City Council Packet - 05/03/1982 raw
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA an agenda item needs to sign their name on
MAY 3, 1982 , 7:30 P.M. the appropriate sign-up sheet(s) . If no
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL sheet is provided, ask to be recognized by
LECTURE ROOM the Chair.
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1. 1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
1.3 Call to Audience , Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda
2. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed for
discussion and separate action. Motion to:
2. 1 Receive and file memo from Chief of Police regarding Street Vendors
2.2 Acknowledge Washington County Public Officials Caucus Meeting - scheduled for
5/6/82, 7:00 P.M. at Tigard Senior Center.
3. CIVIC CENTER ELECT10N - Resolution No. 82- (June 29, 1982 Election Date)
s Recommendation of City Administrator
4. 72ND AVENUE LID ASSESSMENT HEARING
r Recommendation of Director of Public Works
5. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda items identified to the Chair under item
1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City
Administrator prior to the meeting.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to consider
Property Acquisition per ORS 192.660 (1) (e) .
7. ADJOURNMENT
v+
0
w
i
a
N
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 3, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors Tom Brian, John Cook,
Kenneth Scheckla, Nancie Stimler; Directcr .)f Public Works/Planning
Director, Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder Doris Hartig;
City Administrator, Bob Jean; Legal Counsel, Ed Sullivan; Office
Manager, Loreen Wilson.
2. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA
(a) City Administrator reported that there would not be an ordinance for
Council adoption on 72nd Avenue findings this evening. That would be
destributed for the meeting of 5-10-82 and would adopt the Council
findings and action from this evening's hearing.
(b) Administrator requested Council add to the Executive Session agenda
consideration of pending litigation under ORS 192.660 (1) (f) .
(c) Administrator requested item .1 be added to the Open Agenda to discuss
a Tigard Water District request.
(d) Mr. Tim Settlemire, local businessman, requested clarification of
Council or staff policy on outdoor display of merchandise by local
businesses. City Administrator synopsized code requirements for
conditional and temporary uses for outdoor display of merchandise and
stated that staff is in the process of notifying businesses when they
are in violation of the code.
3. RECEIVE PIVD FILE MEMO FROM CHIEF OF POLICE REGARDING STREET VENDORS
(a) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Brian to receive and file.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
4. ACKNOWLEDGE WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIALS CAUCUS MEETING - Scheduled for
5/6/82, 7:00 P.M. at Tigard Senior Center.
(a) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Brian to acknowledge
meeting date and time.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
5. CIVIC CENTER ELECTION - June 29, 1982
(a) City Administrator reported revised resolution destributed for
consideration with rewordage in ballot title, explanation and
question. After some further discussion between Council and staff,
he requested Council amend the new resolution to read as .follows:
"EXPLANATION"
"The purpose of this proposal is to provide $4,600,000 to buy the Crow
Building site, remodel the building for a city hall and police facilities,
construct a library and community center on that site, improve Downtown
Fanno Park and pay associated costs. This proposal was made to Council
and citizens by the Tigard Civic Center Advisory Oommittee."
(b) City Recorder noted a typographical error in the ballot section and
stated staff would correct.
(c) RESOLUTION No. 82-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CALLING
FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE REGISTERED
QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY A MEASURE AUTHORIZING
THE CITY OF TIGARD TO SELL GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
TO FINANCE PURCHASE, CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION
OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER.
(d) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt
Resolution No. 82-41 as amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF MEETING
6. 72ND AVENUE LID ASSESSMENT HEARING
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Director of Public Works gave a brief summary of assessment methods
considered by Council and noted that at the April 12th hearing Council
requested four assessment methods be proposed for consideration this
evening in a public hearing. (See attached letter dated 4-19-82 from
Marlin DeHaas, Engineer , setting forth the assessment methods and
proposed costs per lot on each of the methods.)
(c) Public Testimony:
• Hy Sadoff, Samack Inc. ID #66, offered apology to Council for stating
at a previous meeting that he didn't trust them. He read into the record
a letter from his attorney, Paul J. Rask, stating that the LID area is
not a true representation of those properties benefited by the improvements.
