Oregon 
Theodore R KjibngDski, Governor 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
Department of Land Conservation and Development 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, OR 97301-2540 
(503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 378-5518 
w w w . lc d. s tat e. or. us 
Mis. 
7/23/2010 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan 
or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT: Clatsop County Plan Amendment 
DLCD File Number 002-10 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption. 
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached. A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Thursday, August 05, 2010 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice 
of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10). Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. 
*NOTE: The Acknowledgment or Appeal Deadline is based upon the date the decision was mailed by local 
government. A decision may have been mailed to you on a different date than it was mailed to 
DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified. NO LUBA 
Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged. 
Cc: Jennifer Bunch, Clatsop County 
Jon Jinings, DLCD Community Services Specialist 
Matt Spangler, DLCD Regional Representative 
Bob Cortright, DLCD Regional Representative 
<paa> YA 
12 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
This Form 2 must be mailed to DLCD within 5-Working Days after the Final 
Ordinance is signed by the public Official Designated by the jurisdiction 
and all other requirements of ORS 197.615 and OAR 660-018-000 
| I In person ^ 'electronic mailed 
DEPT OF 
JUL 1 6 2010 
LAND CONSERVATION 
A N Q . B e V E t o ^ N j 
Jurisdiction: Clatsop County Local file number: 20090313 
Date of Adoption: July 14, 2010 Date Mailed: March 17, 2010 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? (X] Yes • No Date: 
|X] Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment | H Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
• Land Use Regulation Amendment • Zoning Map Amendment 
• New Land Use Regulation [X] Other: Transportation System Plan 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
The preferred alternative of the 2003 Clatsop County Transportation System Plan (TSP) established the need for the Miles 
Crossing/Jeffers Garden Refinement Plan. This refinement plan addresses improvements such as a bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 
design upgrades, turn lanes, bridge replacements, and access management. In addition the County adopted text amendments that 
were necessary to implement the refinement plan's recommendations. The text amendments focus on: 1) coordinated review, 2) 
connectivity, and 3) right-of-way improvements. 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? No, no explaination is necessary 
Plan Map Changed from: n/a 
Zone Map Changed from: n/a 
Location: 
Specify Density: Previous: 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
lx] 
to: n/a 
to: n/a 
Acres Involved: 
New: 
• 10 • I I 12 B 13 14 [X] IX] • £ 
Was an Exception Adopted? • YES (X] NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment... 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? 
15 
• 
16 
• 
17 
• 
18 19 
• • 
(El Yes 
M Y e s 
• Yes 
• No 
• No 
B No 
DLCD file N o . D L C D F i l e N o - ° 0 2 " 10 (18182) [ 16219] 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Local Contact: Jennifer Bunch 
Address: 800 Exchange St. #100 
City: Astoria Zip: OR 
Phone: (503) 325-8611 Extension: 
Fax Number: 503-338-3666 
E-mail Address: jbunch@co.clatsop.or.us 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 
FOR THE COUNTY OF CLATSOP 
In the Matter of: ORDINANCE NO, 10- 02 
A N O R D I N A N C E A M E N D I N G T H E 
CLATSOP C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 
SYSTEM P L A N A N D THE TEXT OF THE 
LAND AND W A T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A N D 
USE ORDINANCE 
Doc *JlDl-OOlQD\k 
Recording Date: / / 
RECITALS 
W H E R E A S , an extensive public process was conducted to create the Miles Crossing/Jeffers 
Garden Refinement Plan as required by the Clatsop County Transportation System Plan. 
W H E R E A S , the refinement plan and associated text amendments were considered by the Planning 
Commission at a public hearing on June 9, 2010, The Commission unanimously recommended approval, 
which is attached as Exhibit "PC"; and 
WHEREAS, consideration for this ordinance complies with the Post Acknowledgement rules of 
the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Clatsop County Planning 
Commission has sought review and comment and has conducted the public hearing process pursuant to 
the requirements of ORS 215.050 and 215.060, and the Board of Commissioners received and considered 
the Planning Commiss ion ' s recommendations on this request and held a public hearing on July 14, 2010, 
on this ordinance pursuant to law on; and 
WHEREAS, public notice has been provided pursuant to law; now therefore, 
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CLATSOP COUNTY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 
SECTION 1. The Clatsop County Transportation System Plan is modified to adopt the Miles 
Crossing/Jeffers Garden Refinement Plan by reference. 
SECTION 2. The Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance text is hereby 
amended to reflect the changes as recommended by Staff and contained hi the Staff Report, Exhibit PC-A, 
SECTION 3. In support of this ordinance, the Board adopts the f indings in the Staff Report dated May 4, 
2010, and associated exhibits contained in Exhibit "PC". 
Approved this / V day of July, 2010 
THE BOARD OF C O U N T Y COMMISSIONERS 
FOR CLATSOP COUNTY, OREGON 
By ' k / ^ Q - — — 
John Raichl, Vice-(jhair 
C 
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 
FOR THE COUNTY OF CLATSOP 
In the Matter of 
THE MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN 
REFINEMENT PLAN LEGISLATIVE 
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLATSOP 
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 
PLAN AND LAND USE ORDINANCE 
RESOLUTION AND ORDER 
# 1 0 - 0 5 - o f 
THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER came before the Planning Commission oil May 11, 2010, for a 
public hearing and consideration of the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Refinement Plan Amendments to 
the Clatsop County Transportation System Plan and Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance 
80-14. 
The Planning Commission after reviewing the findings of fact in Exhibit "A" {Staff Report) lias 
determined the proposed changes, except for those changes affecting LWDUO §2.045, are consistent with 
Clatsop County's Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. 
THE PLANNING COMMISSION considering all evidence and public testimony provided by the 
Planning Department Staff and the Applicant at the public hearing, hereby RECOMMENDS 
APPROVAL of the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Refinement Plan as presented in "Exhibit A" Staff 
Report, and the associated Text Amendments, as modified in "Exhibit B", attached hereto and by this 
reference made part hereof. 
WHEREFORE, the Planning Commission finds and resolves: 
To Recommend that the Board of Comity Commissioners adopt the Miles Crossing Refinement 
Plan Legislative Amendments to Transportation System Plan and Land and Water Development 
and Use Ordinance, as modified. 
SO ORDERED this SM day of May 2010 
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 
CLATSOP COUNTY 
.,ary T. Jtmaspn, Chair 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
Resolution and Order Page 1 
E X H I B I T " B " 
R e s o l u t i o n a n d O r d e r # 1 0 - O ' S - O l f ~ 
Language recommended to be added to the County's Comprehensive Plan or code is be 
indicated by underlining and language to be deleted by strike-through. 
Article 5. Permit and Issue Determinations 
Section 5.205 General Standards for Minor and Major Partitions 
(1) Standards for partitions in resource zones (as defined in Section 1.030): 
(A) Minor Partitions in Resource Zones shall meet the following standards: 
1) Road approach approval from the appropriate agency shall be demonstrated, 
2) Clustering in resource zones shall be subject to the standards for partitioning of 
non-resource lands in (2) below as well as any other applicable standards. 
3) County-wide Forest Lands Policy #22 shall be applied to all AF and F-80 
partitions. 
4) Streets shall be provided consistent with local connectivity plans, as adopted in 
the County's Transportation System Plan The connectivity plans illustrate the 
general location of streets: the exact location and design of streets shall be 
determined during the development review process. Street location and design 
shall be determined with consideration for existing and other planned streets, 
significant natural resources, topography and other environmental constraints, 
accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses to be served by the 
street(s). 
(B) Major Partitions in Resource Zones shall meet the following standards 
1) Standards in 5.205(1 )(A)(1 -34) above shall be met. 
(2) Standards for Partitions in Non-Resource Zones (as defined in Section 1.030). 
(A) Minor Partitions in All Zones other than Resource Zones shall meet the following 
standards: 
1) Road approach approval from the appropriate agency shall be demonstrated. 
2) Except as set out in Section 5.207(1) the boundaries of all parcels shall be 
surveyed and monumented. 
3) Streets shall be provided according to Local Connectivity Plans included in the 
County's Transportation System Plan or Transportation Refinement Plans where 
applicable. The Connectivity Plans illustrate the general location of streets, and 
the exact location and design shall be determined during the development review 
process. The location and design shall be determined with consideration for 
existing and other planned streets, significant natural resources, topography and 
other environmental constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned 
land uses to be served by the street(s). 
(B) Major Partitions in Non-Resource Zones shall meet the following standards 
1) Standards in 5.205(2)(A)(1-23) above shall be met. 
Section 5.226 Preliminary Plat Information 
The Preliminary Plat of the proposed subdivision shall include the following information: 
(14) Location, width, name, approximate grade, and radii of curves of all proposed 
streets, their connection or relationship of such streets to any projected or existing 
streets adjoining the proposed subdivision. Streets shall be provided according to 
Local Connectivity Plans included in the County's Transportation System Plan. The 
Connectivity Plans illustrate the general location of streets, and the exact location 
and design shall be determined with consideration for existing and other planned 
streets, significant natural resources, topography and other environmental 
constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses to be served by 
the street(s). The subdivider shall submit documented preliminary approval, from the 
County Roadmaster, of his road design. 
Section 5.240. Supplementary Information with Final Plat. 
(4) Improvement Plans. Improvement plans shall be submitted for various facilities that 
are to be constructed by the subdivider, including drainage plans, sewer plans, water 
plans, curb and gutter, sidewalk and street plans, and any other construction plans 
that may be required. Improvement plans shall indicate driveways or any other 
modifications in property access consistent with access management plans or 
strategies adopted as part of the County's Transportation System Plan. 
Street plans shall conform to streets proposed in the preliminary plat, except for 
refinements to location and design that may need to be made given existing and 
other planned streets, significant natural resources, topography and other 
environmental constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses 
to be served by the street(s). 
These improvement plans shall indicate design criteria, assumptions and 
computations for proper analysis in accordance with sound engineering practice. 
Where such plans are or would be the same as those included in the County's 
Standard Specifications, they may be submitted by reference to such Standard 
Specifications. 
Article 6. General Provisions 
Section 6.020. Access. 
Every lot shall abut a street, other than an alley, for at least twenty-five (25) feet. Lots 
which were created prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 66-2 which do not meet this 
provision may be built on if it is determined by the Community Development Director 
under a Type I procedure that: (1) (2) 
(1) Access to be provided is adequate to handle the types and amount of traffic expected 
for the use. 
(2) Access width is adequate for fire protection vehicles. 
(3) Access is consistent with applicable access management plans or strategies that are 
adopted as part of the County's Transportation System Plan. 
Section 6.025. Local Street Connectivity. 
Local street improvements proposed as part of a land development or land use proposal 
shall be consistent with the development standards and local connectivity plans of the 
adopted County's Transportation System Plan. Connectivity Plans illustrate the general 
location of streets, and the exact location and design shall be determined during the 
development review process. The location and design shall be determined with 
consideration for existing and other planned streets, significant natural resources, 
topography and other environmental constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and 
planned land uses to be served by the street(s). 
Section 5.240. Supplementary Information with Final Plat. 
(4) Improvement Plans. Improvement plans shall be submitted for various facilities that 
are to be constructed by the subdivider, including drainage plans, sewer plans, water 
plans, curb and gutter, sidewalk and street plans, and any other construction plans that 
may be required. Improvement plans shall indicate driveways or any other modifications 
in property access consistent with access management plans or strategies adopted as 
part of the County's Transportation System Plan. 
Street plans shall conform to streets proposed in the preliminary plat, except for 
refinements to location and design that may need to be made given existing and other 
planned streets, significant natural resources, topography and other environmental 
constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses to be served by the 
street(s). 
These improvement plans shall indicate design criteria, assumptions and computations 
for proper analysis in accordance with sound engineering practice. Where such plans 
are or would be the same as those included in the County's Standard Specifications, 
they may be submitted by reference to such Standard Specifications. 
Article 6. General Provisions 
Section 6.020, Access. 
Every lot shall abut a street, other than an alley, for at least twenty-five (25) feet. Lots 
which were created prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 66-2 which do not meet this 
provision may be built on if it is determined by the Community Development Director 
under a Type I procedure that: 
(1) Access to be provided is adequate to handle the types and amount of traffic 
expected for the use. 
(2) Access to be provided complies with access management plans or strategies 
adopted as part of the County's Transportation System Plan. 
(3) Access width is adequate for fire protection. 
Clatsop County 
Transportation & Development Services 
Land Use Planning Division 
800 Exchange Street, Suite 100 
Astoria, OR 97103 
ph: 503-325-8611 
fx: 503-338-3666 
em: comdev@co.clatsop.or.us 
www.co.clatsop.or.us 
REPORT DATE: 
HEARING DATE: 
APPLICANT: 
REQUESTS: 
PROPERTY 
DESCRIPTION: 
LOCATION: 
CURRENT 
ZONING: 
STAFF: 
"Exhibit A" 
Staff Report 
May 4, 2010 
May 11, 2010 
Clatsop County 
Legislative Amendments to the Clatsop County Transportation System Plan 
(TSP) and the Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use 
Ordinance 
Refer to study area map attached as Exhibit 3. 
The study area is located along Highway 101 Business in the Miles 
Crossing/Jeffers Garden area of Clatsop County. The study area extends from 
the Highway 202/Highway 101 Bus intersections within the City of Astoria to 
the Highway 101 Bus/Ft. Clatsop Rd/Airport Lane intersection near the City 
of Warrenton. 
RCC - Rural Community Commercial 
RCR - Rural Community Residential 
R G - Rural Community Industrial 
RA-1 - Residential Agriculture 1 
Jennifer Bunch, Planner 
DEPARTMENT 
RECOMMENDATION: 
EXHIBITS: 1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
Adopt the findings of this report and recommend approval to the Board of 
County Commissioners 
Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Refinement Plan (CD) 
Proposed text amendments to the Clatsop County Land and Water 
Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO), Sections 2.045, 4.108, 5.205, 
5226, 5.240, 6.020, and 6.025 (new) [deletions are struck through and additions 
are underlined] 
Study Area Map 
Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
I. Overview 
In December 2002, Clatsop County adopted the Mies Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community Plan. 
