04/11/2007 - Packet City Center Advisory Commission
Wednesday April 11, 2007
6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Red Rock Creek Meeting Room, City Hall,
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions 6:30-6:35 pm
2. Review / Approve Minutes 6:35-6:45
3. Community Investment Plan (CIP 2007-2012)—Downtown 6:45-7:10
Decision: Review / Recommend
4. Downtown Implementation Strategy 7:10-7:55
Decision: Review / Recommend
5. Information Updates 7:55-8:15
• Land Use / Design Guidelines Update
• Burnham St Open House Update (March 23)
• Fanno Creek Park / Plaza Master Plan
• MTIP Grant–Decision to move project start date
• Marketing--Developer Outreach
• Marketing Subcommittee Update
• Change to CCAC Composition /Appointments
• Main Street Demonstration Project
6. Other Business / Announcements 8:15-8:30
Minutes for CCAC Meeting
Date of Meeting: April 11, 2007
Name of Committee: CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
Location: Red Rock Creek Conf. Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard
Minutes: Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
Called to order by: Chairman Carl Switzer
Start Time: 6:40pm
Adjourned: 9:55pm
Commissioners Present: Alice Ellis Gaut; Lily Lilly; Carolyn Barkley; Vice Chair
Alexander Craghead; Suzanne Gallagher; Ralph Hughes [(Alternate]*per Hughes on
5-9-07 minutes amended to strike the word "alternate"]; Roger Potthoff; Chairman
Carl Switzer
Commissioners Absent: None
Others Present: Property and/or business owners Forrest Johnson, Mike Peterson, Mr. and
Mrs. Dick Miller, ,
fheir infant, *on 5-9-07 Barkley amended the minutes to read Mr. & Mrs.John Zuber] and
City Councilor Gretchen Buehner.
Staff Present: Phil Nachbar, Senior Planner; Doreen Laughlin, City Admin Specialist II
Agenda Item #1: Welcome and Introductions:
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chairman Switzer called the meeting to order
and asked those present to introduce themselves. The visitors were mainly Downtown
business and property owners. Some visitors arrived later and were not introduced.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None
Agenda Item #2: Review/Approve Minutes
Important Discussion and/or Comments: It was moved and seconded to approve the
March 14th minutes as presented.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 11,2007 Page 1 of
This meeting,in its entiren.,is available on audio cassette in the permit Center,and is retained for one year.
C:ADoeuments and Settings\CSWITZFR\1A)cal Set tings\Tcmporary Internet Files\Content.11:5\.AW'_629"1'Nl\CC:AChleeting%finutesO4-11-
07:rnendedandapproced 3j.doc
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): A vote was taken and the minutes were approved
with two abstentions (Commissioners Lilly and Ellis Gaut abstained).
CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 11,2007 Page 2 of�
']'his meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year.
C:ADocuments and settings\(:SWIT%HR\I oval Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IF5\AW2629'I'"I\CCA CN'IcctingMinutes04-11-
07;Amendedandapproved 13 j.doc
t ,
Agenda Item #3: Community Investment Plan (CIP 2007-2012 Downtown)
Decision Review /Recommend:
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar presented a document on the
comments that came in regarding the CIP (Community Investment Program). There was
discussion about the various comments and it was pointed out that none of the comments
represented a "group", but were comments from individuals. There was discussion about
various comments, some of which were about green space and SDC dollars. He stated that the
Commission should be aware that there are individuals that may oppose Downtown projects
including the use of SDC dollars for Fanno Creek Park. The group then discussed the pros
and cons of the use of SDC dollars for Downtown projects, and the payback of funds with
urban renewal funds.
Nachbar produced the budget and noted it is a 5-year plan. Councilor Buehner explained that
what they were looking at would go to the Budget Committee. Nachbar said the year`07-`08
is accurate,while the rest of the years are "guesstimates". He noted that the closer to the time
you get, the more accurate the numbers are. He asked that the commissioners look the budget
over and comment on it. There was concern on the part of Commissioner Ellis Gaut that she
wasn't sure what their"role"was on this budget but that, in her experience, when she sees the
numbers out there that once those SDC recommendations are made, they aren't going away.
She, personally,was concerned that their endorsement means they agree with everything. She
said she was afraid there would be nothing left with which to purchase open space. Nachbar
mentioned that since his role was to find a way to execute projects that the use of SDC was an
important means of doing that. He also mentioned that part of all of these funds could be
paid back with Urban Renewal funds when they become available. Commissioner Gallagher
noted that, to her, the numbers do not mean anything since she does not know what the "pot"
total is. She said she would like to see percentages. They went over the budget in more detail.
Nachbar said there are certain guidelines for use of SDC dollars. For Community Parks, it's
54% and 46%. 54% can be SDC and 46% have to come from other sources. He said that for a
Linear Park, which is intended to go alongside of trails and those sorts of things, the law states
you can spend 100% of SDC dollars. He said he'd checked and Fanno Creek is considered a
"Linear Park". Chairman Switzer expressed concern over spending down the SDC fund that
some of the pristine forest would not be able to be acquired. Nachbar said that for planning
and engineering tasks for a park, you can use 100% of SDC dollars and that's what the City
does. He said you're not required to find matching money for the planning part of it. For
construction, you are. He said it may be wise to get more information and they didn't have to
decide tonight.