Mr. Sadoff reserved the right to speak later in the meeting.
s Florence Archer, ID #1, questioned why LID is being placed by her property
when the State Highway Department is also improving the area with the
placement of the 72nd Avenue Interchange project. Director of Public
Works reported that the City of Tigard has paid extra money to the State
to have them bler : their project into the 72nd Avenue LID and that both
projects benefit the property in question.
Councilor Brian stated he had trouble with a residential lot in this
situation possibly not receiving benefit since the lots were zoned
residential even on the comp plan map. Director of Public Works
responded that whether the lot was zoned residential or industrial the
property still derives benefit from the improvement of the street upon
which it fronts.
o Robert Williams , owner of ID #12a and 12b, supports the lb assessment
method but felt that Tech Center Drive costs should not be in the assessment
of the LID for one property owner as this improvement does not reflect
{' the principal of true benefit. He suggested that the cost for SW Tech
Center Drive should be shared with Circle A-W Products. On behalf of
Western International Properties, he requested Council assess Circle A-W
Products $12,252.45 as their portion of the total SW Tech Center Drive
assessment of $33,954 .95. He stated this portion represents the additional
amount of street costs solely attributable to the LID. Mr. Williams presented
Council with a letter setting out these concerns.
PAGE 2 -- COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1982
o Lenore Warner , ID #7 , offered her support of assessment method ill and
advised Council that they did not want to grant an easement across their
property but wished to sell the City right-of-way.
o Mark Henry, ID #116 , asked why the property across from his was not assessed
in the district. Legal Counsel responded that the property across the
road was outside the City of Tigard's jurisdiction and therefore could not
be included in the LID. Mr. Henry stated he like the #2a method of assessment.
o Dan Mevis, ID #18, state he represented Northern Yards , Inc. and supported
assessment method #la or #lb. He stated they had already paid for
improvements along SW Landmark Lane and felt they should not have to pay
for improvements again along SW 72nd Avenue .
e Beverly Hurt, ID #17 , opposed the project.
o Joy Layman, representing PacTrust, noted their general support of the LID
and proposed improvements. However , he questioned why Council felt the
special assessment of the traffic signal should only be borne by PacTrust.
He stated this would violate the basic concept of the LID process in
his opinion, since all components are needed to facilitate a smooth flow
of traffic in the area. He suggested that it would seem appropriate to
use SDC funds for the cost of the traffic signals. Mr. Layman stated
PacTrust supported assessment method #la.
o Mike Schmeer, Bingham Investment Co. ID #54 , advised Council that Bingham
bought property on 72nd Avenue with the understanding that the street
was widened to standard and would not require additional improvements.
`. Since the street was improved by another State Highway project not long
ago, he requested Council give Bingham a price break like was being done
on the Archer property, ID 911, on the other end of the project. He
mentioned that Bingham supported method 912.
e Don & Betty Byers, ID #91, stated they favored assessment method 911.
o Tony Maksym, ID 918, requested Council to split the LID area into two
or three smaller LID's since he felt the project was too large as proposed
and the assessment methods were not fair. He also requested Council defer
payment of the assessment to the residential properties until such time
as the owners request a zone change to commercial or industrial. He stated
that of all the assessment methods #2b seemed the most fair.
o Don Petersen, ID #45 , is supportive of the improvements and preferred
method #2a or #2b.
e Ray Ems , Ill 914 , stated his property was only 16.5 feet wide and over 600
feet long and requested that Council not assess the property as it could
only be used for right-of-way purposes. He stated he was not paying taxes
on the property currently. He also preferred assessment method #2a or #2b.
e Dwain Moore , ID #63, representing Southern Pacific, noted he preferred
assessment method #la or #lb.
o Harold Anderson, Circle A-W, ID # 's 13, 14 , & 15, favored assessment method
#lb and advised Council he didn't feel the extra $12,252,45 should be
charged them for the improvement of SW Tech Center Drive.
e Lorraine Greco, ID #5 , stated she felt there was no benefit to residential
properties, however would choose assessment method #2b if one had to be chosen.