The plan created new rural community zones and supports a rural community sewer system that will allow the 
area to accommodate more development. The Clatsop County Transportation System Plan (TSP), completed 
in 2003, recommends upgrades to the "Astoria-Wairenton Parkway3 (US 101 Business or Highway 105) 
through the Mies Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community. The Mies Crossing/Jeffers Gardens 
Transportation Refinement Plan ("Refinement Plan") was undertaken to address these issues, as well as to 
maintain local and regional mobility on US 101 Business, particularly as it may serve as an alternate route to 
US 101. 
Objectives of the Refinement Plan include identifying improvements such as sidewalks, bicycle facilities, 
access management, intersection safety, design upgrades, bridge replacements, and turn lanes to support 
mobility, safety, and transportation alternatives to the automobile. 
Hie Refinement Plan began in January 2005, was temporarily suspended in November 2005, was resumed in 
June 2008, and was completed in June 2009. The Refinement Plan was developed through the involvement 
of a Project Management Team (PMI), Project Advisory Committee (PAC), and the member's of the public, 
PMT members included Ingrid Weisenbach, ODOT; Ed Wegner and Jennifer Bunch, Clatsop County; Carol 
Parker, City of Warrenton; Brett Estes, City of Astoria; and Laren Woolley and Matt Crall, DLCD. PAC 
members included: John RaichI, Clatsop County, Mark Kujala, City of Wairenton; Russ Warr, City of Astoria; 
Jack Crider, Port of Astoria; John Riekkola, Area Resident; Fred Mestrich, Area Business Owner/Water 
District; Linda Brim, Area Business Owner; Tom Tetlow, Sewer District; Klyde Thompson, Mies Crossing 
Volunteer Fire Department; Tom Bergin, Clatsop County Emergency Services; Craig Hoppes, Astoria School 
District; Jim Gedenberg, Logging Truck Representative; Captain Peter Troedsson, Coast Guard; Larry 
McKinley, ODOT; Slup Hauke, Chamber of Commerce; and Cindy Howe, Sunset Empire Transportation 
District, The process included two PMT meetings and two PAC meetings to review technical information 
and provide guidance to the consultant team, and four public workshops on October 28, 2008 and January 
22, 2009 to gather a broad range of comments and suggestions included. A project website, hosted by 
ODOT, was used to provide information about the project to members of the public, including opportunities 
for participation and feedback The product is a Final Refinement Plan (Exhibit 1) and proposed code 
amendments that accompanyand implement the plan (Exhibit 2). 
Improvement projects that are recommended in the Refinement Plan and this proposal were designed to 
accommodate traffic that uses US 101 Business as an alternative to US 101, without changing the functional 
classification or mobility standards for US 101 Business. Recommended improvements include the following 
projects. 
o Three lane cross-sections on US 101 Business, with two travel lanes, a center turn-lane, and 
sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides 
• A roundabout at the Miles Crossing intersection in the long-term (with improved signage and 
striping in the short-term) 
• A local connectivity plan 
* An access management strategy. 
Amendments to the County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance that are proposed in order to 
implement the Refinement Plan and its recommendations address the following topics in Sections 2,045 (Pre-
application Conference), 4.108 (Application Procedure), 5.205 (General Standards for Minor and Major 
Partitions). 5.226 (Preliminary Plat Information), 5,240 (Supplementary Information with Final Plat), 6.020 
(Access), and 6.025 (Local Street Connectivity [new]), 
* Coordinated review 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
• Connectivity of the local street network 
• Right-of-way improvements, particularly driveways/access control. 
For detailed information about the recommended improvements and proposed amendments, refer Exhibits 1 
and 2, 
The proposal before the Planning Commission is to recommend adoption of the Refinement Plan by 
reference into the Clatsop County Transportation System Plan (ISP), an element of the County's 
Comprehensive Plan, and to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to the County's Land and 
Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO). 
II. Applicable Criteria 
This staff repoit has been developed pursuant to Section 2,330, Planning Commission Recommendation, of 
the Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO): 
In preparing its recommendation the Planning Commission shall do the following: 
(1) Identify the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that govern the decision and prepare findings 
describing how the proposal complies or fails to comply with these Plan provisions. 
(2) Review the nature of the proposal and describe whether the proposal warrants processing as a legislative 
matter. 
(3) State reasons for the recommendations and make the recommendations. Recommendations may include 
policy advice of the Planning Commission in addition to determinations described in (1) and (2) above. 
Clatsop County's Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development 
Commission (LCDC) as being consistent with the 19 Statewide Planning Goals. Proposed amendments to 
the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and its implementing ordinances must be supported by findings that 
demonstrate how the proposed amendments are consistent with current Statewide Planning Goals and 
associated regulations. The Clatsop County TSP is an element of the County's Comprehensive Plan; adopting 
the Refinement Plan by reference into the TSP will amend the Comprehensive Plan. 
III. Findings 
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement 
Policies 
1. The Committee for Citizen Involvement shall be the Clatsop County Planning Commission, consisting of 
seven members. Hie Planning Commission shall strive to represent a cross section of affected citizens in all 
phases of the planning process. As an appropriate component, five Planning Commission members shall be 
representatives of the six designated geographic areas (with a seven member Commission, one area may have 
two members). No more than two Planning Commission members may reside within incorporated cities. 
Each member of the Planning Commission shall be selected by an open, well-publicized, public process by the 
Board of Commissioners. 
2. Tlie Planning Commission and active Citizen Advisory Committees shall hold their meetings in such a way 
that the public is notified in advance and given the opportunity to attend and participate in a meaningful 
fashion. 
3. Active Citizen Advisoiy Committees may submit their comments to the Clatsop County Department of 
Planning and Development, Clatsop County Planning Commission and Clatsop County Board of 
Commissioners. These bodies shall answer the CAC request in a timely manner. 
4. The Board of Commissioners, through the Planning Department, should provide adequate and reasonable 
financial support; technical assistance shall be available and presented in a simplified form, understandable for 
effective use and application, 
5. Citizens shall be provided the opportunity to be involved in the phases of the planning process as set forth 
and defined in the goals and guidelines for Land Use Planning, including Preparation of Plans and 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Implementation Measures, Plan Content, Plan Adoption, Minor Changes and Major Revisions in the Plan and 
Implementation Measures, 
6. Clatsop County shall encourage organizations and agencies of local, state and federal government and 
special districts to participate in the planning process. 
7. Clatsop County shall use the news media, mailings, meetings, and other locally available means to 
communicate planning information to citizens and governmental agencies. 
Prior to public healings regarding major Plan revisions, notices shall be publicized. 
8. Clatsop County shall establish and maintain effective means of communication between decision-makers 
and those citizens involved in the planning process. The County shall ensure diat ideas and recommendations 
submitted during the planning process will be evaluated, synthesized, quantified, and utilized as appropriate. 
9. Public notices will also be sent to affected residents concerning zone and Comprehensive Plan changes, 
conditional uses, subdivisions and planned developments. 
Findings - Goal 1: Citizen involvement occurred throughout the process of developing the Refinement Plan. The 
process involved a Project Management Team (PMT), Project Advisory Committee (PAC), and the members of the 
public. PMT members included Ingrid Weisenbach, ODOT; Ed Wegner and Jennifer Bunch, Clatsop County, Carol 
Parker, City of Warrenton; Brett Estes, Gty of Astoria; and Laren Woolley and Matt Grail, DLCD. PAC members 
included: John Raichl, Clatsop County; Mark Kujala, Gty of Wairenton; Russ Warr, City of Astoria; Jack Crider, Port of 
Astoria; John Riekkola, Area Resident; Fred Mestricli, Area Business Owner/Water District; Linda Brim, Area Business 
Owner; Tom Tetlow, Sewer District; Klyde Thompson, Miles Crossing Volunteer Fire Department; Tom Bergin, 
Clatsop County Emergency Services; Craig Hoppes, Astoria School District; Jim Gedenberg, Logging Truck 
Representative; Captain Peter Troedsson, Coast Guard; LanyMcKinley, ODOT; Skip Hauke, Chamber of Commerce; 
and Cindy Howe, Sunset Empire Transportation District. The process included two PMT meetings and two PAC 
meetings to review technical information and provide guidance to the consultant team, and two public workshops on 
October 28,2008 and January 22, 2009 to gather a broad range of comments and suggestions included, A project 
website, hosted by ODOT, was used to provide information about the project to members of the public, including 
opportunities for participation and feedback Notices of meetings were provided on the website, through postcard 
mailings and press releases. The public involvement process is described in detail in the refinement plan and Appendix 
A of the Plan Appendixes. 
The process involved pertinent public agencies including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), 
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Clatsop County, City of Astoria, City of Wairenton, 
Port of Astoria, Miles Crossing Sanitary Service District, Youngs River Water District, Miles Crossing Volunteer Fire 
Department, Astoria School District, Coast Guard, and Sunset Empire Transportation District. 
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning 
The County's land and water have been placed in one of six (6) Plan designations. They are: 
1. Development 
Development areas are those with a combination of physical, biological, and social/economic characteristics 
which make them necessary and suitable for residential, commercial, or industrial development and includes 
those which can be adequately served by existing or planned urban services and facilities. 
In Clatsop County, the County has three types of such areas: cities and their urban growth boundaries; rural 
communities; and rural service areas, which are areas similar to cities (sewer and water) but lack size and a 
government structure. 
b. Urban Growth Boundaries. See land use plans of Astoria, Cannon Beach, Gearhart, Seaside and 
Wairenton. Clatsop County has adopted each of the city's land use plans for areas outside of the city 
limits and inside the urban growth boundary, The cities and the County have adopted Urban Growth 
Boundary Management Agreements. Currently, all cities administer and enforce land use regulations in 
their respective urban growth areas. 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
c. Rural Communities. Clatsop County has identified and established boundaries for the following rural 
communities: Miles Crossing - Jeffers Gardens, Arch Cape, Svensen, Knappa, and Westport. Land use 
plans in these areas recognize the importance of communities in rural Qatsop County. These 
communities are established through a process that applies OAR 660 Division 22 requirements. Portions 
of land identified in the Miles Crossing and Jeffers Gardens rural community plan take an exception to 
Statewide Planning Goal 3 and Goal 4 for portions of land zoned EFU or AF. The exceptions 
documentation for a portion of the Miles Crossing and Jeffers Gardens rural community boundary is 
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and is located at the end of this section, 
2. Rural Agricultural Lands 
Agricultural lands are those lands that are to be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing 
and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space. *In land use changes involving a change from 
Conservation Forest Lands or Rural Agricultural Lands to Rural Lands or Development designations an 
Exception to the Agricultural Lands or Forest Lands Goals must be taken.* 
Findings ~ Goal 2: Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens is an aclmowledged Rural Community in the Clatsop County 
Comprehensive Plan. A combination of Rural Community Residential, Commercial, and Light Industrial zoning has 
been adopted for Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens. There are also small areas of agricultural (EFU) and 
agricultural/forestry (AF) zoning within the community boundaries, for which exceptions were approved upon 
acknowledgement of this area as a Rural Community by the County and the State. 
Hie recommendations made in the Refinement Plan support planned land uses in the study area. Hie recommended 
three-lane cross-section of US 101 Business, particularly the addition of the center turn-lane, will increase die safety of 
turn movements and improve access to businesses along the highway in the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens. 
Recommended sidewalks and striped bike lanes will also improve access, safety, and mobility for multiple modes in the 
community. Hie recommended conceptual local connectivity plan enhances local circulation and access to uses off of 
the highway. 
Access management strategies that are recommended in the plan - including approach modifications, alternate access, 
and consolidated access - are designed to serve existing and future land tises while maintaining or improving safety on 
the highway mainly by limiting the number of access points and potential sources of conflict. 
Statewide Goal 2 also requires coordination between affected agencies. Improvements recommended by the 
Refinement Plan have been developed in coordination with Clatsop County, the Cities of Warrenton and Astoria, and 
ODOT. Further, adoption of proposed code amendments will result in increased coordination between the Comity 
and ODOT when land use applications within 750-feet of a state highway are submitted. 
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands 
Goal 
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 
Findings - Goal 3: Hie Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community includes only small areas of land zoned for 
agricultural uses. Exceptions to this goal were approved by the State upon adoption of the Miles Crossing/Jeffers 
Gardens Rural Community designation and zoning. Proposed amendments will enhance transportation safety and 
access to existing employment and residential areas within Miles Crossing/Jeffens Gardens and will not directly impact 
agricultural lands in the community. 
Goal 4 - Forest Lands 
Goal 
To conserve forest lands for forest uses. 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Findings - Goal 4: There is not land designated for forest uses in the study area for this proposal. The Goal 4 policies 
of the Comprehensive Plan do not apply to this proposal. 
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Sccnic & Historic Areas and Natural Resources 
Goal 
To conseive open space and protect natural and scenic resources. 
Wetlands 
1. The County will protect identified significant freshwater wetlands, for which no conflicting uses have been 
identified, from incompatible uses. 
Findings - Goal 5: Goal 5 resources identified in the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan include big game areas, 
wetland sites, quarries/pits, nesting sites, and historic sites. These resources are not found in the study area for the 
proposal. 
The roadway cross-sections recommended for US 101 Business in the Refinement Plan can be implemented within the 
existing public right-of-way. However, additional pavement in the public right-of-way for the recommended cross-
sections increases impervious surface and potentially impacts wetlands or sensitive lands in the north-south segment of 
the highway as indicated in Technical Memo 4B. Any impacts that result from improvements to US 101 Business will 
be identified as pait of project planning and mitigated at the time of project construction. No additional impacts to 
wetlands, sensitive lands, or wildlife are anticipated outside the right-of-way for the recommended cross-sections. 