Commissioner Craghead suggested they make a philosophical decision as to whether or not
they should be paying back a portion. Commissioner Potthoff asked whether it was possible
for them to overlay a parks budget on this requirement. He said that, to him, the idea of going
forward with Downtown is something to which the citizens have "given their blessing." He
CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 11,2007 Page 3 of
This meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year.
CADocuments and Settings\CSW1T'LER\I,oca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IF5\AW26-WI'AI\CCAC\Iee6ngAtinutes0411-
07 Amendedandapproved l3j.doe
said he'd like to see a coordinated budget for park acquisition. There was discussion about
whether a motion should be made at this time. Chairman Switzer said as far as the SDC piece
goes it sounds like they want to make a recommendation. He asked that they think about what
type of recommendation or motion they would like to make.
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Nachbar passed out a document regarding
funding and went over the various projects. He pointed out that next fiscal year the City is
planning to spend a number of dollars on Burnham Street but $535,000 would be paid back
by the Urban Renewal fund for the roundabout.
Citizen Forrest Johnson interjected that this might be a good lead in as to why he was
present. He noted this was an interesting situation in that all the property owners in the
proposed roundabout area were present at the meeting. He said the roundabout would not
substantially affect him one way or the other but that, looking at it as a citizen, he believes it
would be very expensive and not all that useful. He believes the City can plan the round with
nothing constructed but that it could then result in the area effectively being held in "limbo".
At this point, Chairman Switzer said even though there was no specific agenda item about
public comment, he did want to hear what they all had to say, so he thanked them for coming
and asked for their comments on the roundabout. Comments were as follows:
Mr.John Zuber said he is really affected by this because [*minutes amended to read, "...he
has a large property."][Minutes amended by Commissioner Barkley to attribute the following
comments to Mr. Dick Miller:] "as it stands right now, Tigard is in the process of getting him
another access but they took his driveway away. He said he has no way out of there. He said
basically, it's blackmail. He said they blackmailed the savings and loan beside him to move an
island so people could turn in both ways, otherwise people could only turn in one way and he
guesses they would give him permanent easement. However, he said it goes around the front
of his building, comes up within 10 feet of it. He said he loses 25% of his property and that he
has been there for 33 years."]
Nachbar said, personally, he believes it's a lot of money to spend (on the roundabout)
considering its usefulness at this time. He said that at some point in time it might make sense.
He pointed out if they were to take the roundabout out, the City would have roughly $1 M in
funds to delegate to other projects in various categories. He said it's a million dollars less
spent.
Chairman Switzer said that roundabouts are generally built because traffic warrants it. [14e
s*id he does not beheve ' *on 5-9-07 Chairman Switzer
amended the minutes to read "He thought a signal warrant would determine if it's necessary."]
Mr. Forrest Johnson owns property through park and ride and as a citizen, he thinks it's a
tremendous amount of money to spend to construct it now and believes it's not useful. He
CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 11,2007 Page 4 of�l
71iis meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit(:enter,and is retained for one year.
C:ADocuments and Settings\(:SWl7"/.liR\Local SettinbAlemporary Internet Filcs\(:ontent.11±5\AW26297'N1\C(:At:A[eetingi•9inutes11411-
WAmendedandapproved Jl.doe
believes it's a "road to nowhere". He believes Ash Street should have been built first, that it
shouldn't be built at this time — that it's a waste of money. He said he believes the City can
leave it on the plan for now but it's not necessary at this time and they shouldn't build it.
Mr. Mike Peterson agreed with what had already been said. He is not in support of the
roundabout. His business (automotive repair shop) is affected because his business depends
on cars being able to get in and get out.
Mr. and Mrs. Dick Miller are very much against the roundabout. He said their property (the
automotive repair shop) would be greatly affected and he would lose 25% of his property. He
said he feels betrayed and that part of his retirement is being snatched away. He is considering
some relief by Measure 37. He said he's at the point where he's considering making Tigard
condemn his property to get publicity on this. He stated that he has been a good citizen and
noted that a couple of years ago the City Public Works had a bad gas leak that went on for
quite a while. He said they went 40 to 50 feet onto his property to dig up some of the
pollution and he did not sue the City for it... and then this is the way he's treated.
Mr. Forrest Johnson said he has a slightly different take on it than his good neighbors
present because he has a bigger piece of land. He said it's underutilized, The buildings are very
old and, to him, the future would be redevelopment— for his particular interest. Because now
he has it all rented, it pays the bills, but the land is underutilized. He said he's not stuck with a
building that's single purposed.
Chairman Switzer said their comments were noted and that he understood their position on
this subject. He thanked them for coming to make their views known. Most of the property
owners left the meeting at this time.