PAGE 3 - COU14CIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1982
e Bud Gevertz, ID 469, favored method #lb and stated that his business has
already paid for their own road.
e Larry Miller , ID #78, favored method #la.
e Ted Nelson, ID #70a-d, stated that the LID area is too small, but would
favor method #2b.
e Tony Maksym, ID #8, requested Council note the chanbe in the scope of the
project along Bonita Road and requested other changes now being made .
Director of Public Works stated the change along Bonita was only to
cut back the amount of property assessed since the adjustment along the
corner didn't go back as far onto Bonita Road as originally expected.
(d) Public Hearing Closed
(e) Director of Public Works stated that including letters and public
testimany, he counted the following number of people supporting the
various assessment methods:
IA 15
1B 7
2A 3
2B 8
None 3
He commented that he had not seen or heard any testimony which would change
t
his opinion of which method would most fairly show the benefit to the
properties in the LID area. He recommended Council make a tentative
decision on either assessment method #la or #lb and staff would then
prepare an ordinance to adopt final findings at the meeting of 5/10/82.
As far as Tech Center Drive is concerned, he stated that Circle A-W
actually benefited less with the Drive improved and the Director 's
recommendation was to assess Western International Properties for the
full cost of the improvement.
e City Administrator stated he hoped Council would find a method that
most nearly showed the benefit derived. He noted that staff feels
any of the four methods are good as long as Council supports their
decision with the specific reasons for their choice . The Administrator
continued by saying that the City's share of the improvement would be
20% on the #la or #2a method and 23% on the #lb or #2b method. He
commented that the normal participation amount for the City has been
15% in the past.
(f) COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
o Councilor Cook stated that with all the testimony heard it still remains
a difficult decision, however, he felt that assessment method #lb
would be the best.
e Councilor Stimler stated that even though assessment method #lb would
increase the cost to the City from 20% to 23%, she still felt that
it was the best method and more equitable.
e Councilor Scheckla stated he felt the City had gotten away from the
original proposal and the project was now too large. He stated he was
unhappy with where we are now and felt the Cit} needed to get back to
the basic project.
PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1982
m Councilor Brian stated he favored method #2a or #2b. He stated his
reason for this opinion was that the improvement will give enhanced
access to properties in the whole area of the LID and should then be
assessed on the area method only.
s Mayor Bishop allowed Hy Sadoff to speak. Mr. Sadoff stated that it was
not the cost of the project that people objected to, but the principle.
The original plan for 4 basic improvements would be the best choice.
• Mayor Bishop stated that first the project was considered at over $3
million and Council cut it in half to $1.5 million project. He
noted that which ever way Council acts on the assessment methods , about
half of the citizens will be dissatisfied. He said that the people need
to realize what the City Council has gone through with this project too.
Mayor Bishop asked staff what would happen if the LID were not completed
since the bid has been awarded.
Legal Counsel responded that the City could well be liable for damages
to date and he would expect a claim filed for damages by the contractor.
Mayor Bishop stated the City has gone far to resolve the issues,
however, the City can't lower the amount much further without facing
legal damages. The Mayor then asked for Council to make its motion.
® Councilor Brian questioned whether Council could request the PacTrust
light be removed from their assessment and spread over the entire
district. He is aware of accesses other than the one at the light
for PacTrust and doesn't feel as strongly about that being a part of the
"B" method. He still felt the railroad crossing should remain a
special assessment and part of the "B" method.
Councilor Stimler discussed briefly with Councilor Brian her reasons
for keeping the PacTrust light as a special assessment. (Discussion
was inaudible .)
o Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt
assessment method #2b as it was distributed to the property owners
without change.
Motion failed 2-3, Councilors Cook, Stimler & Mayor Bishop voting nay.
o Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt
assessment method #lb without change and with Tech Center Drive being
charged to ID #12a only.
o Mayor Bishop questioned whether ID #4 could be removed from the district
and assessment at this time since it was considered right-of-way land only.
Legal Counsel stated becuase it is a privdte parcel of land, it must be
in the LID area now. The question for Council to decide is how much
assessment should the parcel pay. He noted that any of the four methods
of assessment proposed could be supported in court.