The local connectivity plan in the Refinement Plan indicates general alignments of local roads to provide and improve 
local circulation. Detailed alignments must be determined at the time that development is proposed, and the specific 
alignments will be required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate natural resource impacts. 
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Quality 
Goal 
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. 
Policies 
1. The County shall encourage the maintenance of a high quality of air, water and land through the following 
actions: 
(c) cooperating with the State Highway Department to provide an efficient 
transportation system. 
8, The County shall cooperate with DEQ, State Forestry Department, State Transportation Department and 
other agencies in implementing best management practices to reduce non-point pollution. 
Findings - Goal 6: The recommendations in the Refinement Plan are intended to improve the safety and efficient 
operation of the transportation system in Miles Crossing/Jeffere Gardens. Specifically, the recommended center turn 
lane allows for turning cars to pull out of the travel lanes, allowing through traffic to travel more continuously while 
improving safety. The recommended roundabout also supports continuous travel along the highway, reducing queuing 
at the intersection. The recommended cross-sections are not projected to create any land and water impacts outside of 
the existing US 101 Business right-of-way in the community. 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Goal 7 - Natural Hazards 
Goal 
To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. 
Flood Hazard Policies 
2. Through an integrated flood hazard management program, the county will implement and administer 
appropriate land use planning techniques and construction standards. 
Policies for Streambank Erosion and Deposition 
2. A buffer of riparian vegetation along streams and rivers should be encouraged in order to protect and 
stabilize the banks, 
Findings - Goal 7: Most of the land in the study area, except for higher land along Lewis & Clark Road south of US 
101 Business, is located within 100-yearfloodplain according to Map 2 (Hazards, Lewis and Clark-Olney-Wallooskee 
Planning Area) in the Lewis & Clark, Youngs and Wallooskee River Valleys Community Plan. However, the 
recommended cross-sections and intersection treatments in the Refinement Plan do not create any additional impact 
on, or conflict with, identified natural hazard areas in the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community. 
Hie local connectivity plan in the Refinement Plan indicates general alignments of local roads to provide and improve 
local circulation. Detailed alignments must be determined at the time that development is proposed, and the specific 
alignments will be required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate natural resource impacts. 
The study area borders streams and Youngs Bay and does not propose projects affecting or spanning into these water 
bodies. 
Goal 8 - Recreational Lands 
Findings - Goal 8: There are not recreational lands within the proposal study area and the recommended 
improvements do not impact access to recreational lands. Therefore the Goal 8 Recreational Lands policies of the 
Comprehensive Plan do not apply to the proposal. 
Goal 9 • Economy 
Goal 
To diversify and improve the economy of the state and Clatsop County, 
Findings - Goal 9: The economic development policies of the Comprehensive Plan address topics of forest products, 
fisheries, tourism, and human resources, and do not have direct bearing on the proposed adoption of the Refinement 
Plan and its recommendations. However, the improvements in safety, mobility, and transportation choices that the 
recommendations represent all support business and economic development in Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural 
Community. 
Goal 10 - Population and Housing 
Goal 
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. 
Findings - Goal 10: The Goal 10 Housing policies of the Comprehensive Plan do not apply to the proposal. 
However, implementation of the recommended local connectivity plan will improve access to existing and future 
residential development in the community. 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services 
Public Facilities Goals 
2. Outside of Urbanizable Areas -
a. To support tlxpmusion cf nxdedpMic facilities far rural areas at levels appropiiate for rural densities; 
Findings - Goal 11: Transportation modeling of future conditions performed for the Refinement Plan was based on 
population and employment forecasts that were, in turn, based on projected water and sewer system capacity (Plan 
Appendix G). Recommended projects were developed in response to the findings from the transportation modeling. 
Tlie sewer system currently being constructed in the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community to address 
environmental and public health issues was part of the assumptions used in the population and employment forecasts, 
Public sewer systems are prohibited outside urban growth boundaries (UGBs) in Oregon except to protect 
environmental and public health. Hie sewer system will support levels of development greater than septic systems, 
however development in the area will otherwise be limited by zoning and water supply and system capacity. 
Goal 12 - Transportation 
Goal 1: Mobility 
Develop a multimodal transportation system that serves the travel needs of Clatsop County residents, 
businesses, visitors, and freight transport. 
Goal 2: Livability 
Provide a transportation system that balances transportation system needs with the desire to maintain pleasant, 
economically viable communities. 
Goal 3: Coordination 
Maintain a transportation system plan that is consistent with the goals and objectives of local communities, the 
County, and the State. 
Goal 4: Public Transportation 
Work to improve cost-effective and safe public transportation throughout Clatsop County. 
Goal 5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 
Provide for an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout Clatsop County to serve 
commuters and recreational users. 
Goal 6: Accessibility 
Provide a transportation system that serves the needs of all members of the community. 
Goal 7: Environment 
Provide a transportation system that balances transportation services with the need to protect the environment 
and significant natural features. 
Goal 8: System Preservation 
Work to ensure that development does not preclude the construction of identified future transportation 
improvements, and that development mitigates the transportation impacts it generates. 
Goal 9: Capacity 
Provide a transportation system that has sufficient capacity to serve the needs of all users. 
Goal 10: Transportation Funding 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Provide reasonable and effective funding mechanisms for countywide transportation improvements identified 
in the TSP. 
Goal 11: Safety 
Provide a transportation system that maintains adequate levels of safety for all users. 
Findings - Goal 12: The alternatives and recommendations in the Refinement Plan were evaluated against criteria that 
generally reflect the goals listed above under Goal 12 of the Comprehensive Plan. (Goals and policies are not identified 
in the County's TSP.) Refinement Plan criteria included connectivity, safety, mobility, environmental impacts, quality of 
life, and multi-modal solutions. 
The proposal is intended to improve mobility and safety by recommending a center turn lane in the study area, allowing 
turning vehicles to pull out of the travel lane and through-traffic to move with minimal delay. Tire recommended 
center turn-lane supports mobility and transit accessibility by allowing through-traffic to pass transit vehicles when they 
are stopped. The center turn lane also is intended to improve access to businesses and residences along US 101 
Business. Access to uses off of US 101 Business should be improved by implementation of the local connectivity plan 
in this proposal. 
The proposal supports livabiiity, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and accessibility by recommending sidewalks and bike 
lanes for pedestrians and cyclists. Having designated pedestrian and bicycle facilities should increase not just the 
accessibility but the safety of walking and biking. Recommended access management strategies such as alternate access 
and access consolidation should also improve safety for walking, bicycling, and driving by limiting the number of access 
points and potential sources of conflict on the highway. 
The recommended cross-sections for US 101 Business minimize environmental impacts and preserve and maximize the 
existing transportation system by not requiring additional right-of-way or taking residential or employment land along 
US 101 Business, with the exception of one of two properties that will be taken if the recommended roundabout is 
implemented. However, property owners of each of the two properties have responded favorably to the proposal in 
meetings. 
The projects recommended in the Refinement Plan meet mobility (capacity) standards with the exception of one leg of 
the recommended roundabout, which is projected to exceed standards in 2030 (Plan Appendix C). However, the 
roundabout reduces queues and increases safety, which were challenges for the other alternatives being evaluated. 
In terms of coordination, the Refinement Plan has been developed in cooperation with Clatsop County, the Cities of 
Wairenton and Astoria, ODOT, and members of the public. Proposed code amendments that implement the 
Refinement Plan also increase the level of coordination between the County and ODOT. 
The Refinement Plan identifies potential funding sources for the recommended improvements such as the State 
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (grants), local gas taxes, local 
improvement districts (LIDs), system development charges (SDCs), developer exactions, and transportation utility fees. 
Access improvements, including driveways and sidewalks, will be required with private development and redevelopment 
in the Miles Crossing/Jeff ere Gardens according to existing County code and proposed code amendments (Exhibit 2). 
Similarly, local roads to be implemented according to approved plats and the local connectivity plan recommended as 
part of this proposal will be required as part of proposed development and subdivisions in the community. 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) 
OAR 660-012-0060 
Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 
(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation 
would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place 
measures as provided in section (2) of this mle to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of 
the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: 
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction 
of map en'ors in an adopted plan); 
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or 
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan; 
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are 
inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; 
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable 
performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or 
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to 
perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. 
Findings - OAR 660-012-0060: Because adoption of the Refinement Plan constitutes an amendment to the County's 
Transportation System Plan (an element of the County's Comprehensive Plan), its adoption is subject to the plan 
amendment provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule. However, the Refinement Plan and its recommendations 
do not "significantly affect" transportation facilities as defined by OAR 660-012-0060(1) because they do not change 
the functional classification of roadways in the study area or the standards by which they are implemented. 
There is a potential significant effect where one leg of the roundabout recommended for the Miles Crossing/Jeffers 
Gardens intersection exceeds the State mobility standard. However, this is offset by the larger improvements in safety 
and queuing length that the roundabout makes in comparison to the other alternatives, and by its better 
mobility/capacity performance in comparison to the "T" intersection alternative. 
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation 
Goal 
To conserve energy. 
Findings - Goal 13: There are not specific Goal 13 policies that apply to the proposal. However, the proposal 
generally supports energy conservation in recommending improvements for mobility, connectivity, and transportation 
alternatives. 
Mobility will be improved (and potential congestion reduced) by providing a center turn lane for turning vehicles. The 
center turn lane also serves transit and mobility by allowing vehicles to pass transit vehicles as they stop. 
Implementation of the local connectivity plan will create more direct connections between locations on local roads off 
of US 101 Business. Recommended sidewalks and bike lanes improve existing conditions for walking and bicycling, 
implementation of the local connectivity plan will improve 
Goal 14 - UAanization 
Goal 
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, 
Unincorporated Rural Communities: 
Clatsop County has identified and established boundaries for the following rural communities 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Miles Crossing - Jeffers Gardens, Arch Cape, Svensen, Knappa and Westport. Land use plans in these areas 
recognize the importance of communities in rural Clatsop County. 
Policy; 
In unincorporated communities outside urban growth boundaries the county may approve uses, public facilities 
and services more intensive than allowed on rural lands by Goal 11 and 14, either by exception to those goals, 
or as provided by OAR 660 rules, which ensure such uses do not; 
(1) Adversely effect agricultural and forest operations, and 
(2) Interfere with the efficient functioning of urban growth boundaries. 
District Agreements: 
Clatsop County has adopted agreements with the service districts with respect to land use planning and 
coordination, These agreements are contained in separate documents located in the Clatsop County 
Community Development Department and the respective distiict offices. 
Policy, 
The County shaLl review these agreements every three to six years, or as needed and update accordingly. 
Policy Implementation: 
1. The type, location and phasing of public facilities and services are factors which should be utilized to direct 
urban expansion. 
2. Tire type, design, phasing and location of major public transportation facilities (i.e., all modes: air, marine, 
rail, mass transit, highways, bicycle and pedestrian), and 
3. Improvements thereto are factors which should be utilized to support urban expansion into urbanizable 
areas and restrict it from rural acres. 
Findings - Goal 14: The Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens area is an officially designated Rural Community in Clatsop 
County. The adoption of the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Community Plan included approval of exceptions to 
Goals 3 and 4. 
Hie Refinement Plan and its recommended improvements are designed to serve only that development that can be 
supported in Rural Community, as limited by the estimated 20 year-capacity of the water and sewer systems. This area 
is not planned for intensive or urban-level development. The recommended improvements accommodate traffic that 
uses US 101 Business as an alternative to US 101, without changing its functional classification or its mobility standards 
or "oversizing" the roadway and improvements to create inappropriate development pressure on the community. 
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway 
To protect, conserve, enhance, and maintain the natural scenic, economic, and recreational qualities of lands 
along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway 
Findings - Goal 15: The recommendations of the Refinement Plan do not impact the Willamette River Greenway. 
Goal 15 does not apply to Clatsop County or the proposal. 
Goal 16 and 17 - Estuarine Resources and Coastal Shorelands 
Goal 16 
To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated 
wetlands; and 
To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, 
economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Goal 17 
To conserve, protect, where appropriate, development and where appropriate restore the resources and 
benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish 
and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management 
of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and 
To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and 
wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of Oregon's coastal shorelands. 
Findings - Goal 16 and 17: The study area for the proposal is adjacent to the Lewis and Clark River, Youngs River, 
and Youngs Bay but does not impact them. If recommendations pertaining to bridge improvements included in this 
proposal are developed into projects in the future, detailed findings for these goals will need to be made in at that time. 
Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes 
Goal 18 
To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of 
coastal beach and dune areas; and 
To reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with these 
areas. 
Findings - Goal 18: The recommendations of the Refinement Plan do not impact beaches and dunes. The Goal 18 
policies of the Comprehensive Plan do not apply to the proposal. 
Goal 19 - Ocean Resources 
To conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, 
economic, and social value and benefits to future generations. 
Findings - Goal 19: The recommendations of the Refinement Plan do not impact ocean resources, Hie Goal 19 
policies of the Comprehensive Plan do not apply to the proposal. 
Lewis & Clark, Youngs and Wallooskee River Valleys Community Plan 
Alluvial Lowlands Policy 
Low density activities such as agriculture shall be the preferred uses in the alluvial lowlands. 
Alluvial Terrace Policy 
Development on this landscape unit should be encouraged to take place nearest to presently urbanized areas, in 
order to utilize public services most efficiently. 
Coastal Foothills Policy 
Hie predominant land use of this landscape unit should be forestry and acreage homesites. This is due to the 
generally poor foundation characteristics and of severe septic tank limitations of soils in this landscape unit. 
[Note: Hiere are sections of the community plan that address public facilities and transportation but do not 
provide policies.] 