At this point, Nachbar and the CCAC went over the entire budget for the next year. They
went over the projects and commented on which projects should be paid back.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Craghead made the following motion:
"I motion that we direct staff to come up with a proposed amount of appropriate repayment
for the parks capitol fund budget items, which are funded by SDC funds, and that we also
direct staff to notify the Budget Committee that we are considering some form of repayment
on these issues from Urban Renewal funds." The Commissioners voted and the motion
passed by a 5 to 3 margin, no abstentions. Those in opposition were Commissioners Potthoff,
Barkley, and Chairman Switzer.
Commissioner Barkley moved to recommend to the City Center Development Commission
that the roundabout be removed from the plan for Burnham Street. There was a second. The
motion passed by a 7 to 1 margin. Commissioner Potthoff cast the opposing vote. There
were no abstentions.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 11,2007 Page 5 of�
This meeting,in its entirety,is a�ailable on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one scar.
C:\Documents and Settings\CS\r 1 GI•R\L.oca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Filcs\Content.IG5\_W2629'1',%I\CC_\(Tlceting\IinutcsO4-I I-
07Amendedandapproved 3.doe
. . A
Commissioner Ellis Gaut made another motion as follows: "We move that the CCAC
recommends to the Budget Committee as follows: Accept the 07/08 budget as presented, with
two exceptions: 1. Recommend removing the roundabout from the Burnham Street
construction drawings. 2. With respect to projects identified in the parks capital fund budget,
we recommend repayment of parks SDC funds based upon a mechanism for repayment to be
developed. This mechanism will repay parks SDC's based on the percent of downtown related
expenditures versus total project costs." The move was seconded and a vote taken. The
motion passed by a 7 to 1 margin. Opposing vote cast by Commissioner Potthoff.
Agenda Item #4 Downtown Implementation Strategy- Update
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Nachbar spoke about the downtown work
program 0 year) and stated they will look at this more in depth on May 9. It will go to Council
on the 15th. Nachbar would like the group to come up with a final recommendation for the
work plan.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None.
Agenda Item #5: Information Updates—
• Commissioner Gallagher presented a PowerPoint from the marketing sub-committee.
They recommended coming up with a simple logo to identify anything pertaining to Urban
Renewal. Phil Nachbar suggested that it might be presented to City Council, but would
check with Tom Coffee about it, and get back to the sub-committee. The group requested
$300-$500 in funding which would pay for the logo design.
• Commissioner Ralph Hughes was welcomed as the newest official CCAC member.
Nachbar noted he comes with both good experience and background, and that having a
Chamber member on the group would be an asset.
All other items were tabled until a later time.
Agenda Item #6: Other Business/Announcements - None.
Important Discussion and/or Comments: None
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Meeting adjourned at 9:55 pm.
Doreen Laughlin, City . Specialist II
CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 11,2007 Page 6 of W
This meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year.
C:\Documents and Settings\CSWPI7.ER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet hilcs\(:ontent.IGS\AW2G271'11\CCA(,Meeti%,iNlinutes0411-
WAmendedandapproved l3.doe
ATTEST:
Chairman Carl Switzer
CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 11,2007 Page 7 of 7
This meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit(:enter,and is retained for one}ear.
C:\Documcnts and Settings\CSWIT%NR\L)cal Settings\'I•cmporary Internet Piles\Content.11.5\,\W2G29'1'\f\CC;\C\leeting\Iinutcs0411-
07,1mendedandapproeed l3j.doc
Tigard Downtown Action Plan--3 year
Project/Action Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Future
FY07-08 FY08-09 FY10-11
Facilitation of Redevelopment Projects
Downtown Development Opportunity Sites-Program
Development Program for Land Assembly/Marketinq x
Refine Land Uses/Redevelopment Feasibility x x x
Market Analysis 1 Development Strategy x
Land Use—Regulations/Design Guidelines
Land Use/Building Types Refinement x
Design Guidelines x x
Land Use Regulations x x
Commuter Rail
Commuter Rail Station x
Commuter Rail Block/Joint Development x
Shelter Upgrade x
Downtown Housing Development
Housing Study x
Housing Program Estimate x
Implementation x x
Performing Arts/Recreation Center
Performing Arts Use/Site Location x
Performinq Arts Use/Feasibility Study x
Land Disposition/Acquisition x
Post Office Relocation
Initiate discussions with USPS x
Follow-Up Actions Relocation Stud /Facilitation x
Improvement of Fanno Creek Park &
