/-7~ manaj eLvent" - Avenne 74th Avenuel." Page 8-38: Table, third item Page 7-9: Table 7-2 Potential Transit Projects Update text to ` Update table with following potential transit . This option would limit the • project(s). (Updated Table Below) potential of the Tigard Triangle to serve the projected land use in the future without loca&ad intersection &4roveneents. These improvements could include additional approach lanes northbound and soutbhound on ORE 99W for short periods. i • Table 7-2: Potential Transit Proyects Rank Project Description . 7 Enhance transit Implement transit queue bypass lanes along ORE 99W at the following locations: reliability along . SW Gaarde/SW McDonald Street regional facilities • • SW Walnut Street • SW Hall Boulevard (northbound) • SW Dartmouth Avenue (northbound) • SW 68th Avenue Work with TriMet to relocate transit stops along ORE 99W (where appropriate) to allow for far side stop operations at signalized intersections to reduce potential w delay to transit operations. TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 77 FINAT. REPORT • • • Appendix C 51 hines butmurn f--5 and 21 Page 8-42: Table 8-6 Project Number 21 • Add asterisk to project description that identifies • that based on the recommendations of the Tigard • 99W Improvements Plan, both the TSP and RTP should be amended to retain four/five-lanes rather • than the current designation to widen ORE 99W to 7 lanes. • Page 8-45: Table 8-7 Third Project Listed Add asterisk to project description that identifies • that based on the recommendations of the Tigard 99W Improvements Plan, both the TSP and RTP • should be amended to retain four/five-lanes rather than the current designation to widen ORE 99W to • 7 lanes. • Page 8-47: Figure 8-19 20 Year Street • Improvement Plan • Update figure to remove seven lane widening • project from Hwy 99W. Page 8-48: Figure 8-20 Intersection Improvement • Locations • Update figure to include projects at the following intersections: • #37 - ORE 99W/SW Durham Road • • #38 - ORE 99W/SW Canterbury Lane Page 8-49 through 8-51: Table 8-8 City of Tigard Future Intersection Improvements Update table to include specific projects and add projects at the following intersections: - • • • • • • • • • • • 78 Orcgon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS ASSOGateS • IR?NSPORWIDN SOLUIIOMS • • Appendix C • Table 8-8 City of Tigard Future Interseetion Lvprovements No. Intersection Description 8 Main/Greenburg/ORE 99W • Add eastbound left turn pocket . Add westbound left turn pocket 11 Hall/ORE 99W Southbound tight turn ime • Westbound left turn lane 0 Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction }g 99W +3, ORE 217 SB RaL,ip-.,/E3RE 2nd southbound Light tUL11 l,UIC 99W 14 Dartmouth/ORE 99W • Add southbound through lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction 15 72nd/ORE 99W Southbound right turn lane - • Northbound right turn overlap • Change to protected left turn phasing north/south • lailm, 16 68th/ORE 99W • • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions S 25 ORE 99W/McDonald/ • Westbound right turn lane Gaarde • Retain eastbound right turn lane • 2nd Northbound left turn lane • 2nd Southbound left turn lane • • Eastbound through lane . • Westbound through lane A • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions • 30 Walnut/ORE 99W i • Change to protected left turn phasing on Walnut • Add westbound left turn lane a • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions . 37 ORE 99W/Canterbury Lane • Add westbound left turn lane • 38 ORE 99W/Durham Road • Add northbound left turn lane • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 79 FINAL, REPORT Appendix C (Updated Table on page 28) • Chapter 9: Other Modes • No updates necessary. i♦ Chapter 10: Transportation Demand Management w No updates necessary. Chapter 11: Funding/ Implementation Page 11-7: Table 11-4 Pedestrian Action Plan Project List Update ORE 99W project from "McDonald Street to South City Limits" to "Interstate 5 to South City Limits". Update cost from $500,000 to $800,000. . Page 11-7: Table 11-4 Pedestrian Action Plan • Project List Add pedestrian activated signalized crossing at SW • 71 st Avenue to project list with "Medium" ranking and cost of $200,000. Page 11-7: Table 11-4 Pedestrian Action Plan Project List Add pedestrian activated signalized crossing at SW Watkins Avenue to project list with "Medium" ranking and cost of $200,000. . Page 11-8: Table 11-5 Bicycle Action Plan . Improvement List and Cost Update ORE 99W bike lane improvement cost from $1,300,000 to $275,000. Page 11-9: Table 11-6 Future Street Improvements - Add asterisk to project description that identifies i that based on the recommendations of the Tigard • 99W Improvements Plan, both the TSP and RTP should be amended to retain four/five-lanes rather than the current designation to widen ORE 99W to 7 lanes. • Page 11-11: Table 11-7 City of Tigard Future Intersection Improvements • Update table to include specific projects and add • projects at the following intersections: (Table on page 30) S 80 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program DKS,4SSOCiat2S • INAN$FO81Ai1ON SOLUTIONS • • • Appendix C • Table 11-7 City of Tigard Future Intersection Improvements • No. Intersection Description Cost 8 Main/ $090,000 • Greenburg/ORE $500,000 99W • • Add eastbound left turn pocket • Add westbound left turn pocket . 11 Hall/ORE 99W $3,700,000 • $750,000 • • • Westbound left turn lane • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction +-2 E)RE 217 NB . Rctain castbound Light turn hink, when E)RE 991& widencd to 7 lancs $966;606 • • 33 ORE 2-1:7 SB . 2nd southbound Light MILL letrIC $400,000 • ~ , • 14 Dartmouth/ a $260,000 ORE 99W • Add southbound through lane $600,000 • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction • 15 72nd/ORE 99W • Southbound right turn lane $500;96 • • Northbound right turn overlap $300,000 Change to protected left turn phasing north/south J 16 68th/ORE 99W litITU 51,556,000 • 00 • . • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and Southbound directions • 25 ORE 99W/ • Westbound right turn lane $700,000 McDonald/ • Retain eastbound right turn lane 51.500,000 • Gaardc • 2nd Northbound left turn lane • • 2nd Southbound left turn lane • Eastbound through lane • • Westbound through lane . • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions • 30 Walnut/ORE $256-006 99W • Change to protected left turn phasing on Walnut S600,000 • • Add westbound left turn lane • • Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions 1 ORE 99W/ • Add westbound left turn lane 5250,000 Canterbury Lane • 38 ORE 99W/ • Add northbound left turn lane 5250,000 Durham Road • TIGARD 99W IMPROVEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN 81 FINAL. REPORT • •