Findings - Community Plan: The study area for the proposal is comprised of alluvial lowlands, alluvial terrace, and 
coast range foothills according to Map 1 (Generalized Landscape Units, Lewis and Clark-Olney-Wallooskee Planning 
Area) in the community plan, although primarily of alluvial lowlands. 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
While agriculture is permitted in areas of the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens community, rural residential, commercial, 
and industrial uses area also permitted. Exceptions to agricultural and forestry Goals 3 and 4 were approved and 
zoning permitting these uses was adopted with the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community boundary in 
A sewer system is being constructed in the community for environmental and public health reasons, but development 
in the community will be limited to low-density development as allowed for by rural zoning and water system capacity, 
Hi is proposal does not include recommendations to expand the community boundary and focuses recommended 
improvements on existing areas of development so as to make efficient use of these facilities and services in areas of the 
Lewis and Clark-Olney-Wallooskee Planning Area that are already developed. 
IV. Recommendation to the Planning Commission 
Adopt the findings of this report -and recommend approval of the legislative to the Board of Commissioners 
Respectfully Submitted, 
2002. 
Miles Crossing Refinement Plan Legislative Amendments 
Exhibit 1 
The Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Refinement Plan is available on the enclosed disk. 
EVhib/f 2 . 
T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M 7 C H 2 I V I H I L L 
Miles Crossin^feffers Gardens Refinement Plan -
Proposed Amendments for Clatsop County 
PREPARED FOR: Project Team 
PREPARED BY: Frank Angelo, Darci Rudzinski, and Shayna Rehberg, Angelo 
Planning Group 
DATE: Revised May 14, 2009 
Modified by Clatsop County May 3, 2010 
Introduction 
The objectives of the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Transportation Refinement Plan 
("Refinement Plan") have been to analyze improvements such as sidewalks, bicycle facilities, 
access management, intersection safety, design upgrades, bridge replacements, and turn lanes 
for the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community. Illustrations of the 
recommendations that have emerged from the Refinement Plan process can be found in the 
Refinement Plan. 
The study area for the Refinement Plan generally coincides with the boundaries of the Miles 
Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Rural Community, which includes the area around the Warrenton-
Astoria Highway (US 101 Business) from the Lewis and Clark Bridge (MP 4.67) to the Old 
Youngs Bay Bridge (MP 7.08) in unincorporated Clatsop County. In developing recommended 
improvements for the Refinement Plan, however, the study area expanded to the west to 
include the US 101 Business/ Airport Road intersection in Warrenton and to the north to include 
the US 101 Business/OR 202 intersection in Astoria. 
The final Refinement Plan will be adopted into the County's Transportation System Plan (TSP) 
by reference. The purpose of this memorandum is to propose amendments to the County's 
Comprehensive Plan and Land and Water Use and Development Ordinance ("code") that are 
necessary to implement the Refinement Plan's recommendations shown in Figures 13-16 and 
included in the narrative of the Refinement Plan. The proposed amendments focus on the 
following topics: 
1. Coordinated review 
2. Connectivity of the local street network 
3. Right-of-way improvements, particularly driveways/access control. 
Language recommended to be added to the County's Comprehensive Plan or code is indicated 
by underlining and language to be deleted by strike through. 
This memorandum does not address amendments for the projects recommended for Warrenton 
and Astoria. In order to further develop and implement these projects, it will be necessary to 
PDX/PR0P0SED AMDMTS CLATSOP COUNTY MAY 2010 JB 1 
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY CH2M HILL, INC • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDENS REFINEMENT PLAN - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CLATSOP COUNTY 
describe them as they are presented in the Refinement Plan in a staff report and adopting 
ordinance, and then to adopt them by reference into each jurisdiction's TSP. Amendments to 
Astoria and Warrenton's Comprehensive Plans and codes will not be necessary. 
Clatsop County Transportation System Plan (2003) 
The Preferred Alternative in the 2003 Clatsop County Transportation System Plan (TSP) 
establishes the need for the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Refinement Plan. The Refinement 
Plan is needed in order to facilitate regional mobility, in which US 101 Business serves as an 
alternate route to US 101, while allowing for local access, circulation, and livability. 
The set of improvements for the area is referred to as the "Asloria-Warrenton Parkway" in the 
TSP. General recommended projects for the Astoria-Warrenton Parkway identified in the TSP 
include improvements to the Old Youngs Bay Bridge and Lewis and Clark Bridge and to the 
Miles Crossing intersection. The Refinement Plan addresses the bridges and the intersection 
among other recommended projects and improvements. The plan also provides potential 
roadway cross-sections for theAstoria-Warrenton Parkway. 
The TSP also proposes that a change in classification of US 101 Business through Miles 
Crossing/Jeffers Gardens from a District Highway to a Regional Highway or Expressway be 
explored in the Refinement Plan. The Refinement Plan does not recommend that the highway 
classification be changed. 
There are no amendments to the County's TSP needed beyond adopting the Refinement Plan 
into the TSP by reference. The project lists and diagrams, cross-sections, access management 
strategies, and other implementation measures included in the Refinement Plan's text and 
figures supplement, refine, and supercede any of those applicable to the Miles Crossing/Jeffers 
Gardens Rural Community in the 2003 TSP. 
Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance 
(2004) 
Coordinated Review 
The State's Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012) requires local jurisdictions to have 
provisions in their codes to coordinate review of land use decisions with the Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and other relevant agencies, when the decisions 
potentially have impacts on property or facilities under these agencies' jurisdiction. 
Clatsop County does address coordination specifically with ODOT in the following provisions 
of its existing code. 
• Per Section 2.110 (Mailed Notice of a Public Hearing), Subsection (2)(D), notice of public 
hearings must be provided: "to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for 
Type II A and Type III applications related to property within 750 feet of a state highway 
or that in die opinion of the Community Development Director may be found to have a 
significant impact on State facilities." Section 2.115 (Mailed Notice for a Type II 
procedure), Subsection (1)(D) makes the same provision for notice to ODOT. 
POX/PROPOSED AMDMTS CLATSOP COUNTY MAY 2010 JB <1 
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDENS REFINEMENT PLAN - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CLATSOP COUNTY 
• In reviewing an application for minor and major partitions, Section 5.203 (Processing 
Minor and Major Partitions and Property Line Adjustments) requires the Community 
Development Director to consult with ODOT under the following conditions: "Where a 
partition is located within 750 feet of a state highway, the Community Development 
Director will notify the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) of the application 
and will consider its comments in taking action on the partition request. The tentative 
plan may be modified, if needed, to meet these standards." 
• As part of the County 's Transportation System Impact Review regulations (Section 
5.350), one of the conditions under which a Traffic Impact Study must be prepared is 
when ODOT determines that the proposed development or land use action may have a 
significant operational or safety impact on a state highway (Subsection 5.352(2)(A)(2)). 
In order to involve ODOT earlier in the review of proposals that may affect State facilities, it is 
recommended that provisions be made to include the agency in pre-application conferences. 
This would be done in the same cases that the code already establishes for coordinating with 
ODOT. 
Section 2.045 Pre-application Conference. An applicant or the applicant's authorized 
representative shall request the Director to arrange a pre-application conference. Unless 
the applicant and Director agree that a conference is not needed, the conference shall 
be held within 15 days of the request. The purpose of the conference shall be to 
acquaint the applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the 
Ordinance, provide for an exchange of information regarding applicable elements of the 
Comprehensive Plan and development requirements, arrange such technical and design 
assistance as will aid the applicant, and to otherwise identify policies and proposed 
development, If the applicant's proposal is located within 750 feet of a state highway, the 
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shall be invited to participate in the 
conference. The Director, if requested by the applicant, shall provide the applicant with a 
written summary of the conference within 5 days of the conference. The summary shall 
include confirmation of the procedures to be used to process the application, a list of 
materials to be submitted and the criteria and standards which may apply to the approval 
of the application. 
Local Connectivity and Street Layout Plans 
The Refinement Plan includes a local connectivity plan for the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens 
Rural Community. The plan is conceptual and the general al ignments shown in the plan will be 
refined and designed as development occurs in the general al ignment areas. It is 
recommended that requirements for conformance with local connectivity plans be included in 
the County 's code for major partitions, subdivisions, and general provisions. Incorporating 
these requirements into the County 's development requirements will implement both this 
Refinement Plan and any fu ture local connectivity plans that may be developed for other areas 
of the county, 
Partitions 
Partitions are distinguished as minor and major based on whether new roadway needs to be 
constructed. Major partitions involve construction of new roadways, therefore, provisions for 
local connectivity should apply to all major partitions. New code language addressing 
POX/PROPOSED AMDMTS CLATSOP COUNTY MAY 2010 JB <1 
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDENS REFINEMENT PLAN - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CLATSOP COUNTY 
connectivity is proposed below. Note: The addition of new subsections in Section 5.205 xuill require 
the renumbering of subsequent subsections. 
Article 5. Permit and Issue Determinations 
Section 5.205 General Standards for Minor and Major Partitions 
(1) Standards for partitions in resource zones (as defined in Section 1,030): 
(A) Minor Partitions in Resource Zones shall meet the following standards: 
1) Road approach approval from the appropriate agency shall be demonstrated. 
2) Clustering in resource zones shall be subject to the standards for partitioning of 
non-resource lands in (2) below as well as any other applicable standards. 
3) County-wide Forest Lands Policy #22 shall be applied to all AF and F-80 
partitions. 
4) Streets shall be provided consistent with local connectivity plans, as adopted in 
the County's Transportation System Plan The connectivity plans illustrate the 
general location of streets; the exact location and design of streets shall be 
determined during the development review process, Street location and design 
shall be determined with consideration for existing and other planned streets, 
significant natural resources, topography and other environmental constraints, 
accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses to be served by the 
street(s). 
(B) Major Partitions in Resource Zones shall meet the following standards 
1) Standards in 5.205(1 )(A)( 1-34) above shall be met. 
(2) Standards for Partitions in Non-Resource Zones (as defined in Section 1.030). 
(A) Minor Partitions in All Zones other than Resource Zones shall meet the following 
standards: 
1) Road approach approval from the appropriate agency shall be demonstrated. 
2) Except as set out in Section 5.207(1) the boundaries of all parcels shall be 
surveyed and monumented. 
3) Streets shall be provided according to Local Connectivity Plans included in the 
County's Transportation System Plan or Transportation Refinement Plans where 
applicable. The Connectivity Plans illustrate the general location of streets, and 
the exact location and design shall be determined during the development review 
process. The location and design shall be determined with consideration for 
existing and other planned streets, significant natural resources, topography and 
other environmental constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned 
land uses to be served by the street(s). 
(B) Major Partitions in Non-Resource Zones shall meet the following standards 
1) Standards in 5.205(2)(A)(1-23) above shall be met. 
POX/PROPOSED AMDMTS CLATSOP COUNTY MAY 2010 JB <1 
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDENS REFINEMENT PLAN - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CLATSOP COUNTY 
Subdivisions 
The County's subdivision requirements also include specifications for new streets. Therefore, 
recommended language below requires that local connectivity plans be referenced in the 
preliminary and final plat requirements for streets and improvement plans. In addition, access 
information should also be required information in the improvement plans that are par t of the 
final plat. Additional provisions related to access are discussed in the next section of this 
memorandum. 
Section 5.226 Preliminary Plat Information 
The Preliminary Pfat of the proposed subdivision shall include the following information: 
(14) Location, width, name, approximate grade, and radii of curves of all proposed 
streets, their connection or relationship of such streets to any projected or existing 
streets adjoining the proposed subdivision. Streets shall be provided according to 
Local Connectivity Plans included in the County's Transportation System Plan. The 
Connectivity Plans illustrate the general location of streets, and the exact location 
and design shall be determined with consideration for existing and other planned 
streets, significant natural resources, topography and other environmental 
constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses to be served by 
the streetfs). The subdivider shall submit documented preliminary approval, from the 
County Roadmaster, of his road design. 
Section 5.240. Supplementary Information with Final Plat. 
(4) Improvement Plans. Improvement plans shall be submitted for various facilities that 
are to be constructed by the subdivider, including drainage plans, sewer plans, water 
plans, curb and gutter, sidewalk and street plans, and any other construction plans 
that may be required. Improvement plans shall indicate driveways or any other 
modifications in property access consistent with access management plans or 
strategies adopted as part of the County's Transportation System Plan-
Street plans shall conform to streets proposed in the preliminary plat, except for 
refinements to location and design that may need to be made given existing and 
other planned streets, significant natural resources, topography and other 
environmental constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses 
to be served by the streetfs). 
These improvement plans shall indicate design criteria, assumptions and 
computations for proper analysis in accordance with sound engineering practice. 
Where such plans are or would be the same as those included in the County's 
Standard Specifications, they may be submitted by reference to such Standard 
Specifications. 
General Provisions 
General provisions provide a way of globally addressing land use proposals in Clatsop County. 
It is recommended to include requirements related to local connectivity plans for land divisions 
in these provisions, no t as a primary way of of implementing the plans but as reinforcement for 
the requirements proposed in the amendments above. 
POX/PROPOSED AMDMTS CLATSOP COUNTY MAY 2010 JB <1 
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDENS REFINEMENT PLAN - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CLATSOP COUNTY 
Article 6. General Provisions 
Section 6.020. Access. 
Every lot shall abut a street, other than an alley, for at least twenty-five (25) feet. Lots 
which were created prior to adoption of Ordinance No, 66-2 which do not meet this 
provision may be built on if it is determined by the Community Development Director 
under a Type i procedure that: (1) (2) 
(1) Access to be provided is adequate to handle the types and amount of traffic expected 
for the use. 
(2) Access width is adequate for fire protection vehicles. 
(3) Access is consistent with applicable access management plans or strategies that are 
adopted as part of the County's Transportation System Plan. 
Section 6.025. Local Street Connectivity. 