Open Space System
Fanno Creek Park/Public Area
Fanno Creek Park Master Plan x
Funding Program/Parks System Master Plan x
Public Use Area Design x
Plaza/Private Development Feasibility Study x
Downtown Action Plan
Page 1
Tigard Downtown Action Plan--3 year
Project/Action Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Future
FY07-08 FY08-09 FY10-11
Improvement of Fanno Creek Park &
Open Space System continued
Land Acquisition(floodplain properties) x
Land Acquisition Public Area x
Wetland Mitigation Projects x
Park Restoration x x x x
Public Area Improvements x x x x
Farmer's Market
Site Location x
Final Home x
Urban Creek I Green Corridor
Ali nme x
easibilit Stud x
s aster Plan/Overlay Zone(opt) x
Preliminary Design x
Land Disposition x
Final Desi n&Engineering x
Construction x
Ash Ave.Street/Open Space Design x
Rail to Trail(Hall to Tiedemann St
Planning/Design x x x
Construction x
Hall Blvd-Commuter Rail Segment x
Main St.to Tiedeman Segment x
Development of Comprehensive Street&
Circulation System
Downtown Circulation Plan
evtse ircu a ton Plan x
Streetsca a Enhancement Program
Burnham Street final design/ROW)
Final design/ROW x
Construction x x
Commercial Street Main to Lincoln--Construction x
Commercial St. Hall to Main St. x
Scoffins St. x
ntown Acbon Plan
2
Tigard Downtown Action Plan--3 year
Project/Action Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Future
FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10
Development of Comprehensive Street 8
Circulation System (continued)
Streetscape Enhancement Program
Main Street
Main Street Safety Improvements x
Main Street'Brand Tigard"Improvements x
Main St.Comprehensive Improvements
Design
Construction
Storefront Fa ade Improvement Program x
Ash Avenue Improvements
Ash Ave. Burnham St.to Rail
Engineering/ROW x
Construction
Ash Ave.North Feasibility Stud x
Ash Avenue Fanno Creek to Burnham St. x
RR At-Grade Crossing
Initiate Vehicular Crossing Negotiations x
Pedestrian Crossing x
Vehicle Crossingx
Open Space Design x
Burnham St.to Fanno Overlook x
Ped/Bicycle Bride x
Terminus to RR Tracts x
Hall Blvd./99W Downtown Gateway
Gateway Conceptual Design
Intersection Design Input/Washington County x
ROW Acquisition x
Intersection Construction x
Final Desi n(Gateway) x
Gateway Construction x
Downtown Alternative Access Studies/Projects
Downtown Alternative Access Study x
Greenber Rd/99W/Main St./ Center St.Intersectior x x
Scoffins/Hall Blvd/Hunziker Realignment x x x
Traffic Analysis—Greenberg Rd/Tiedeman /N.Dakote x
Pedestrian/Bike Plans
Update Plan x
Parking Management Plan
Monitor Parking in Downtown x x x x
Downtown Action Plan Determine Catalyst Pro ect Impact x
Page 3 Prepare Parking Stud /Plan x
.s Tax Fund
Ranking Proieet/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Commercial StI un�lcd Sg_f�,i'n� Su Si_i Su Sri 5S20,mm
Fund Balance
Improvements(Lincoln $608,700
Ave to Main St) Community
Development Block
Grant(CD BC;)
$91,300
Water Qual/Quan:
$120,000
Hall Blvd&'Tigard St bund Balance: Funded $100,00 S SO SO $100,000
Crosswalks(at Fannu $100,000
Creek Pathway)
I Tall Blvd and I Iilghway Urban Renewal: funded $75,0 S' Sl $75,00
99W Gatcway $75,000
1'rcatments
Main St.Green Street M711P Grant: Funded $570,OOC $2,470,0N) S(I Sr $3,040,000
Retrofit-Phase 1 $2,533,333
Urban Renewal:
$506,667
Main St.Green Street M il,Grant: funded $u Jtni.nni $2,500,000 $2,900,00
Retrofit-Phase 2 $2,117,000
Gas Tax:$783,000
Main Street Safety Fund Balance:$25,000 Funded $25,00 $ii tii $ $25,000
Improvements
Main St.South at Fund Balance: Unfunded $ $225,000 SCI Sal $225,00
1 lighway 99W $225,000
Intersection Gateway
Treatment
Main St Traffic light I-und Balance: Funded $ $160,000 $0 Sl i $160,00
(at'figard St) $160,000
Burnham St Fund Balance: Funded $357,500 $2,087,50 5l SO Sll $2,445,00
Improvements $1,010,000
Commercial St(Main to Fund Balance: Unfunded so S600,WO O S o $600,00
1 Tall) $600,000
Totals: $1,947,50 $5,542,500 $0 $400,00 $2,500,00 $10,390,00
Rcviscd 4/5/2007 4:45 Pbl
Facility Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding; FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Commuter Rail Fund Balance: I'.unh"l $105,000 so So so S $105,00
I:nhanct:mcntc $10500
Transit Center Redesign M'l7P Grant:$160,000 Funded $200, So S() so S $200,00
Fund Balance:$40,000
Totals: 5305,000 sol Sol 50 $ $305,00
Parks Capital Fund
Rankin,, Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-I1 FY 2011-12 'Total
Status
Downtown Park band Park SDC:S120,000 I ended `/ $120,00 S( $0 Sal $120,000
Acquisition
Downtown Urban Park SDC:$80,000 Funded $ $80,00 Su $0 SO $80,000
Corridor-Master Plan
Fanno Crock Park Park SDC:$1,170,000 Funded $170,000 51,000,00 SO $0 Sl $1,170,000
Fanno Crock Park/ Park SOC:$205,000 Funded $205,00 $0 So $ $0 $205,000
Plaza Master Plan
Fanno Creek Park Park SDC:$255,000 Funded ; $30,000 S225,00c) $ ; $255,000
Gateway at Main St.
I-anno Crock Trail Park SDC:$115,000 Funded $115,000 Sl SO $ $ $115,00
(lvFain St.to Grant St.)