• Motion to adopt assessment method #lb was approved by 3-2 majority vote
of Council present. Councilors Scheckla and Brian voting nay.
s Legal Counsel reported that staff would accent_ this tentative decision
and prepare an ordinance for consideration at the 5-10-82 meeting. He
also stated the residential property deferral ordinance would be
presented on the 10th.
PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1982
RECESS: 10:00 P.M.
RECONVENE: 10:22 P.M.
7. OPEN AGENDA:
7.1 City Administrator stated Bob Santee is getting material ready for a
meeting with Council on 5-24-82. He distributed material for Council
to read before that meeting and requested if anyone was interested
that Santee would be willing to take Council on a tour of a water
filtration plant in the Lake Oswego area before the 24th. Mayor
Bishop expressed interest in attending the tour , the rest of Council
wished to have slides presented at the meeting of the 24th.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council went into executive session at 10:28 P.M. to
consider property acquisition matters per ORS 192.660 ( 1) (e) and possible
litigation issues per ORS 192.660 ( 1) (f) .
9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:12 P.M.
Doris Hartig, City Record
r..
ATTEST:
Wilbur Bishop, Mayor
a
MAX 3, 1982
PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MIN:;i•ES -
Date• 5/3/82
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
Council on the following item:
(Please print your name)
AGENDA ITEM # 1.3 CALL TO AUDIENCE
Name, Address & Affiliation Item Description
Da te513/g 2
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
Council on the following item:
AGENDA ITEM� Four name)
72nd LID ASSESSMENT HEARING
'Jam Address & Affiliation
Item Description
�- o _
7 Z
07 7� /J /-Y/Z- Z-ilfg
r/ N rn - - 70 ti,P Z- 1 ,6
-
7
►+�Cevtrsy l,1 w /dtC� �77`/
-719-7/
ori
April 27 , 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: All Personnel (Special Attention: Day & Swing Shift Watch Commanders)
From: Chief of Police
Subject: Street Vendors
Re : Flower Vendors, Outdoor Sales, Etc.
Patrol Personnel are directed to investigate all street vendors for business
licenses and conditional use permits as required by City Ordinances.
If the vendor is a new operation, issue a written warning with instructions to
stop conducting business at that point in time. If they are observed the following
day, issue a citation. They are also subject to arrest each day thereafter,
when conducting outside sales without a license or permit.
Those who are known to have been given notice or cited prior to this time
are to be cited each day they continue to operate contrary to City ordinances
as mentioned above.
. B. Adams
Chief of Police
I
ING
t
i
NO
i - - • • u- • • • - • • • - • U.
k52 -
off 3-
-
�.
�ti
ISE HAAS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS
SUITE 445-AGC CENTER WILSONVILLE, OREGON 97070
9450 SAIt'. COMMERCE CIRCLE (503) 682-2450
April 19, 1982
Mr. Frank Currie
12755 S.W. Ash Ave.
P.O. Box 23397
Dear Frank:
In accordance with April 12, 1982 instructions of the Tigard City Council ,
we have recalculated PRE-ASSESSMENTS for L.I .D. 21 - S.W. 72nd Avenue
Area Street Improvements. For identification purposes , we have designated
the assessment methods as la. , lb. , 2a. , 2b. respectively.
PRE-ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS for all methods include $50,000 for right-of-
way costs. It is understood that any right-of-way costs exceeding
$50,000 will be in addition to the PRE-ASSESSMENT totals and will
be distributed on an area basis to the total assessable area as a
part of a SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Assessment method 1a. is the method
recommended by the ENGINEER, except for the limitation in the total
assessable amount, which amount was prescribed by Tigard City Council .
Alternate methods lb. , 2a. , 2b. , are methods prescribed by the Tigard
City Council at their meeting of April 12, 1982. Methods lb. and 2b.
require $55,279.18 increased city participation.
The assessment methods can be described as follows:
Method la.
1. Total PRE-ASSESSMENT ($1 ,530,990.53) equals $1 ,500,000.00 plus
$30,990.53 for Tech Center Drive.
2. Distribute equivalent cost of a 34 foot street to property within
200 feet of the street improvements ($1 ,157,026.64) . One-half of
such costs ($578,513.32) are to be spread on a frontage basis and
one-half ($578,513.32) are to be spread on an area basis.