Local street improvements proposed as part of a land development or land use proposal 
shall be consistent with the development standards and local connectivity plans of the 
adopted County's Transportation System Plan. Connectivity Plans illustrate the general 
location of streets, and the exact location and design shall be determined during the 
development review process. The location and design shall be determined with 
consideration for existing and other planned streets, significant natural resources, 
topography and other environmental constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and 
planned land uses to be served by the street(s). 
Right-of-Way Improvements and Access Management 
There are several sections of the code that require improvement plans, including street 
improvements, and that address access. Requirements for subdivisions, Site Design Review 
Overlay zones, conditional uses, and site plans, already include provisions either for 
improvement plans or identification of access points. According to County staff, access to 
Count)' and State roadways is always evaluated during land division and development 
application procedures. Existing access points are reviewed for compliance with s tandards and 
new access points must go through a permit process. Combined access for properties is 
implemented wherever possible. 
The amendments proposed below implement the Refinement Plan by clearly identifying the 
TSP, including Refinement Plans that are adopted by reference into the TSP, as a document for 
guiding and regulating access, and specifying compliance with access management plans or 
strategies as conditions of approval. Proposed code language will allow for the implementation 
the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Gardens Refinement Plan and any future access management plans 
or strategies that the Count) ' adopts through a refinement plan or TSP update. 
Subdivisions 
Improvement plans for facilities are required for final subdivision platting pursuant to Section 
5.240(4); Section 5.242 regulates the agreements that implement and guarantee those 
improvement plans. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and streets must be included in an improvement 
plan as applicable. Proposed amendment language adds the requirement to identify driveways 
PDX'PRQPOSED AMDMTS CLATSOP COUNTY MAY 2010 JB 
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 
6 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDENS REFINEMENT PLAN - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CLATSOP COUNTY 
and other access features or changes according to adopted access management plans or 
strategies. 
Section 5.240. Supplementary Information with Final Plat. 
(4) Improvement Plans. Improvement plans shall be submitted for various facilities that 
are to be constructed by the subdivider, including drainage plans, sewer plans, water 
plans, curb and gutter, sidewalk and street plans, and any other construction plans that 
may be required. Improvement plans shall indicate driveways or any other modifications 
in property access consistent with access management plans or strategies adopted as 
part of the County's Transportation System Plan. 
Street plans shall conform to streets proposed in the preliminary plat, except for 
refinements to location and design that may need to be made given existing and other 
planned streets, significant natural resources, topography and other environmental 
constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned land uses to be served by the 
street(s). 
These improvement plans shall indicate design criteria, assumptions and computations 
for proper analysis in accordance with sound engineering practice. Where such plans 
are or would be the same as those included in the County's Standard Specifications, 
they may be submitted by reference to such Standard Specifications. 
General Provisions 
General provisions related to access only apply to particular cases in which a lot has less than 25 
feet of roadway frontage. These may be rare instances, but should include references to access 
management plans and strategies as well. 
Article 6. General Provisions 
Section 6.020. Access. 
Every lot shall abut a street, other than an alley, for at least twenty-five (25) feet. Lots 
which were created prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 66-2 which do not meet this 
provision may be built on if it is determined by the Community Development Director 
under a Type I procedure that: 
(1) Access to be provided is adequate to handle the types and amounjl of traffic 
expected for the use. 
(2) Access to be provided complies with access management plans or strategies 
adopted as part of the County's Transportation System Plan. 
(2) (3) Access width is adequate for fire protection. 
POX/PROPOSED AMDMTS CLATSOP COUNTY MAY 2010 JB <1 
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 

Clatsop County 
Transportation & Development Services 
Land Use Planning ph: 503-325-8611 
800 Exchange Street, Suite 100, Astoria, OR 97103 fx: 503-338-3666 
PLANNING COMMISSION 
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 
~ ORDINANCE 10-02 ~ 
Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Transportation Plan Amendment 
to the Clatsop County Transportation System Plan and Related Text Amendments to the 
Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance 80-14 
You are receiving this notice because you own property within the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden 
study area thai serves as the subject of the land use action described in this letter or you are 
considered to be an affected state or federal agency, local government, special district, or interested 
party. A vicinity map for study area included in this notice. 
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Clatsop County Transportation & Development Services, 
800 Exchange Street, Suite 100, Astoria, Oregon 97103, will be holding a public hearing to consider 
legislative amendments to the County's Transportation System Plan and the Land and Water 
Development and Use Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 2.035 of the Clatsop County Land and 
Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO), the Department Director has scheduled a 
public hearing on this matter before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, at 10:00 
AM in the Judge Guy Boyington Building located at 857 Commercial Street in Astoria, Oregon. 
All interested persons may testify in person by attending the hearing, or they may testify in writing 
by addressing a letter to the Clatsop County Planning Commission, 800 Exchange Street, Suite 100, 
7\.storia, OR 97103. Written comments may also be sent via FAX at 503-338-3666. Written 
comments must be received in this office prior to 5PM on Monday, May 10, 2010 in order to be 
considered at the public hearing. 
NOTE: Failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide 
statements oi evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond lo the 
issue precludes appeal based on thai issue. 
THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED: 
In D e c e m b e r 2002 , C l a t s o p C o u n t y a d o p t e d the Miles C r o s s i n g / J e f f e r s G a r d e n Rural C o m m u n i t y Plan. T h e p lan 
c rea ted n e w rural c o m m u n i t y z o n e s and s u p p o r t s a rural c o m m u n i t y sewer sys tem tha t will a l low the area t o 
a c c o m m o d a t c m o r e d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e C l a t s o p C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Sys tem Plan (TSP) , c o m p l e t e d in 2003 , 
r e c o m m e n d s u p g r a d e s to the " A s t o r i a - W a r r e n t o n P a r k w a y " (US 101 Bus iness o r H ighway 105) t h r o u g h the Miles 
C r o s s i n g / J e f f e r s G a r d e n s Rural C o m m u n i t y . T h e Miles C r o s s i n g / J e f f e r s G a r d e n s T r a n s p o r t a d o n Plan ( " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 
P lan" ) was u n d e r t a k e n to a d d r e s s these issues, as well as to ma in t a in local and regional mobi l i ty o n U S 101 Bus iness , 
par t icular ly as it may serve as an a l t e rna te rou te to U S 101. O b j e c t i v e s o f the T r a n s p o r t a d o n Plan inc lude iden t i fy ing 
i m p r o v e m e n t s to i m p r o v e mobi l i ty , safe ty , and connec t iv i ty t h r o u g h the rural c o m m u n i t i e s o f Miles C r o s s i n g a n d j e f f e r s 
G a r d e n s . 
T h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n will hear a p r o p o s a l to a d o p t the Miles C r o s s i n g T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Plan as an a m e n d m e n t to the 
C l a t s o p C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Sys tem Plan a n d text a m e n d m e n t s to the fo l lowing L W D U O z o n i n g r egu la t ions , w h i c h 
may have an e f f e c t o n f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t : §2 .045 P r e - A p p l i c a t i o n C o n f e r e n c e , §5 .205 G e n e r a l S t a n d a r d s fo r M i n o r and 
Ma jo r Pa r t i t i ons , §5 .226 Pre l iminary Plat I n f o r m a t i o n , §5 .240 S u p p l e m e n t a r y I n f o r m a t i o n with Final Plat, § 6 . 0 2 0 Access . 
Page I o f 2 
In general, the procedure for conduct of the public hearing is as follows: 
• Introductory statements by the Planning Commission Chair 
• Planning Commission disclosures 
• Staff report 
• Testimony in favor and in opposition 
• Staff comments 
• Closure of hearing 
• Planning Commission deliberation 
• Planning Commission decision (in this case, a recommendation to the Board of 
Commissioners) 
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant 
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at Clatsop County Transportation and 
Development Services Office during normal business hours (M-F, 8-5) at no cost and will be 
provided at reasonable cost. These materials can also be viewed at: 
hup://urwv.co.clatsop,or.us/defflult.;isp?deptid-12&pajjekt=22 
A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the 
hearing and can be viewed in the office or be provided at a reasonable cost. 
If you have questions about this land use matter or need more information, please contact the 
Clatsop Count)' Planning representative for this matter, Jennifer Bunch, Clatsop County Planner, at 
(503) 325-8611 or jbunch@co.clatsop.or.us. 
Notice to Mortgagee, Lien Holder, Vendor or Seller: ORS Chapter 215 requires that if you 
receive this notice it must promptly be forwarded to the purchaser. 
D a t e N o t i c e Mailed: April 21, 2010 Page 2 o f 2 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
OWNERJJNE OWNER_LL_1 STREET_ADD CITY STATE 
NYGAARD ANDREW MARTIN NYGAARD DORIS PO Box 100 Warrenton OR 
TEMPLE CHER! D PO Box 1016 Warrenton OR 
JESTER & LETHiN PROPERTIES LLC PO Box 1020 Rochester WA 
BLUE GOOSE PROPERTIES LLC PO Box 1067 Seaside OR 
EVERSON VIOLA PO Box 1076 St Helens OR 
GARCIA JULIO LOPEZ GARCIA ANTONiA GARCIA PO Box 1094 Astoria OR 
GREEN LYAL L/ELIZABETH M PO Box 1103 Astoria OR 
EPSTEIN TERESA PO Box 1112 Ben Lomond CA 
JOHNSON BRIAN PO Box 1136 Goidendaie WA 
KAUPPI KENNETH H PO Box 1168 Astoria OR 
LEMPEA JOANN/BRIAN E PO Box 129 North Plains OR 
BUCKINGHAM POLLY PO Box 1406 Medical Lake WA 
BRUGH GEORGE D/SHIRLEY I PO Box 204 Astoria OR 
JAMES FRANK W/SYLVIA P PO Box 207 Ocean Park WA 
WHALEY CURTIS L/DEBRA PERDUE RONALD J/SUSAN M (C) PO Box 215 Hammond OR 
EGAN JAY L PO Box 2207 Gearhart OR 
DARLING DAVfD PO Box 2442 Gearhart OR 
SVENSEN FISHING INC PO Box 274 Astoria OR 
REEVES JEANNE M PO Box 304 Astoria OR 
DCW PROPERTIES LLC PO Box 312 - Warrenton OR 
KRUEGER RICHARD A PO Box 32 North Plains OR 
RICHARDS JIMMiE K/DELORES (C) PO Box 334 Astoria OR 
SHELDON RICHARD N/RUTH E PO Box 365 Ocean Park WA 
JUNES PEGGY JOHANSEN PO Box 385 Astoria OR 
BEHNKE EDWIN J JR SHUMAN BEHNKE HEIDI PO Box 4 Astoria OR 
MANNERS BE I IYJEAN PO Box 508 Astoria OR 
CADONAU NORMAN/PATSY PO Box 513 Warrenton OR 
S CULLEN LLC PO Box 521 Astoria OR 
TAGG ELIZABETH M PO Box 567 Warrenton OR 
TAGG ELIZABETH M TR TAGG DONALD L TEST TRUST PO Box 567 Warrenton OR 
BUTCHER JAMES/KATHRYN L PO Box 571 Astoria OR 
SCOTT RICHARD E/DAPHNE J PO Box 7 Warrenton OR 
PHILLIPAKIS CONSTANTINE PHILLIPAKIS FAMILY TRUST PO Box 741 Astoria OR 
DOUBLE B INVESTMENTS LLC PO Box 766 Warrenton OR 
ADAMONIS CHARLES A/MARCENE K PO Box 776 Warrenton OR 
HENGESTEG FAMILY LIVING TRUST HENGESTEG PETER 0 TRUSTEE PO Box 779 Lake Oswego OR 
5/3/2010 1 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
HALL MATTHEW LEON PO Box 793 Warrenton OR 
NEIKES THOMAS R PO Box 804 Astoria OR 
CULLEN SALLY A PO Box 809 Astoria OR 
MESTRICH BRYAN C/TARA R PO Box 846 Astoria OR 
BRUNICK JOSEPH PO Box 949 Astoria OR 
BERGHOLM COREEN PO Box 971 Reno NV 
FIRST NATIONAL ACCEPTANCE CO QUASHNICK DAVID CI KARI (C) PO Box 980 East Lansing Ml 
NlEMl ED OIL CO INC PO Box 989 Astoria OR 
3 HAMMERS LLC 615 Village Terr Seaside OR 
A TO 2 COMPANY 301 Spruce Ave Gearhart OR 
ABOVE WATER INVESTMENTS LLC 1545 SW 14th PI Warrenton OR 
ABRAHAMS MIKE T/MICHELE D 4880 Ash St Astoria OR 
ADAMS CRAIG/CARRIE L 92319 Stoner Rd Astoria OR 
AHOLA KA1 A 35089 5th Ln Astoria OR 
ALAN EDLA E HANSON AMANDA 92253 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
ALDERMAN JERRY L/MARY L 92168 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