Vann Creek Plaza Park SDC:$1,755,000 Funded sc S( $837,000 $918,000 $1,755,00
Urban Crock Corridor Park SDC:$2,252,000 Unfunded sc, S S2,252,000 $ $ $2,252,000
Totals: $6 10,00C, $1,110,00 $3,314,000, $918,000, $5,952,000
Revixc:d 4' "17 4:45 PNI
Traffic Impact Fee Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 F1'2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Burnham St fund Balance: Funded $357,500 $2,087,500 Su * I SO $2,445,000
Improvements $510,000
Scoffms/l lall/I lunzikes Fund Balance: Unfunded SO S300,000 $1,500,000 S3,0ou,00; SI $4,800,000
Re-alignment J$300,000
[Totals-. $357,501 $2,387,501 $1,500,0001 $3,000,0001 $7,245,00
1 rban Renewal Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 F)'2008-09 Fl 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Burnham St Loan from Gas Tax: Funded $535,00 $0 Si) SC Sly $535,00
Improvements $267,500 loan from
'I'l 1-:$267,500
Fanno Creek Plaza Urban Renewal Funded $0 Si) $71 i,l a i, 5782,00 $ $1,495,00
Revenue:$1,495,000
Urban Creek Corridor Urban Renewal Unfunded $ $f $1,748,000 tiu SU $1,748,000
Revenue:$1,748,000
Totals: $ $ $2,461,0001 $782,0001 $ $3,243,00
Underground Utility
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Burnham St Fund Balance:$300,000 Funded S300,000 SI( So St $300,00
Improvements
Totals: $300,000 $0 $0 $tl $0 $300,000
Water Fun
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 200940 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Burnham tit I'und Balance:$350,000 Funded 5350,000 $75,0 $u Sl $ $425,00
Improvements
Totals: 5350,000 $75, $0 $ $ $425,00
Water Qu ali /Quantity
Ranking Project Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Commercial St Fundcd S120,000 so S_ St; 5 S12U,OIlU
Improvements(Lincoln
Ave to Main St) fund Balance:$120,000
Totals: $1.20,000 $ $0 $0 $ $120,
ucd 4/5/2007 4:45 PM
6-A
C"IL I LYA7--
r tA4 1,��
4,Ay\ "M�
�A,(-, =-,e� 5.�A� L_,�
March 26, 2007
City of Tigard
RE: COMMENTS ON THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Below are our comments for the CIP projects proposed by the city of Tigard staff.
PARKS SYSTEMS PROGRAM
Because of the urgency of getting as much land as possible purchased as land prices continue
to soar, we need to be buying land with ALL available SDC and Metro Greenspaces funds,
and the sites we should focus on are those under threat of development. We can worry about
infrastructure later. The latest parks survey showed that a majority of Tigard citizens want
open spaces purchased and protected, this was a HIGH priority of all surveyed and has been
demonstrated numerous times through letters, emails and at meetings by citizens for the past
ten years. Many citizens including myself have gone before the Parks and Rec. Board and
discussed our concerns and suggestions. The board has supported our suggestions and would
also like to see the pursuit of acquisition of sites under threat.
• Clute Property Park Dev. - We support some of the amenities proposed for this area
including picnic tables, portable bathrooms, etc, but we oppose any Parks SDC funding be
used for basketball courts in an open space; basketball courts DO NOT belong in an open
space/natural area. Before any work is done on this site, we would like to see a master
plan completed for this site as well as other nearby open spaces. As part of the master
plan, wildlife surveys need to be done to determine what species live on this site and what
their needs are, including nesting habitat, etc. Once this is accomplished, then planning
can occur as to whether any habitat restoration needs to occur, and how any development,
such as a trail, can be a part of the site without eliminating any wildlife habitat or causing
disturbance. For example, the Northern red-legged frog, a State or Oregon listed species,
has been found on this site by our group. This species is disappearing from the metro
region due in large part to habitat loss and sites such as this can provide important habitat
provided it is properly managed.
• Canterbury Park Purchase and Development - There is $1,100,000 allocated for this
site. How in the world can staff justify spending this kind of money on this when citizens
have, time after time, explicitly stated they want their money spent on sites under threat of
development first? In addition where is all the general funds $ coming from? In the past
when we have asked if there is general fund money available for open space/parks
acquisition the answer has always been no. We OPPOSE these funds being spent on this
/ project at this time until lands under threat of development are first acquired.
V • Downtown Park Land Acquisitions —Again, any funds available for land acquisition,
including SDC funds, should be spent on sites under threat of development. Any sites
purchased as part of the downtown plan should be purchased from funds raised under the
Urban Renewal District since this is why it was passed by voters.