3. Separate costs for construction of Tech Center Drive ($30,990.53)
are assessed on an one-half area and one-half frontage basis to
Ident. No. 12a per agreement.
Page 2
April 19, 1982
(Method la. con't)
4. The remaining assessable costs ($342,973.36) are to be spread on
an area basis over the entire assessable area of the district.
ITEM COSTS
Frontage $578,513.32
Area (within 200 feet) $578,513.32
Tech Center Drive $ 30,990.53
Area (total assessable) $342,973.36
TOTAL PRE-ASSESSMENT: $1 ,530,990.53
Method lb.
1 . Total PRE-ASSESSMENT ($1 ,475,711 .35) equals $1 ,500,000 less
one-half of estimated sidewalk costs ($34,773.56), less one-half
of estimated street light costs ($20,505.62), plus $30,990.53
for Tech Center Drive.
2. Distribute equivalent cost of a 34 foot street to property within
200 feet of the street improvements ($1 ,157,026.64) . One-half
of such costs ($578,513.32) are to be spread on a frontage basis
and one-half ($578,513:32) are to be spread on an area basis.
3. Distribute costs of the traffic signal at 72nd (southbound) and
S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road ($66,678.15) to Pacific Realty Trust
property lying southerly of S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road (See
Exhibit "A") on an area basis.
4. Distribute estimated cost to the City ($20,000) for the spur-track
railroad crossing protection facilities to Southern Pacific Company
(Ident. No. 63) and Predelivery Service (Ident. No. 64) on an area
basis (See Exhibit "B") .
5. Separate costs for construction of Tech Center Drive ($30,990.53) are
assessed on a one-half frontage and one-half area basis to Ident. No.
12a per agreement.
6. . The remaining assessable costs ($201 ,016.03) are to be spread on an area
basis over the entire assessable area of the district.
Page 3
April 19, 1982
(Method lb. con't)
ITEM COSTS
Frontage $578,513.32
Area (within 200 feet) 578,513.32
Signal to Pac Trust 66,678.15
Spur Xing to SPTC & Predelivery 20,000.00
Tech Center Drive 30,990.53
Area (total assessable) 201 ,016.03
TOTAL PRE-ASSESSMENT: $1 ,475,711 .35
Method 2a.
1. Total PRE-ASSESSMENT ($1 ,530,990.53) equals $1 ,500,000 plus
$30,990.53 for Tech Center Drive.
2. Separate costs for construction of Tech Center Drive ($30,990.53)
are assessed on an area basis to Ident. No. 12a per agreement.
3. Distribute $1 ,500,000 on an area basis over the entire assessable
area of the district.
ITEM C05TS
Tech Center Drive $ 30,990.53
Area (total assessable) $1 ,500,000.00
TOTAL PRE-ASSESSMENT: $1 ,530,990.53
Method 2b,
1 . Total PRE-ASSESSMENT ($1 ,475,711 .35) equals $1 ,500,000 less one-half
of estimated sidewalk costs ($34,773.56), less one-half of estimated
street light costs ($20,505.62) plus $30,990.53 for Tech Center Drive.
2. Distribute costs, of the traffic signal at 72nd (southbound) and S.W.
Upper Boones Ferry Road ($66,678.15) to Pacific Realty Trust property
lying southerly of S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road (see Exhibit "A") on
an area basis.
3. Distribute estimated cost to the City ($20,000) for the spur-track
railroad crossing protection facilities to Southern Pacific Company
(Ident. No. 63) and Predelivery Service (Ident. No. 64) on an area
basis (see Exhibit -"B") .
Page 4
April 19, 1932
(Method 2b. con't)
4. Separate costs for construction of Tech Center Drive ($30,990.53)
are assessed on an area basis to Ident. No. 12a per agreement.
5. The remaining assessable costs ($1 ,358,042.67) are to be spread
on an area basis over the entire assessable area of the district.
ITEM COSTS
Signal to Pac Trust $ 66,678.15
Spur Xing to SPC & Predelivery 20,000.00
Tech Center Drive 30,990.53
Area (total assessable) $1 ,358,042.67
TOTAL PRE-ASSESSMENT: $1 ,475,711 .35
A cost distribution comparison of the methods is as follows :
COST DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON
ITEM ASSESSMENT METHOD
Ia. lb. 2a. 2b.