ALLEN EDLA 92253 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
ALLEN EDLA/HAROLD B 92253 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
ALTiERI CYNTHIA K 92041 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
AMBER DAWN FISHERIES LLC 2324 NW 90th St Seattle WA 
ANDERSON JOAN D 92203 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
ARFANIS JOHN 7353 SW 9th Ct Plantation FL 
ARTMAN BETTY JEAN 92387 G Rd Astoria OR 
ASPMO BEVERLY J TR ASPMO EDSELL G TRUST 2705 Mill Pond Ln Astoria OR 
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD OREGON DIST 1775 7th St Astoria OR 
ASTORIA AUTO WRECKING/RADIATOR 34522 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
ASTORIA CITY OF 
ASTORIA MARINE CONST CO 92134 Front Rd Astoria OR 
ASTORIA PORT OF 422 Gateway Ave #100 Astoria OR 
AZEVEDO FRANK E/BEVERLY 92278 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
BAILEY RICHARD L 92476 G Rd Astoria OR 
BANHOLZER JOHN A/ELIZABETH A 1556 Coxcomb Dr Astoria OR 
BARNETT PERCY LEON/BONNIE 1814 4th St Astoria OR 
BAUMANN LAWRENCE R BAUMANN SUSAN H 414 Silvergate Ave San Diego CA 
BAYSHORE APARTMENTS OREGON LTD 1301 Dove St #1080 Newport Beach CA 
BAYVIEW BAPTIST CHURCH Astoria OR 
BINGHOM BEVERLY K (LEMPKE) 34590 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 34 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
BISH TIMOTHY 35242 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
BLAIR JANENE L 89322 Hwy 202 Astoria OR 
BLOMQUIST JOSHUA R 35384 Highway 101 Business Astoria OR 
BONDiETTI JOYCE 1036 Grand Ave Astoria OR 
BOWERS MARY/STEVE F 92254 Front Rd Astoria OR 
BOWERS STEPHEN F/MARY I 92254 Front Rd Astoria OR 
BRANDON BERNARDINE 0 BRANDON JIM L 92450 G Rd Astoria OR 
BRANDON VIRGINIA 92152 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
BREWER NANCY JUNE 35208 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
BRiGGS MARY L BRIGGS CHARLES R 6645 SW Alfred St Tigard OR 
BRIM MICHAEL EUGENE/LiNDA J 89503 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
BRIM STACEY R BRIM BROOK L 91932 Lewis and Clark Rd Astoria OR 
BROWN FRANK J JR BROWN RICHARD A 90971 Hwy 101 #63 Warrenton OR 
BROWN MICHAEL L/LYNN J 35188 Laila Ln Astoria OR 
BROWNING J M LOGGING INC #10 6th St #203 Astoria OR 
BROWNING JAY 34755 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
BROWNING JAY M 41901 Hwy 30 Astoria OR 
BUE DAVID N PAULA M 35210 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
BURGHER BARBARA 92232 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
BURNS FRANK A BURNS ANGEL K 92192 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
CABALLERO FELIX G 74638 Olson Rd Clatskanie OR 
CAIN LELAND N/LORENA R 35269 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
CALVERT DOUGLAS G/SANDRA 92195 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
CARLISLE ROBERT E CARLISLE PEGGY L 35207 Pick Ln Astoria OR 
CARLSON DARREN E/ KAREN L 35363 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
CARPENTER DIRK1 AMBER 92266 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
CARSON JAMES RA/IRG1NIA G ERVEN ROGER G/MARfLYN J (C) 867 Madison Ave #1 Astoria OR 
CARY MARK CARY ERYN R 344 Pleasant Ave Astoria OR 
CASTRO-CHAVEZ GERARDO N CASTRO TARA M 92385 Carnegie Rd Astoria OR 
CAULDER TRAVIS/ TAMM IE 92356 E St Astoria OR 
CAZAREZ VERA RAMON BRIM AMANDA 3528 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
CCE PROPERTIES LLC 35072 Jefferson Ln Astoria OR 
CHATTICK MICHELLE CHATTICK SHAWN 92375 E Rd Astoria OR 
CHILSON BETTY LUCILLE 92394 F Rd Astoria OR 
CLANCY ANGELA MARIE CLANCY ROBERT MICHAEL 35255 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
CLATSOP COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEE RICHARD LESSEE 92257 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
CLATSOP COUNTY 
5/3/2010 3 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
CLAY CHRiSTA L 2702 SE Lakewood Dr Milwaukie OR 
CLAYTON FREDERICK M CLAYTON GERALDINE GOULD TR 8170 SW Viahos Dr #223 Wilsonville OR 
COASTAL WOODS INC 36608 Valley Vista Ln Astoria OR 
COLE JOHN D/HAZELANN 4433 38th SW Rd Seattle WA 
COLE ROBERT F COLE CECILIA S 35182 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
COLLMAN RONALD C TR COLLMAN RONALD C REV LIV TRUST 34662 Airport Ln Warrenton OR 
CONDON ROBERT F JR CONDON LORRAINE E 92290 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
COOK WILLIAM M/DEBORAH L 91998 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
CORLETT DONNA J 1309 Reetz Rd Madison Wl 
CROWDER DEBORAH RJ JOSHUA 1 92270 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
CUMMINGS ROBERT W 92233 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
CUNNINGHAM JAMES H 35303 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
CUNNINGHAM WILLIAM R/BETTY ANN 92241 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
CUTLIP EUGENE F/E MARIE 91882 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
DAVIDSON RACHEL M 35335 Schwab Ln Astoria OR 
DAVIS JAMES A JR/V1RGIMIA 35349 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
DAVIS NANCY L 869 SW Main Warrenton OR 
DAW KEVIN G 92301 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
DAW LEY EARL M DAWLEY LORETTA S 561 Grand Ave Astoria OR 
DEAN JOHN MICHAEL DEAN PAULA JEAN 35237 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
DELAY JEREMY J DELAY AMY M 16112 SW 108th Ave #21 Portland OR 
DODSON CHARLES DODSON SANDRA 92400 F Rd Astoria OR 
DUBB PHYLLIS S 1864 4th St Astoria OR 
DUPUY GABRIEL LEE DUPUY MAILE ALLISON 35413 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
EICH JOHN R 92492 G Rd Astoria OR 
ELTZROTH KIMBERLY GUSTAFSON MARY ELLEN 35203 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
EWAN CHERYL M HiCKS RANDY K 92282 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
FALLEUR DONALD R/HELEN A 32315 tvyloo Acres Ln Warrenton OR 
FARRIS MERLE/TAMELA 1867 4th St Astoria OR 
FICK CLIFFORD A/ROXANNE 35228 Fick Ln Astoria OR 
FILL1GER ARTHUR J/ARDITH M TR FILLIGER FAMILY LIVING TRUST 1/2 101 Forest Dr #157 Seaside OR 
FISKAL LAWRENCE M 31 NE 83rd Portland OR 
FOLK JOHN M FOLK CAROL T 92376 Stoner Rd Astoria OR 
FORNAS WILLIAM J 125 W Lexington Ave Astoria OR 
FREEMAN HELEN L FREEMAN LANCE JEFFREY 1815 5th St Astoria OR 
FREEMAN ROY D/NANCY M 35369 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
FRISCH LARA R 92292 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 4 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
GALEOTTI JOSEPH F TR 
GALLAGHER DANIEL P/MARY E 
GARDNER GREGORY/SUZANNE 
GATES PATRICIA MALCOLM TEST TRUST 
GEDENBERG JAMES F/SHARON 
GERTTULA RICHARD L/PAULA R 
GIPSON CHRISTOPHER J 
GNlAZDOWSKi TOM/CHARLOTTE D 
GOICOCHEA HERIBERTA/JOSE R 
GOL1GHTLY JEFFERY W 
GRAF JUDY K 
GRAF NATE F 
GRAF NOEL 
GRAHAM ARLENE D 
GRAXIOLA JOHNATHAN W/NiCOLA C 
GROSS ELFRiEDE 
HAGGREN JOSEPH MICHAEL 
HAGLUND GORDON D/JANICE E 
HALEY KYLE A/CHRIS M 
HAMPTON WILIJAM F/REBECCA S 
HANSEN EVA JEAN 
HANSON AMANDA 
HARNY PATRICIA ORA 
HARRIS STEPHEN D/ALETA C 
HARTLEY JOAN 
HARTZELL CHARLES T III 
HATCHER JIM/BETTY 
HATLEN JAMES RICHARD 
HAUER ROBERT L/JUDY K 
HAZELETT HOWARD H/DEBRA R B 
HEDLUND GARY M/CHRISTINA M 
HEIN DONNA M EST 
HELLIGSO LARRY L/DEANNA M 
HELLIGSO NOEL M/JAN S 
HERMAN JOSEPH M/JEAN M 
HERREN DAVID U DEBRA D 
HESS DANIEL R/CAROL M 
GALEOTTI JOSEPH F LIVING TRUST 35198 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
92307 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
89374 Saddle Mtn Rd Astoria OR 
GOULARD FRANK TR 18 El Greco Lake Oswego OR 
784 Niagara Ave Astoria OR 
VINSON DENNIS/KATHY 404 W Lexington Ave Astoria OR 
1802 4th St Astoria OR 
92194 Front Rd Astoria OR 
92233 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
GO LIGHTLY CH ARLENE R 92346 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
34707 Production Ln Astoria OR 
92215 Front St Astoria OR 
35048 5th Ln Astoria OR 
1157 Winchester Ave Reeds port OR 
92506 G Rd Astoria OR 
GROSS ERHARDW 91775 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
155 W Bartlett Rd Lynden WA 
35071 Hwy 101 Astoria OR 
92227 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
92384 G Rd Astoria OR 
34570 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
92253 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
LEDFORD WAYNE 92313 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
35416 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
1070 Warrenton Dr Warrenton OR 
HARTZELL MARGARET L 35105 5th Ln Astoria OR 
37265 Towhee Dr Astoria OR 
4870 SW 141st Ave Beaverton OR 
91915 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
91906 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
4701 N Hwy 101 Gearhart OR 
UTZINGER GROVER W (C) 771 Nehalem Ave Astoria OR 
210 W Grand Ave Astoria OR 
HELLIGSO FLORA ROBERTA LE 35304 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
5265 Ash St Astoria OR 
35302 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
35133 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 5 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
HESS RICHARD O/ALICIA A 
HILL TRISHA 
HILLARD DAVID C/MICHELLE L 
HILLARD JOSEPH ALAN 
HILLARD ROBIN 
HINES TRENT E 
HOAGLAND RICK M/SANDI A 
HOFMANN JEFFREY D/ LISA C 
HUGHES DORIS M 
HUMPHRIES WILLIAM D/WENDY R 
IHANDER MARK L 
ISRAEL KATHY E 
IVERSON THOMAS A 
JAAKOLA PETRI K 
JACOBSON ROBERT C 
JANES MATTHEW R 
JC & K PROPERTIES LLC 
JENSEN BERNICE/BRIM BETTY/ 
JENSEN CARL ALAN 
JENSEN JOHN TERRY 
JIROCH MICHAEL UJENN1FER E 
J MS PROPERTIES LLC 
JOHANSEN JAMES E 
JOHNSON BRAD M/MELINDA 
JOHNSON CHERYL A 
JOHNSON DALE 
JOHNSON KEVIN B/JUDITH C 
JOHNSON ROBERT ALLEN/TARA LYNNE 
JONES JESS A 
JONES JUNE E 
JOYCE MARGARET A/JOYCE JANET L 
JUNES FLORENCE M 
JUNES WARREN L/ PEGGY J 
JYHLA ARNE/MAR1LYN E 
JYLHA ARNE 
KAAKINEN JOHN W/JOANNA M 
KALANDER JOHN R 
92081 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
92220 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
92287 Front Rd Astoria OR 
92157 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
92224 Front Rd Astoria OR 
HINES HELENA W 90916 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
92216 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
92392 G Rd Astoria OR 
35237 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
34495 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
IHANDER RHODAR 92146 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
LARSON ANGELA G 90256 Lewis Rd Warrenton OR 
IVERSON SUZANNE C 34837 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
35141 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
JACOBSON NANCY C 35021 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
JANES RICHARD H 35072 SW 4th Ln Astoria OR 
36266 River Point Dr Astoria OR 
AZEVEDO BEVERLY 92296 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
92402 E Rd Astoria OR 
92270 Stoner Rd Astoria OR 
92458 G Rd Astoria OR 
16878 SW Gassner Ln Lake Oswego OR 
92286 Stoner Rd Astoria OR 
1896 5th St Astoria OR 
4629 SE Arden St Portland OR 
JOHNSON JOYCE 345 Nehalem Ave Astoria OR 
35345 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
43654 Hansen Ln Astoria OR 
1824 4th St Astoria OR 
JONES TERRANCE D 89469 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
LARSON LOUIS W CO-TRUSTEES 11111 NE Morris Portland OR 
92158 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
42015 Hillcrest Lp Astoria OR 
92395 G Rd Astoria OR 
92395 G Rd Astoria OR 
4131 N Overlook Terr Portland OR 
KALANDER SANDRA K 4975 Cedar St Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 
6 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
KALANDER SANDRA K KALANDERJOHN R 4975 Cedar St Astoria OR 
KAMM MARY JANE 15608 S Spangler Rd Oregon City OR 
KANKKONEN MARY L 1805 4th St Astoria OR 
KARNA KATHERINE M 92230 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
KEE ROBERT A/ELIZABETH 91103 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
KEEN JENETTE A/DARYL E 92385 F Rd Astoria OR 
KEERAN DAVID R/ USA M 35440 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
KELLEY FAY 92277 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
KERYAN JAMES L/MOLLY M 92663 Wireless Rd Astoria OR 
KINDRED THOMAS A TR KINDRED JAMES/ELLEN TRUST 3939 E Renee Dr Phoenix AZ 
KINDRED THOMAS A TRUSTEE KINDRED JAMES/ELLEN TRUST 3939 E Renee Dr Phoenix AZ 
KLEE KENNETH W/CYNTHIA S 37211 Labiske Ln Astoria OR 
KLEPP DIANNE L 92256 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
KOMPAC LLC 34877 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
KOSKELA INC 90290 Peter Johnson Rd Astoria OR 
KOTANIEMI MICHAEL P PAREDES-MOYER C SHARI 3480 Franklin Ave Astoria OR 
KREPKY SEYMOUR 633 Nehalem Ave Astoria OR 
KURNS GEORGE C/CAROL E 88700 Wadsworth Rd Astoria OR 
KURRUS ALEXANDER 1/2 INT GOSS STEPHANIE A 1/2 INT 92253 Nowlans Dr Astoria OR 
KURTZ KIM A 91687 Sunnyside Rd Warrenton OR 
LAGER RUTH WEST 176 W Franklin AVe Astoria OR 
LAGERQUIST SCOTT R JR/ TAMMY L 92353 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
LAIRD MARY J LIVING TRUST 1/2 6645 SW Alfred Si Tigard OR 
LAKE RONALD G 92471 G Rd Astoria OR 
LANE CORA E 35366 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
LARSON DAVID/ANGELA GAYLE 1168 Knottingham St Simi Valley CA 
LARSON DEAN P/EVELIND 90198 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
LARSON W LOUIS/MARY ANN 2907 Irving Ave Astoria OR 
LEACH DONALD S/JOANNE F TR LEACH DONALD/JOANNE REV LVG TR 92550 Ft Clatsop Rd Astoria OR 
LEE RICHARD HENRY 92257 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
LEEPER AVA J 9945 SW Lumbee Ln Tualatin OR 