• Fanno Creek Park—Again, any money spent on the Downtown Improvement effort
should come from the Urban Renewal monies, not parks SDC funds. We support
expansion of Fanno Creek Park but only if it is done to expand wetlands, streams,
riparian areas and uplands. Needs of fish and wildlife need to be a top priority;
installation of additional trails, viewing areas, etc. must be placed far away from sensitive
wildlife areas. Some existing trails should be closed in order to protect habitat, they were
planned and installed years ago and are part of the problem since they were installed too
close to the creek in many areas. The trail behind A-Boys should be rerouted to the south
farther away from the stream so that the creek and banks can be restored. Larger buffers,
of 1000' or greater, need to be placed around the ponds and existing side channels to help
in restoration efforts. Disturbance from any planned urban renewal activities needs to be
minimized by placing the proposed gathering place north of Burnham street, better yet, we
would like to see it where the current McDonalds restaurant is so that it is more in the
center of downtown, closer to the commuter rail station and away from sensitive wildlife
areas.
V• Fanno Creek Park/Plaza Master Plan—Again, Downtown activities, projects should be
funded by Urban Renewal funds which have yet to be raised. We oppose $205,000
coming out of the Parks SDC monies for this project; these funds should be used for open
space acquisition as this is what citizens have said they want their money used for. The
plaza needs to be sited north of Burnham and away from sensitive wildlife areas, in
particular any areas of the Fanno Creek system which provide habitat for western pond
turtles, which includes the entire area from Main Street east all the way to Bonita Park.
• Fanno Creek Trail (Hall Blvd. To Fanno Creek)— Well before the library was ever
built, we asked that this section of trail NOT be built in the area north of the library as it
provided habitat for a State listed species, the Western Pond Turtle, which has been
documented to occupy this area as well as use this area for a travel corridor. Rather,
working with the Tualatin Riverkeepers and the Fans of Fanno Creek, we developed two
alternative alignments that were better suited, safer for pedestrians and protected all the
turtle habitat north of the library. The city has already spent a great deal of money on this
project including a grant from the Oregon State Park fund. We do not want to see any
more money spent on this trail if the city continues to insist it go north of the creek. The
$156,000 should go for open space purchase of sites under threat of development.
• Fanno Creek Trail ( Main street to Grant street)—Prior to any work being done for
this project, a fish, wildlife and habitat assessment and master plan need to be done of this
area in order to protect existing species and habitats and ensure that species are not
displaced due to the trail construction. Any trail built should be a soft surface trail of
gravel that is less disturbing to the habitat or a boardwalk of non-toxic materials in order
that it be environmentally friendly.
• Jack Park Extension — We see nothing in the description for this project that would lead
one to believe that any of these funds were going to open space protection or restoration.
If this is the case, then we oppose any Park SDC or Metro Funds being used for this park
expansion.
• Land Acquisition - The funding amounts proposed from 2008-2010 are woefully
inadequate for land acquisition and need to be greatly increased. If one pooled all the
funds from the other projects we could have $4-6 million at least available for land
acquisition, even this is a paltry amount with today's land prices but it could get us some
very nice open spaces in Tigard. What are we going to get for $329,000 for 2007-2008?
• Wash. Sq. Regional Trail—As we told Vannie at our Friends of Tigard Trails meeting in
February, 2007, we would support this trial IF it is accompanied by funds to purchase the
Davis property as well. Many of us have expressed this opinion for many years.
• Brown Property Trail—Prior to any trail going through this area we need to have a fish,
wildlife and habitat assessment done to look at needs of the species using the area as well
as what restoration efforts are needed. A master plan that includes this site is also needed.
Any trail that may eventually be placed in this area needs to be a boardwalk or a soft
surface type of trail (gravel) due to the sensitive nature of the area. We OPPOSE the
concrete trail the city is proposing for this site. This is incredibly insensitive to the needs
of the environment and is no longer an acceptable type of material used by most
communities for trails in open spaces. We discussed this proposal with the THPRD and
they said that concrete is not an acceptable type of material for any trail in any open space,
natural area, etc. in their district.
✓ • Fanno Creek Park Gateway at Main St.—Again, ANY funds spent on the downtown
improvement need to come out of the Urban Renewal monies. We OPPOSE the use of
$255,000 of Parks SDC funds for this project. In addition, lighting and overlooks if
placed in the wrong areas are a huge disturbance to wildlife that reside in this part of
the Fanno Creek area, and we cannot support these types of developments in this
park. This park has undergone major restoration efforts under the Fanno Creek
Enhancement Plan, which is scheduled to be completed this year. A great deal of effort
and money went into restoring the park, including removal of invasive plant species.
Now, more effort and money should go into restoring specific habitats along Fanno Creek
for rare and declining species such as the Western Pond Turtle, as well as other species
such as the State listed Northern Red-legged frog. We would like to see some upland
areas restored for turtle nesting habitat, in particular several areas on the north side of the
creek. South facing slopes are important areas for nesting as well as overwintering sites
for this rare species. The Western Pond Turtle is one of the main focal species under the
adopted Oregon Conservation Strategy and it is crucial that the population of turtles
remaining in Fanno Creek be protected and that habitats be enhanced and expanded in
order to ensure their long term survival and to expand existing populations.
• Fanno Creek Plaza—It is proposed that between 2009 and 2011, $3,250,000, of which
$1,755,000 is Parks SDC funds, be spent on this project. This is totally unacceptable.
The Parks SDC funds should go toward open space purchase, not a project that should be
funded in full by urban renewal revenue! In addition,this plaza needs to be built as far
from Fanno Creek as possible in order to minimize disturbance to fish and wildlife and it
would be better sited to the north, north of Burnham, as many of us have proposed for the
past three years. We would like to see it closer to the commuter rail station.