Frontage $578,513.32 $578,513.32 $ 0..00 $ 0.00
Area (w/i 200 f0 578,513.32 578,513.32 0.00 0.00
Signal to Pac
Trust 0.00 66,678.15 0.00 66,678.15
Spur Xing to SPC
& Predelivery 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00
Tech Center Drive 30,990.53 30,990.53 30,990.53 30,990.53
Area
(total assessable) 342,973.36 201 ,016.03 1 ,500,000.00 1 ,358,042.67
TOTAL
PRE-ASSESSMENT: $1 ,530,990.53 $1 ,475,711 .35 $1 ,530,990.53 $1 ,475,711 .35
Note: 1 . All methods are subject to increases for
any right-of-way costs exceeding $50,000.00.
2. Methods lb. and 2b, require $55,279.18 increased
city participation.
Page 5
April 19, 1982
Attached is a schedule of assessments for each PRE-ASSESSMENT method.
These schedules may be inserted into thereviousl
p y provided PRE-ASSESSMENT
roll to comprise a new PRE-ASSESSMENT roll . Also, attached is the revised
PRE-ASSESSMENT map showing all four (4) methods.
Sincerely,
0
MARLIN J DE HAAS, P.E.
MJD:tlj
Attachments
cc: 80.194.118
C
• I r�
I
I 1
1 1
I 41 42 I
I i 60 / I
f 59 //
I / I
1 43 / I
I � I
I 44
I45
1 1 s •
.Q_... r 58 57
114 �t E
/ b a \ 1
/ \ I
/ 48 47
55
49 v °
/ 50 c
51 ®�
/ ° sr 56
44 Ro /
A. a � • e 1
A � �
116 52
h
_ Q
I
I � r
53C I '
II
Poo Tf�U t Gv�PCr y
I
1
55
1i
i -
I�
530
I
1
54
• rYMYYI:MIIE9 .
22 23 ' IJ 201100
1000
••\ ( CIRCLE A W MOCUCU
24 73 t• 1100
\ CIRCLE A Y PRODUCTS
' IS 2SI IOC
I p ° SCEHMS-ALLIS
25 I6 nitDc
71 MICCETWIER
\ 17 251100
1000
NURT
\ e p 2s ° G ------- IB 22SI12A
\ \ 602
NOATHERk VARUS
\ \ Era O 19 25 IZA
\ 2605
7 27a NICXS
��•—__—_ `
�•
•� —e—7- 20 ?51122
BGdTA ••• ._
NAM
\ \\ 29 21 2SI17A
I TENT DISTRICT" 2� p P`SIE
•
�r3 22 604
O •N@A ,\ \ 6ETNLEM£M STEEL
,4.11 D{(��R /7i \ 67 68 69 z) nnzA
601
bliss
30
24 2SIIZA
401
SII ANCERSLII ET AL
r r 66 25 ZZOSIIZA
FOUGR ET AL
r �. \ �• 26 ZS11ZA
65 TENLANT
r \\ 32 7 Eye �1ZA fT
\ 33 PIKE
' \ 22 2S112A
r i \ 34 64 1NAATTIDaAL SMTT
alpkyf:IAV S Y✓i _ _ 29 2nSI112A
WNTLATCM
30 2SI12A
\ 36 WATER PAGE
r \ Z
31 251122
' - 2101
TAYLOR
32 2S11ZA
r 00
CiROMLE
f "ff 39 )J 2SI12A
2200
63 SORG
r 34 25112A
�D14 fJ7P vr� PC:/ i><L- two
' BUCX ESTATE
1 37 384P 40 >s 2400
r ZEL INTERMATIORAL
r y 3S 2S112A
r P` SOUTREAN PACIFIC IkOUSTRIAL
' J7 2511202
' 000
ON-WASH ENTERPRISES IHLIMITEO
>m n11202
r
r SOUTNI101 PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL
is 1001205
' IIPPMS COPPANT
100• S KABLE LANE 90 2S11209
200
HALVORSON INVESTMENT
6!