LEONARD WILLIAM G/EDNA L 92283 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
LEWIS & CLARK OREGON BUYER LLC THE CAMPBELL GROUP LLC One S.W. Columbia #Suite 1700 Portland OR 
LEWIS & CLARK RFPD 34571 HWY 101 Business Astoria OR 
ASTORIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 
LEWIS & CLARK SEED COMPANY 91640 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
LEWIS & CLARK SEED COMPANY 1/2 NEIKES JAMES J 1/2 34755 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 7 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
LINDBERG USA SUE 35383 Schwab Ln Astoria OR 
LiNDBERG RONALD E 35064 Jefferson Ln Astoria OR 
LINDROS JEANNETTEA 92228 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
LINDROS MARION 35200 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
LINK BONNIE L LINK TERRY L 35191 FickLn Astoria OR 
LOFDAHL LAURA L 1/2 LOFDAHL LEROY J/LAURA TRUST 1/2 5422 NE Portland Rd#53 Salem OR 
LOFDAHL LEROY J/LAURA TRUST LOFDAHL LAURA L TRUSTEE 5422 NE Portland Rd #53 Salem OR 
LONG BRET A/ANDREA WUBBEN 91938 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
LONG JOHN CI KENDAL M 1851 6th St Astoria OR 
LUGO 1SMAEL 92423 Carnegie Rd Astoria OR 
LUGO ISMAEL/BETTY L 92423 Carnegie Rd Astoria OR 
LYKINS MICHELINE ANNE 92366 E Rd Astoria OR 
LYNGSTAD BRUCE A/CAROLE A 275 Waldorf PI Astoria OR 
MACDERMAND BERYL 92283 Front Rd Astoria OR 
MACLEAN JEFFREY C/CHERYL A 92513 G Rd Astoria OR 
MAGNUSON EDNA L 2011 53rd Ave SE #83 Albany OR 
MARK CARY INC 620 OlneyAve Astoria OR 
MART STEVEN B 34764 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
MARTIN JORDAN L 35220 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
MARTIN LAURIE ANN 1105 Commercial St Astoria OR 
MATHEWS GLEN MATHEWS DOROTHY J 35326 Hwy 101 Astoria OR 
MATTHEWS RiCHARD/DiANE 1173 SW Pine Dr Warrenton OR 
MCBRIDE CHARLES A/MARIAN H 92095 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
MEAD SANDRA K 35046 5th Ln Astoria OR 
MEECH WiLLIAM L/KARA 1133 Niagara Ave Astoria OR 
MEGRATH PAUL 92160 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
MEGRATH PAUL J/NENITA H 92160 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
MEINERS DARWIN LEW 90562 Logan Rd Astoria OR 
MESTRICH FRED C/ANN B 35525 Little Ln Astoria OR 
MESTRICH FREDERICK C/ANN B 35525 Little Ln Astoria OR 
MILES CROSSING SANITARY SEWER DIST 34583 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
MINER WALTER C/DEBRA KAY 35224 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
MITCHELL DENISE R 92173 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
NAHSTOLL RICHARD A 658 30th St Astoria OR 
NARKAUS KENNETH R/BETTY 1320 Tiburon Ct SE Salem OR 
NEGHERBON RICHARD E JR/JEANNE 91824 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
NEIKES DAVID 305 W Lexington Ave Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 8 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
NEIKES JAMES J 
NEiKES JAMES J 
NELSON DAVID M 
NELSON PATRICIA C 
NEWTON JANE 
NEWTON MICHAEL LEROY 
NIELSEN LARRY A 
NIEMI ROBERT K/ANGIE L 
NORTH BRYAN C 
NORTH RICHARD V 
NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS CO 
OCONNOR DENNIS E 
OCONNOR GURIE HELEN TR 
OREGON STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY 
OREGON STATE DEPT OF VETERANS 
OREGON STATE DIV/STATE LANDS 
ORTEGA MARIA L 
PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT CO 
PACIFIC TIMBER LLC 
PAINTER ENTERPRISES LLC 
PALMROSE ALAN L/ADRIENNE M 
PARKER BURTON 
PAULSON MARK R/SHANNON D 
PORTER JOHN C LIVING TRUST 
QUENNELL ROGER S/YOUNGIEE 
RAITANEN ROBIN C 
RANTA JAR! 
RAYA MIGUEL/LETICA 
REITER ROBERT 
REUTOV GREGORY/TERESA P 
RICE MARTIN V 
RICHARDS JIMMIE KENNETH 
RICKS ANNIE D 
RICKS CYNTHIA 
RIECK KEN 
RIECK MICHAEL K/KELLIE C (C) 
RIEKKOLAJONTHAN B/JACKIE L 
BROWNING JAY (C) 
TREFETHEN DEBBIE L 
NIELSEN EMMA E LE 
OCONNOR GURIE REVOC LIVING TRUST 
DiCK CHERYL A (C) 
RAMTA ANJA H 
RICHARDS DELORES M 
RIEKKOLA FAMILY TRUST 
34755 Hwy 101 Business 
41901 Old Hwy 30 
35062 5th Ln 
12530 E Del Norte 
34998 Hwy 105 
92234 Clover Rd 
92276 Willow Rd 
1831 4th St 
92000 Lewis & Clark Rd 
92694 Fernhill Rd 
92270 Front Rd 
947 OlneyAve #116 
92219 Hwy 202 
35063 5th Ln 
1874 4th St 
34755 Hwy 101 Business 
87396 Hwy 202 
35388 Woodland Ln 
2324 NW 90th St 
91863 Lewis & Clark Rd 
300 Hollister Ave 
4018 Hickok Rd 
92359 Juniper Rd 
511 Harrison Ave 
92146 Clover Rd 
91900 Spirit Place Rd 
10243 S Rosewood Way 
35222 Orchard Ln 
35645 Dow Ln 
1832 4th St 
92179 SW Clover Rd 
88198 Hwy 202 
87232 Hwy 202 
91640 Youngs River Rd 
5/3/2010 41 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
RISER ALFRED L/CATHY J 92223 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
RISER JEANNETTE A (CRYDERMAN) 92228 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
RITCHIE JAMES C OBRIEN CYNTHIA E 15795 NW Windhill Dr Banks OR 
RODGERS PENNY L 540 0lneyAve Astoria OR 
RODRIGUEZ WILLIAM SMITH PAUL (C) 92352 E Rd Astoria OR 
RODRIGUEZ WILLIAM JR 507 Louisiana St Fairfield CA 
ROGERS BRUCE R 35272 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
ROGERS MARVIN L/ KAREN J 35275 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
ROWAN CLYDE ROBERT Hi 1640 4th St Hood River OR 
RUSSELL ELDON W/ BEVERLY A 35285 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
RUSSELL GLENN D RUSSELL AMY 35064 7th Ln Astoria OR 
RUTHERFORD CURTIS J RUTHERFORD STANLEY W 91303 Hwy 202 Astoria OR 
SAARHEIM NORMAN O/MARTAS 34555 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
SAARHEIM TILLIE ESTATE 34555 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
SAGEN ARTHUR O HERMAN JOSEPH 92262 Front Rd Astoria OR 
SAGEN CHRISTINE (BLACK) ESTATE 35045 5th Ln Astoria OR 
SANDERS CONNIE A (C) ASTORIA AUTO WRKG & RAD REP INC 34541 Alt Hwy 101 Astoria OR 
SANSOM ROGER A/. ALLISON M 91978 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
SARIN MIKE EWING TONY 1050 0lneyAve Astoria OR 
SAUVAGEAU DOUGLAS G/VICKIM 1825 6th St Astoria OR 
SCHELLEN8ERGER DOROTHEA 92220 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
SCHOCK DONALD D SCHOCK CAROL ANNE 4 Nehaiem Ave Astoria OR 
SCHULBACH JOEL/RUTH E 92242 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
SCROUP MCKENZIE/JACK A 92487 G Rd Astoria OR 
SELENE FINANCE LP 9990 Richmond Ave #Suite 400 S Houston TX 
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH Clackamas OR 
SHATTO NORMAN L/JUDY A 35185 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
SHEKER CAROL M 90109 Hwy 202 Astoria OR 
SHEKER CLIFFORD J 35380 Schwab Ln Astoria OR 
SIMANTEL REX L iVANOFF WiLLARD A 809 Florence Ave Astoria OR 
SIMMONS PAUL V/ ROSEANNA N 35072 7th Ln Astoria OR 
SLABINSKI ROBERT G SLABINSKITHEONE T 1858 5th St Astoria OR 
SMALL BENJAMIN P 35186 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
SMITH DAVID CHARLES HAGLUND-SMITH BECKI 88198 Hwy 202 Astoria OR 
SMITH KATHY ELIZABETH FNA ISRAEL KATHY ELIZABETH NKA 90256 Lewis Rd Warrenton OR 
SMITH POINT SALMON CO 91900 Spirit PI Warrenton OR 
SMITH RICHARD D 34747 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 10 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Ciatsop County Planning Commission 
SMOR LLC 92778 Walluski Lp Astoria OR 
SNELL CHARLES S/BEVERLEY J 35176 Laila Ln Astoria OR 
SNOW KEITH A SNOW TRACEY A 92324 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
SODERViCK RAYMOND L 35124 Old Bridge Ln Astoria OR 
SPiCKA JOHN W 92187 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
ST MARiE ERIN F LINDSLEY EILEEN (C) 34742 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
STEINMAN BYRON MARK/BELINDA D 92364 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
STOCKER JAC 35070 5th Ln Astoria OR 
STREHL JERRY R/CLEO S 35274 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
STUBER KENNETH D/JOYCE M 566 OlneyAve Astoria OR 
STYLER GORDON 1840 5th St Astoria OR 
SUNSHINE DAIRY FOODS MANAGEMENT LLC 801 NE 21 st Ave Portland OR 
TAGGART GLENN P AND TAGGART CHARLES A DBA 264 W Marine Dr Astoria OR 
TAGGBRO INC 264 W Marine Dr Astoria OR 
TANGUAY MARK S TANGUAY MARLISS M 35122 7th Ln Astoria OR 
TEAGUE CHARLES R/PATR1CIA H 92548 Fort Clatsop Rd Astoria OR 
TEAGUE TERRY N 92516 G Rd Astoria OR 
TEAGUE TERRY/BRENDA 92516 G Rd Astoria OR 
TETLOW THOMAS E/LORI P 35072 Jefferson Ln Astoria OR 
THOMPSON (HOLTHUSEN) BARBARA L 35576 Dow Ln Astoria OR 
THOMPSON DAVID W 35576 Dow Ln Astoria OR 
THOMPSON DELBERT W/HARRIET i 35359 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
THOMPSON HARRIET 1 35359 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
THOMPSON JAMES W/DORIS J 562 Nehalem Ave Astoria OR 
THOMPSON KLYDE A/MARY KAYE 35359 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
THOMPSON MICHAEL DEL THOMPSON NATASHA 91991 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
THOMPSON MICHAEL DEL/NATASHA L 91991 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
THOMPSON TIMOTHY N/BESSIE M 92330 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
TOWNSEND KNOWLSON J/SARAH WHEELER 1117 Irving Ave Astoria OR 
TROFITTER (HAUTALA) MARY ANN TROFITTER JAMES EDWARD 35298 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
TUCKER CREEK LLC 90516 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
TUCKER JEANNE A 35198 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
TUCKER WALTER R 14870 NE Lawn View Cir Aurora OR 
TUSSING ROBIN J 92282 Front Rd Astoria OR 
TYEE ENTERPRISES LLC 35109 HWY 101 Buisness Astoria OR 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
URE MARILYN E 1805 5th St Astoria OR 
5/3/2010 
Mailed Notice Of Hearing 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
URELL DiNAH 34513 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
UTZINGER GROVER W 35408 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
UTZINGER GROVER W/FRAN 35408 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
VAN ESS DUANE C/CONNIE J 91964 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
VAN HORN FRED JR 89080 Easy Way Rd Gearhart OR 
VAUGHAN MATTHEW F 92203 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
VAUGHN KAI EVERETT 90911 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
W & H INC 34686 Hwy 101 Business Astoria OR 
WAGE EUGENE A/iMARGARET S 35314 Woodland Ln Astoria OR 
WAISANEN JOHN E/SHERYL M 35240 Lyngstad Heights Ln Astoria OR 
WAISANEN KATHLEEN E 1/2 JONES DOROTHY A 1/2 91975 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
WALKER JAMES L/RUTHA S 92319 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
WALKER MILFORD R 92411 Carnegie Rd Astoria OR 
WARILA FAMILY FARM LLC 89317 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
WARILA WAVERLIE A WARILA WAVERLIE A REV LIV TRUST 89317 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
WARRENTON CITY OF WARRENTON DIKING DISTRICT #3 
WARRINGTON KIMBERLY D 940-B Astor St Astoria OR 
WATKINS JEFF WATKINS LORRAINE 92295 Youngs River Rd Astoria OR 
WEBB JOANNE R 1792 5th St Astoria OR 
WILKINS JAMES R/REGINA A 701 W Marine Dr Astoria OR 
WILLIAMS CLARK B/SHERRIL A 1840 6th St Astoria OR 
WILLIAMS DAVID 34806 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
WILLIAMS DAVID I WILLIAMS DAVID I REV LIV TRUST 495 Olney Ave Astoria OR 
WILLIAMS DAVID/CHRISTINE 34792 Hwy 105 Astoria OR 
WILLIAMS MARIANNE 92398 G Rd Astoria OR 
WILLIAMS ROBERT A TR 4410 Leif Erickson Dr Astoria OR 
WILSON CHRISTOPHER 4857 NE Prescott St Portland OR 
WILSON GARY E/ AMY E 35190 Laila Ln Astoria OR 
WILSON JOHN A/SUZANNA VERMEUL 92178 Lewis & Clark Rd Astoria OR 
WOOD STEVEN WOOD SCOTT 92423 G Rd Astoria OR 
WOODS DALE/ESTELA 92195 Clover Rd Astoria OR 
WUORI MARIA 92279 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
WYRWITZKE ROBIN L 92363 Willow Rd Astoria OR 
YEAGER CHARLES T/LINDA J 1477 6th St Astoria OR 
YEAGER CHARLES TIMOTHY PR RAITANEN ROBIN C (C) 92359 Juniper Rd Astoria OR 
YEAGER KENNETH S/LEANN E 35184 Orchard Ln Astoria OR 
YOUNG SHARON LEE 8555 Lat B Wapato WA 
5/3/2010 12 

Exhibit Log 
Clatsop County Planning Commission 
Clatsop County Hearings Officer 
Hearing Item: ^ ^ 
Meeting Date: 5 " 11 1 0 
• 
Exhibit # 
Person Submitt ing 
Exhibit 
Type of Exhibit 
^ - I • J - d f l i t ^ v &uuxcJ < Po i u e*. C^r tXt- f ">— 
OflLAc- ' F e n u A . . Jk t^ - A . Ota. r 
If 

The Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Transportation Plan identifies 
ways to balance the needs of: 
•Residents 
•Long-Distance Travelers 
•Bicyclists 
•Pedestrians 
•Freight 
This plan was led by the Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT) and Clatsop County, in coordination with the cities of 
Warrenton and Astoria 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 

>Project Management 
> Public Involvement 
> Goals and Evaluation Criteria 
> Existing and Future Traffic Conditions Analysis 
> Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
Project Management Team (PMT) 
Clatsop County * ODOT 
City of Astoria * City of Warrenton 
State of Oregon - DLCD 
•Reviewed Technical Materials and Provided Comment 
•Attend Advisory Committee Meetings & Public Workshops 
•Discussions with Community Members 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) 
Local Residents, Business Owners, Public Officials 
Public Workshops 
October 2008 & January 2009 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
Criteria Based on input from PMT and PAC 
•Connectivity 
•Safety 
•Mobility 
•Constructability 
•Environmental Impacts 
•Quality of Life 
•Multimodal Solutions 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
under no build. 