• Land Acquisition — Funding for this project for land acquistion is much too low as we
have previously stated; where is the $2million we had available last year from Parks
SDCs? We need to be taking more $ out of the General Funds and also putting out our
own bond measure for open spaces just for Tigard in order to have sufficient funds
available for land acquisition for the next 3-5 years.
• Urban Creek Corridor— Here we have over$2million from Parks SDC funds to be
used for water fountains, art, etc. for the Downtown plan. Nice. These Parks SDC funds
need to be used for open space land acquisition for sites under threat of development and
that are not part of the downtown urban renewal. We want as much fish and wildlife
habitat that is currently not protected purchased so that it can be permanently protected
and restored. Time is running out. Any projects in the urban renewal area need to be
funded by the Urban Renewal Revenue yet to be generated.
FACILITIES SYSTEM PROGRAM
Library Parking Lot Expansion — We oppose ANY funds being spent on this expansion,
period. This would mean a total loss of the open space south of the current parking lot and
this open space was one of the reasons citizens wanted this site protected in the first place, we
do not want it developed! Had the library been put downtown in the first place there would
have been plenty of space for parking AND it could have been developed as the focal area for
the downtown renovation. This is what happens with really poor planning!
STREET SYSTEMS PROGRAM
• Hall Blvd—Wall Street Phase 2— We have opposed this project from day one since
it would mean the loss of significant open space, wetlands, a portion of the stream and
wildlife. There is no reason for this project to be carried out.
• Hall Blvd /Tigard street crosswalks—The Hall blvd. proposed crossing is not a safe
alternative for pedestrians. With motorists going 40-50mph on this road, it would be
much better for those using the trail to go along the west side of Hall Blvd. where
there is an existing sidewalk and then cross at O'Meara, which is what people do now.
Another even safer alternative is to reroute the trail so it goes through the Tigard
Senior Center, then comes out at O'Meara, and then install a crosswalk, lights, etc. at
O'Meara, which is what people want.
• Hall Blvd. Half St. Improvements / Fanno Creek to 450' north —This project
which includes a sidewalk also needs to have a fence installed on the entire 450'length
along the east side of the sidewalk in order to prevent access into the adjacent open
space and Tri-Met Mitigation site. This area is being restored and needs to be
protected to ensure wildlife is not disturbed. In addition to the fencing, native shrubs
can be planted along the east side of the fence to help soften the look of the fence and
F.
help create a natural barrier. Fencing should be at least 5-6' in height and be of a
substantial material (steel) so that no one attempts to climb over it.
• We are at this time requesting a full accounting of all money spent on the Fanno Creek
Restoration Plan to date. This information can be mailed to us at: sbeilkeneuropa.com.
• We are requesting at this time a full accounting of Parks SDC funds, what has been spent
in the past two years and what remains as of 3/01/07.
To summarize, we would like to see all Parks SDC and Metro Greenspaces funds be spent on
land acquisition, in particular those areas under threat of development, including on Bull
Mtn., of which there are still wonderful sites available.
We oppose trails going through open spaces without first conducting wildlife and habitat
surveys and developing a master plan for these sites, in part so that species are adequately
protected and so that unsuitable trail surfaces (concrete) are not placed in sensitive areas.
Any improvements connected to the Downtown plan should be funded only by Urban
Renewal Revenue as voters intended when they passed this in 2006.
We have developed a list of sites we recommend for open space purchase in Tigard and have
forwarded this to the appropriate entities in the region.
We are wondering where are the project proposals for restoration and enhancement of our
existing open spaces, parks, etc? Many are in dire need of work. In past years staff has
usually had a budget of around $50K for these activities but based on the amount of money
coming in from forests being clearcut in Tigard, there is literally now over $1/2million
available for restoration. The Senn and Gates properties alone, with 400 trees plus on each
site now obliterated, should have generated a great deal of money into the tree planting fund.
We would like to get a copy of the latest itemized report on funds coming in from tree cutting
in Tigard for the past 5 years. We need to have a meeting to discuss all of these funds, where
they are going and what citizens would like to see done with our money.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sue Beilke, Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
Director, The Pacific Northwest Turtle Project
Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek
Board Member, Friends of Tigard/Bull Mtn. Trails
rama-,Creel,Trail'MaIll Boulevard za af-irio-Craek"
-P year: F'Y'2GG7-08 per k.
raniral
FlIn"
!C.,"Of—F;Mpacts to the Eensilive tr:!;r
rfptprminaHnn nt the fra Wc alinnmpnt Rindinci nrnvirfprf fnr thic nrmprt is fnr rfpcmn
and construction-of the trail and construction of the bridae's abutments.