• it 2311200
?00
r SCUMMY PACIFIC IRR75TRIAL
d r �X ;. 1 42 • 2411100
41 100
IIFN
42 JIN PROPERTIES
251t2Dt,
e 300
IKRJIM►AU►ERi(ES
r 60 ` ( •) S11120C
".. ... _._ O NADEAO
L.I .D. 21 - S.W. 72nd Ave. Area
Tent. PRE-ASSESSMENT METHODS (Per Council Instructions 4/12/82)
No. la. 1b. 2a . 2b.
1-5-e5 71
2 3 -73 2730 7e2 72 Z .G9 /55'' , /Z
36 /05L '--53 --7 .,2
S 8 73z _ 96 3 R 7 :SZ 36 so - G� 3 3 o y
6 8,73 • a6 837 -5Z 3G �o :o 3� � y. Gy
7 8y71 . // 8 /vU .U� 3 yz • 320 7
A5 67
-575, 35yz .7z .3z � -s-
/J X773 . S'3 797 .7/ ?O x`76 .76
.y/ 59774-58 �7 :J Si •S
7
/3 276 D /6 z _6 7 i?/asz
/q Z 0,-? 7 - 6- i8 /a .z130 06z .5y :77i-7 - 1/7
2,1 .
/ 77 _ 76
1 -7 /2 7-y/. 7/ J? 57U .U6 23.22 ./ 7 Z O
4,773 . .z/5 Z 79% .71 z0676
145)
2C' 773.'Z63 3oG/_ 9/
Z5 33� J? ; 77
26 7 3v� j36 74�y i G 2y3�,Gz 2 z o 5 . i z
703 2 77.90 2 9 6 7 .76
27b Gyo TZ-0 6Z7 4,06 1.3 ,0/ 9
Date: Y//(��Z
Page-: //�
L.I .D. 21 - S.W. 72nd Ave. Area
Ident PRE-ASSESSMENT METHODS (Per Council Instructions 4/12/82)
No. la. lb. 2a . 2b.
�u /90z .13c� 96.5 . Q•/ 7 .
255 :3 729 5%9, ; 7/
� / 9Go/ :Ov g 755: // 8938 , 76 8b922 .8/
6 792 : 76 2,/02 .73 l cl03 < 73
3-i7 6.zz / .y/ 5 �Ip5 .9z 333.5 —7
36- 6rs3o .38 6Z3/ ,Z3 3 / 6o, gy Z86/ , 79
3G ?D = ;-1 . 9� / 9G6� .9Z 772�/ •S'o Gq � 3
3 S yU37_y3
513 7 .87
,p� /7 7-�5,2 ,
59 /7 732.7 /7 /9/5 ,3'/ 5,G 78 ,5Z
yU /h!7Z./
24 9911 ./5
/ 9 769 . 9= //� �/G . z7 /o - po
ell59, 7c? 76 i
-C/Gc/ �2�� •83 .5136 .l s /sem .8G
y6E7C? 7
y6c i,726 �� 156 ! _ /v /7�/9 .y 56 -
z 3 .
-7-' 7 /5,7/ 7
7
-el 7 -f .'6 7 / 5 .6
of �O 59 .I?Z 503 59 37.57 .Sz p ./g
2707e5 i 9 26 3/es :7 7�/9�`.9 7 R 5 .58
5?ra 33 4 ,2. 69 .4/O 3 J 38 33 3 y .y3 4/J
Da to:
Page: 2/5'
L.I .D. 21 -- S.W. 72nd Ave. Area
Ident. PRE-ASSESSMENT METHODS (Per Council Instructions 4/12/82)
No. la . lb. 2a. 2b.
7/ -/9G °j30 6So .3z
52 c G 6 23d.3 5 7 5 96 V 9 6 3i 5 .5�
�3� �✓�z�"'�-=/ / 323 � � `J 2 / 33 , �� ! 93 / ,93
3y 7 9� .
