Moline Ltr 112309

8/14/2019 Moline Ltr 112309

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moline-ltr-112309 1/4

CllYOF Linda Meng. City Attorney1221 S.w. 4th Avenue, Suite 430

Portland, Oregon 97204PORTLAND, OREGONTelephone: (503) 823-4047

Fax No.: (503) 823-3089OFFICE OF CllY ATIORNEY

November 23,2009

Mr. Russell Willis II, J.D., LL.M.

3003 NE Knott Street, Unit B

Portland, OR 97212

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Mr. Willis:

Maureen Yandle, at the City's Bureau ofTransportation ("PBOT") asked me to respond toyour public records request.

As I understand, you initially requested PBOT to provide you the following:

any and all documents reflecting the conducting of any public

hearing, within the meaning of ORS 814.420(2), to determine that a

particular bicycle lane or bicycle path on or adjacent to any public

roadway within the corporate limits of the City of Portland is

"suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed," including

but not limited to

(a) any published notices of any such hearing,

(b) any minutes or transcripts of any such hearing, including any

information as to the names of t h o ~ e in attendance and their official

capacities (i f any), any testimony given, any exhibits offered or

received, and any votes taken, including the ayes and nays, and

(c) any determinations made at the conclusion of any such hearing,

including any published notices of any such determinations.

Subsequently, you "narrowed" your request from all bike lanes in the City to the following

three:

(1) south on Broadway from the (Broadway) bridge to Hoyt,

(2) west on Lovejoy from the bridge to 9th

, and

(3) north on Williams from Broadway to Killingsworth.

An Equal Opportunity Employer

TDD (For Hearing & Speech Impaired) (503) 823-6868

8/14/2019 Moline Ltr 112309


Mr. Russell Willis II

November 23,2009

Page 2

In addition to records of public hearings, you have requested a waiver or reduction of thefees associated with the labor and copying costs of these records.

For the reasons stated below, the City is willing to provide you with the records previously

offered to you.

Your request for a waiver or reduction of fees is denied because the request does not meet

the public interest standard under ORS 192.440.

City Records

As you know, the City previously offered to retrieve and copy those records responsive to

your request. As Ms. Yandle explained to you:

In order to obtain information on any published notices of any such

hearing; any minutes or transcripts of any such hearing, including any

informatin to the names of those in attendance and their official

capacities; any testimony given, any exhibits offered or received, and

any votes taken including the ayes and nays; and any determinations

made at the conclusion of any such hearing including any published

notices of any such determinations will required 40 hours of research

work. We would assign this project to an Office Support Specialist

III who would need to research the following documents and council

document archives:

1. Central City Transportaton Management Plan.; December 1995

2. The Bicycle Master Plan - May 1996

3. The Bicycle Master Plan update - July 1, 1998

4. Transportation System Plan (TSP) - October 20, 2002

5. TSP rechnical update - October 13, 2004

6. The TSP technical update - April 5,2007

Each of these had numerous public hearings as well as City Council

hearings with votes taken. There were upwards of 60 community

meetings to get citizen input during the 2002 TSP.

~ is our understanding that you do not want these r e c o r ~ s because you believe they are non

responSive.

I understand these records may not be what you expected. I also understand that you view

these records as insufficient to satisfy the hearing requirement referenced in ORS 814.420 (2).

- - - - - - - - - - - ~

8/14/2019 Moline Ltr 112309


Mr. Russell Willis II

November 23,2009

Page 3

Unfortunately the City disagrees with your view.. The records previously identified anddescribed are responsive to your request. These records are also sufficient for the purposes of the

hearing requirement in ORS 814.420 (2).

Briefly and by the way of background, under the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan all designated

city bikeways were shown in the plan (Adopted May 1,1996, updated July 1, 1998; Resolution No.

35515). All three facilities (Broadway Bridge to Hoyt, Lovejoy to 9th and N Williams Broadway to

Killingsworth) were included in that plan.

All of the three facilities have also appeared in the city's Transportation System Plan since it

was first adopted (October 30, 2002, Ordinance No. 77028; Amended October 13, 2004,

Ordinances Nos. 178815 and 178826).

Broadway from the bridge to Hoyt and Lovejoy from the bridge to 9th

were also identified as

Central City Bikeways in the Central City Transportation Management Plan (adopted December,

1995, Ordinance No. 169535, Resolution No. 35472). Most of Williams is outside the boundaries of

the Central City, though those portions of Williams within the Central City were also identified as

Central City Bikeways. The N Williams bikeway was also shown in the City's Transportation

Element of the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan, dating back to June 21, 1996 (Ordinance No.

170136), which predated the TSP.

Based on City guidelines, the recommended treatment for each of those streets was bicycle

lanes, as identified in the Design Guide included as part of the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan (Appendix

A).

In addition, the Lovejoy viaduct was rebuilt at some point within the past decade and was

striped with bicycle lanes as called for both under the City's 1996 Bicycle Master Plan as well as by

state law ("The Bicycle Bill" ORS 366.514), which requires the provision of "footpaths and bicycle

trails ...wherever a highway .. .is being constructed."

The bicycle lanes all followed guidelines established both by ODOT (in the Oregon Bicycle

and Pedestrian Plan), PDOT (in the aforementioned design guide) and AASHTO ("Guide for the

Development of Bicycle Facilities" 1999).

In summary, the records Ms. Yandle offered you in her August 7, 2009 email are responsiveto both your original April 22, 2009 request, and your subsequent "narrowed" request.

Fee Waiver

In a series of emails with Ms. Yandle, you requested a waiver or reduction of fees believing

that the information you requested would benefit the general pUblic. Because your request does not

meet the public interest standard, the City denied your request for a fee waiver or reduction. Please

note that even if a request met the public interest standard, the statute provides discretion to the

8/14/2019 Moline Ltr 112309


Mr. Russell Willis IINovember 23,2009

Page 4

public body to deny the request so long as the denial is reasonable. Given the large expenseassociated with your request, the fee cannot be waived or reduced.

As Ms. Yandle explained to you, the research, retrieval and review for records to satisfyyour request will require taking an employee away from current duties, and assigning them to yourpublic records request. Ms. Yandle advised you this would require an Office Support Specialist("OSS III") familiar with the records 40 hours of work at an hourly rate of $25.00 per hour for an

estimated cost of $1,000.

Also, as explained to you, once the records were retrieved, the City would provide you with

an additional fee estimate on the number of documents for photocopying at $ .25/copy, and the time

to make the copies.

Please note that initially, Ms. Yandle believed that with your "narrowed" request, your costin having the City compile the documents would be less. Unfortunately, it appears the estimateremains $1,000 since the same documents will still need to be researched, retrieved and reviewed.

However, the time and cost to photocopy (which we are not yet in a position to estimate) should beless.

Please let Ms. Yandle know if you want to proceed with your Public Records request.

Thank you.

Mark R. Moline

Senior Deputy City Attorney

MRM:cw

c. Maureen Yandle

John Hoover

Moline Ltr 112309

Documents