Farm*Creek Tr—.H(Mala.St.',a Gmaat St.,
,-;p V",., v. zuu,,-uo perAraniraf�
_=.S: Pro F"7, d
' __ $115,000
Fund
a m. w 't •
- -------
tj,
Ash Ave extension f.numnam nit to Hattroaa i races i -s3uu..Uuu
Fv-2nn7-OP
_J Tav
Fun(j$300,000
for Alh A,.,,- to to!�C=12 -V
is prograi;1m.eG i-
FV 07-OR n...........n fl.oi,-1,
r �
Burnham St Improvements
cip year. FY 2007-08 - — --- - - - -Gas Tax -- ----status: Proposed Fund $357,500
h Traffic
Impact Fee $$357,500
Fund
Underground
Utility Fund $300,000
q Water Fund $350,000
/v Urban
Renewal
Fund $535,000
a�trana>s:
This Nrujeet pruvides tunding to Lun lAtte Lire design tut Surnham Street
irnprLwe,i)r_nt, and dcqu rr_nect-so-y rights-Of-Way for thu Bdsed ort
current design standards for a collector street,the street requires a minimum paved
width of 44 feet with landscaped strips shielding the sidewalks from traffic on the
StrPPt Hnwpvpr,thpSp plpmpnt5 have hppn mndifiori to inrnrnnrntp ripugn rnnr—tc
i econ-iniended by the Tigard DownLown Compiehensive SLreetscape pun i hese
concepts in, widening Burnham Street between Main Street and Ash:Avenue to a
payed width of 38 feet and between Ash Avenue and Hall Boulevard to 50 feet.
Sidewalks,landscaped strips and on-street parking will be provided as part of the
••••--^• ^�•••^ nJi hr a*the int--trnn of Hgll
u Vel ... I'u,..IV yl .....V.III mal.09j ...Cut _v'1 cPt W111 Lie
..a�!'y enh-t c!uent.The final design and right of wuy acgUisit rin
for Burnham Street are scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2007.
Construction is anticipated to begin in late summer or fail of 2007.
Commercial St Improvements(Lincoln Ave to Main St) $_820,000
c1p rea- FY 2007-08 Gas Tax Fund
status: Proposed $700,000
M f7f-"
QualiylQ gar+.tity$i20,000
Fund
Sidevialk on the north Side of the='rept to p rnvdr a safe walk for the ne qhb.-h-n_^d
to the proposed Commuter station,bus straps and businesses an Main street.The
. .r., _ y,_ _ .,!! i.:, y, -rnmmrnr'e-1 h th•
7-g rdf r,ntr.,�r..'Zo!rprehencive StreetC 3e Pian
a. Cao:^.. .,. _ c_-.e Plan.
The construction was orioinalty scheduled for the sorino of 2006. However.this
cam•
schedule has been delayed to the spring of 2007 to allow additional time for
acquisition of rights-of-way from TrlMet.Completion of the project will provide a safe
and convenient pedestrian route to downtown services and the planned Commuter
rail station.This project has been approved for Community Development Block Grant
in the amount of$91,300 with local matching funds of$608,700 coming from the
Gas Tax Fund,and$135,000 from the Water Fund.
The project's stormwater treament facility will also be enlarged to provide treatment
for a significant portion of the downtown Tigard area(approximately 20 acres)and
another 20 acres of an older developed area just west of Hwy 99W overcrossing.The
additional treatment is funded through the Water Quality/Quantity Fund.
Hail Blvd and Highway 99_W Gateway Treatments $75_,000
dp year.FY 2007-08 Urban
status: Proposed Renewal
Fund $75,000
description:
This project designs and constructs landscape and streetscape improvements at the
Intersection of Highway 99W and Hall Blvd.The improvements will incorporate the
design concept established by the Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Plan and
will coordinate with the MSTIP3 Hail Boulevard at Highway 99W Right-Tum Lane
Widening project managed by Washington County.
Main Street Green St.Retrofit-Phase 1 $57_0,0_00
dp year. FY 2007-08 Urban Renewal Fund
status: Proposed $570,000
description:
The Main Street project is multi-year and includes comprehensive redesign and
construction of the full length of Main Street.This phase of the project(MTIP Grant
proposal)is to reconstruct the street in accordance with Green Street Standards for
1400 lineal feet of Main Street,from the Commuter Rail entrance to the south
entrance at 99W.It etiw1i1lid55e6 the entire,PUbiiC riyiit u(way(ROW)acid indudes
streets,curbs,sidewalks, landscape,and drainage improvements. Design will be
based on concept plans as approved in the Downtown Streetscape Plan. Phase i of
this project consists of work starting at the railroad tracks to Highway 99W.
Main Street Safety Improvements $25,000
dA year. FY 2007-08 Gas
status: Proposed Tax $25.000
Fund
o�riptir
Tire project continues minor safety enhancements on Main Street including
installation of streetlights, light fixtures and stop signs,relor_ation of marked
rrosswaiks,re-painting crosswalk markings, reconfiguration of the existing parking
FY 07-08 Downtown I'MiLuts,
plf!e 4
4
on the street, etc.The scope of work developed for each location was based un field
observations and evaluation of public input regarding traffic movements on Main
Street and its intersecting streets. It also incorporates alternative safety
improvements recommended in the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed
Commuter Rail and associated park and ride facility in downtown Tigard.The funding
provided is for completion of the improvements, which began in FY 2006-07.
FY 07.08 Downtown Projects
Page 5