26 ,67/
SS y�/3Sy /Z 5/ oH0 ;2 7 3/, GZZ .89 37 7o5i.Oy
56 30 0 99
36S..3z
S6 C P��G7.60 3/ 0.36.03 Z3 q98 .g8 Z 9 /G7 •33
5' c/ Zz967.67 ,27 e,SGQ5,62
=S6.00.3 6 y� .5"S/ • 7-t/ 7 , C,6
E 7� 3652 . /g X72---5'
=�/cs ,7 7Z `� cS// ?.5 .96 /y -7 // . 7,--
-3 % 7Z
�7 . J7 //sz .G6 ,o/ .; 787 .z6
SSc9 9 y 78 •g 2G G / .0-3
Z573z 15_ 5/ 3/ 9b3.Z3 io/G7.79 9 ?05 .53
ZZ �3/ :7U /33-7 .30 9-.'? 79.O5 9ts3y . s
S/ 7/9
3-f 33 :6z 3� 738 i56 53Z 3_3? 95 7=
/ -99 7 .37
G 6 /8 v!7 • �Z 7256 . /6 /Z 2G�t . y/ // /�; -3--,
6� -5S --/87 O7
Y!9 J,66 3 ! 3/ . z 3s./-5-
/-3/ 7
--/3/ 7 ��� 772 ./ 7 57Gz .oi S2 /
� •7D
36/8 26 2120 166
Date:
Page: 3/�
L.I .D. 21 - S.W. 72nd Ave. Area
Ident. PRE-ASSESSMENT METHODS (Per Council Instructions 4/12/82)
No. la. lb. 2a. 2b.
70cr 'd SG y0 •'7 7 -'-2 9Sy
766 /.5"7�• 2y G237 .3y
86 9 - 3y !2 5S6 . 77
S3 7 yg7c5 .yam
7/ 257/5 . '0 7 .0 mo6 / 72. / 7 ,/'
7Za Z OSo _ 77 1.9 Z3 _ D 9 /3</9 /3 / 2z / .y
7242 4-'I0 7Z Oy .39 63</,. 7d y6876 .PG yz yyo •5z
73 &773 .4/5 Z 79 7_ 7 74 . 76
65 .H7 /8 19/ _ eZ
7yb 22 • // 7 _99
7S 33 7/ .33 �3 -7 7 .5l _ a
76 //giG _ S/ PG07_9I 33 9o3_ - -.2 �/
77 /G3Sr3 •y3z X3_03
7
2.1 95..79 / e5 • / _ 6 y y _-i/7
79
_76 22 3c ,/7
7,3
e,-
--3ell,
.3y �-
8� _39 766 _98 -5-
797-,'
7 7 220 . �Z
7 36 .y� G pyo .30 �iZ _ 3
8� /0 797
66-920.7 7 6 O/O.
0 7 -03
923 _Z�/
r 9 � 1 _ -47:? 7 _i 7/ - _76 /'
20 e -tom _ cz
Z Z 96 e 4�5-
9y 63ZQ G8 q!3 �68 �/ acs G3 3g �+3 _63
Oa to:
Page.
L.I .D. 21 - S.W. 72nd Ave. Area
Ident. PRE-ASSESSMENT METHODS (Per Council Instructions 4/12/82)
No. la. lb. 2a . 2b.
9 7 52- 490 307 7-5- 2z -y3 .z o 9
9 663 •�2G 330 �l3 2 G - z 3� . 71 9
/ 7,::!> S2Ss08 3o7 -'7 — ZZ .</y i
5Z6-e08 30 7 .' 7� 2Z S6 44y 2Oi 9
39 9
io3 y39 - / 7 257. 99 / 920 , 70 7
O S/� 50 .302 ./ 2zSy, GS 20
y 3 y .S 9 2,7 rs 7 . .-717 2,6732
. 7,Z
/07 y _�5'/
/08 Syy, i7 Sig 23 79 , 93
Jo ct ///6 • 98 65y.66 y88�./ �/ z
y-y-e-3 . 70 26Z. 9P /96. , yU / 7
// 35 5 L .J a7 GJG op .�
.,7(:!!5 C5?
.5 GG8 .o spy ,
9B 9Z/ ./3 6 9-15 8A1 206 3 ,6,z - ,
i
i
Total /5'30 990 53 �/ y75 7// 13-5 /,530 990 53
Date:
Page: �f