Mobility (faturat 
I n t e n t i o n operates above 
mobility standard (1.36,1.44) 
under high land use scenario. 
Old Youngs Bay Bridge sufficiency 
rating Is 42.1 out of 100. 
YOVNCS RIVER 
No sidewalks. Inconsistent shoulders, 
and no bicycle lanes throughout 
Lewis and C a n River Bridge 
sufficiency rating is 51 .5 out of 100. 
Queues exceed storage length; worse in 
the future. 
Traffic backs up during school year congestion 
when buses and parents drop off kids. Uncontrolled access between 
Clover Lane and Miles Crossing. 
Then are many'near misses" 
at this Intersection. 
Mobility {future) 
Intersection operates above 
mobilltystandard (0.83) under 
Ugh land use scenario. 
j>| Turning right Into thit airport 
g ] is perceived as dangiirous— 
" I t :we is no deceleration lane. 
Connectivity 
All study Intersections < lehdent for scenario 
where new Youngs Bay Bridge Is closed. 
Throughout—limited 
connectivity to serve local trips. 
Connectivity 
The vertical curve, or'hump'on 
the bridge limits sight distances. 
Bridges are narrow—two large 
trucks cannot pass at the same time 
Mobility (future) 
Intersection operates above 
mobility standard (1.02,1.24) 
Sight distance concerns at 
OB 202 and US 101 Business. 
Mobility (existing) 
Queues exceed storage length; 
worse in the future. 
Trucks panted along this section 
limit visibility when turning 
weston US 101 Business. 
Geometric/structural Issue 
Access I3sue 
Mobility issue 
Safety Issue 
Legend 
Projected traffic conditions to 2030 - Key Findings 
•Continued safety hazards and Miles Crossing and Hwy 101 
Bus/Hwy 202 intersections. 
•Hwy 202/Hwy 101 Bus intersection does not meet ODOT 
standards. 
•With a high growth scenario Hwy 101 Bus /Airport Road does 
not meet ODOT standards 
•Under the expected growth scenario all intersections fail 
mobility standards 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
¥OUXGSlLW 
E/W ALONG 1 0 1 B 
INTERSECTION 
Access Con t ro l 
(various alternatives) 
101 Bu i i n f l U Traditional Cross Sect on Lana 
Add a soufo 
bound left 
tum lane on 
Airport Rd. 
Add a decelera 
t ion lane for 
Ightrums north 
to the airport. 
AIRPORT ROAD/US 101B INTERSECTION 
OR 202/DS 10TS8 
INTERSECTION 
ROUNOASOUT 
Opt ion 1 
LEGEND 
Q S t u d y I n t e r s e c t i o n s 
S t u d y A rea B o u n d a r y 
U G B B o u n d a r y 
Wa te r Bod ies 
, Loca l Connec t i v i t y 
™ A l t e rna t i ves 
Study Intersections 
1. US101 Bus iness & Fort Clatsop 
Road/A i rpor t Lano 
2. U5101 Bus iness & Clover Lane 
3. US1Q1 Business & Youngs River 
Road I Lewis and ClarH Road 
4, US101 Bus hi oss & Wireless Road 
5. OR 202 & US 101 Business 
MILES CROSSING 
INTERSECTION 
Short -Tt rm Long-Term 
Option Opt ion 
5IGNAGE ROUNDABOUT 
F I G U R E 3 
R e c o m m e n d e d A l t e r n a t i v e s O v e r v i e w 
Ml<iu Ccostf.'vi'JLiffo.Ti Gvfton TntniflCirtation f*xi 
Review and Adoption Process 
If approved, the Refinement Plan will be adopted into the County's 
TSP by reference. 
The project also includes text amendments that focus on: 
1. Coordinated Review 
2. Connectivity of the local street network 
3. Right-of-way improvements, particularly driveways/access control 
Text Amendments are listed in Exhibit #2, pgs 3-7 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
LWDUO 
Section 2.045 Pre-application Conference. 
An applicant or the applicant's authorized representative shall request the Director to arrange a pre-
application conference. Unless the applicant and Director agree that a conference is not needed, the 
conference shall be held within 15 days of the request. The purpose of the conference shall be to 
acquaint the applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Ordinance, provide 
for an exchange of information regarding applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan and 
development requirements, arrange such technical and design assistance as will aid the applicant, and 
to otherwise identify policies and proposed development. If the applicant's proposal is located 
within 750 feet of a state highway, the Oregon Department of Transportation (QDQT) shall be 
invited to participate in the conference. The Director, if requested by the applicant, shall provide 
the applicant with a written summary of the conference within 5 days of the conference. The 
summary shall include confirmation of the procedures to be used to process the application, a list of 
materials to be submitted and the criteria and standards which may apply to the approval of the 
application. 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
LWDUO 
Section 5.205 General Standards for Minor and Major Partitions 
(1)(A)(4) and (2)(A)(3) 
Streets shall be provided according to Local Connectivity Plans included in the County's 
Transportation System Plan or Transportation Refinement Plans where applicable. The 
Connectivity Plans illustrate the general location of streets, and the exact location and design shall 
be determined during the development review process. The location and design shall be 
determined with consideration for existing and other planned streets, significant natural resources, 
topography and other environmental constraints, accessibility, safety, and existing and planned 
land uses to be served by the street(s). 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
Adopt the findings of the staff report and 
recommend approval of the legislative 
amendments to the Board of Commissioners 
i 
Miles Crossing I Jeffers garden Transportation Plan 
0 5 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 1 3 : 1 9 5 0 3 - 3 2 5 - 5 3 3 6 THE DAILY ASTORIAN PAGE 01 
SHORT STOP GROCERY 
318 Olney Street Astoria, OR 97103 
503.325.3683 
May 10, 2010 
Number of Pages to Follow: 2 Fax #503.338.3666 
To Jennifer Bunch 
Here is a letter for the Plannning Commission Hearing on tuesday May 11 
2010, Stating my concerns over the perposed roundabout. 
Thank you, 
Cheri Temple 
Short Stop Grocery 
318 Olney 
Astoria, OR 97103 
503.325.3683 
0 5 / 1 8 / 2 8 1 B 1 3 : 1 9 , 5 0 3 - 3 2 5 - 5 3 3 6 THE DAILV ASTORIAN PAGE 02 
May 9, 2010 
My name is Cheri Temple, and 1 am the owner of the Short Stop Convience Store. Located at 318 olney 
St, Astoria, OR. 
I am writing in response to the letter I received from the Planning commission pertaining to my 
property, 
I am in opposition to the roundabout. I believe it will be congested just like the one crossing the New 
Youngs Bay Bridge, i go thru there twice a day, and many times it Is backed up strictly because of too 
much traffic. There have also been many wrecks in this area. I believe lights would be a much safer and 
better way to handle this intersection, with a cross walk, SD that the people from the apartments will 
have a safe way off crossing the highway, 
I have been at my store since 1981 and can honestly say I have rarely seen traffic backed up, unless they 
were working DFI the bridge. 
I believe a roundabout would be a hazard to our community creating traffic problems that do not exist 
now. With a roundabout in place when the bridge traffic gets stopped for any reason It will put a 
complete stop to all traffic going east as both lanes would come to a halt, just as they do with our 
existing roundabout. 
Many of the people that live in the Apartments across the highway do not drive or have cars, we provide 
a service for them and to our community because of our location and easy access to it. 
I have been on line and looked at the proposed roundabout map. With the changes you are wanting to 
do the people from the apartment complex across the highway will have a much harder time crossing 
the road but it looks as If there will be more danger to them as well. 
Our freight and delivery trucks would have to go thru a residential area to deliver to us, increasing 
hazards on these side streets. Not only for traffic but also children and anyone walking. 
Whenever there has been a function at the 4-H fairgrounds there is a lot of extra traffic, busses, motor 
homes, RV's, ect., and there has not been any problems , 
I feel the real problem in this area is the old bridge and until it gets replaced or widened there will be 
traffic backed up when anything is happening on the bridge, such as repairs, 
I think that option #2 with the signals would be the best for this area. 
Also I am wondering why a public meeting Is being held at: 10:00 AM, versus an evening meeting when 
more people could attend Since many people work during the day. 
Respectfully, 
Cheri Temple 
DBA Short Stop Grocery 
318 Olney St 
Astoria, OR 97103 
Oregon Department T ^ f l * 
of Transportation als 
C H 2 M H I L L 
, K l T T L U E r O N t- A S i l i C i ' U E i 1 N c 
, An^elo 
T B 0 2 2 0 0 9 0 0 5 P D X 
JUNE 2009 
CONTENTS 
Section Page 
1 In t roduc t ion 1-1 
2 P l a n n i n g Process 2-1 
Project Management 2-1 
Public Involvement 2-1 
Evaluation Framework 2-1 
Existing Conditions and Deficiencies 2-2 
Future Traffic Conditions and Deficiencies 2-5 
Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 2-9 
3 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 3-1 
US 101 Business Cross Section 3-1 
Three-lane Traditional Cross Section 3-1 
Study Area Intersections 3-9 
Airport Road/Fort Clatsop Road and US 101 Business 3-9 
Deceleration Lane for Right Turns North to the Airport 3-9 
Southbound Left-turn Pocket 3-10 
Miles Crossing Intersection 3-15 
Improved Signage—Short-term Recommendation 3-15 
Roundabout— Long-term Recommendation 3-16 
OR 202/US 101 Business Intersection 3-21 
Alternatives Analysis to Replace Old Youngs Bay and Lewis and 
Clark River Bridges 3-25 
Trail Connecting Warrenton and Astoria 3-27 
Access Management Strategies 3-267 
Riekkola Road/E Road Intersection Offset 3-27 
Two-way Left Turn Lane 3-27 
Approach Width Modifications and Delineation 3-28 
Shared Access and Crossover Easements 3-28 
Property Subdivision and Partition 3-28 
Alternate Access and Local Connectivity 3-28 
Access Consolidation 3-28 
Ensure Adequate Sight Distance 3-29 
Local Connectivity Recommendations 3-29 
4 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n 4-1 
Conceptual Level Cost Estimates 4-1 
Funding 4-2 
Phasing 4-4 
Next Steps 4-4 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN III 
JUNE 2009 
CONTENTS, CONTINUED 
Appendixes 
A Public Involvement 
B Plan and Policy Review 
C Traffic Methodology, Existing Conditions, and Future Conditions 
D Condition of the Old Youngs Bay and Lewis and Clark River Bridges 
E Alternative Development and Evaluation 
F Access Management Strategy 
G Financial Plan and Cost Estimates 
H Plan and Code Amendments 
Tables 
1 Alternative Evaluation Criteria 2-2 
2 Traditional Three Lane Cross Section Cost Estimate 3-6 
3 Cost Estimate for Airport Road Improvements 3-11 
4 Miles Crossing Roundabout Cost Estimate 3-17 
5 OR 202/US 101 Business Roundabout Cost Estimate 3-22 
6 Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridges Cost Estimate 3-26 
7 Trail Connecting Warrenton and Astoria Cost Estimate 3-27 
8 Improvement Concepts and Estimated Costs 4-1 
9 Improvements and Possible Funding Sources 4-3 
Figures 
1 Study Area Map 1-3 
2 Overview of Project Needs 2-7 
3 Overview of Recommended Improvements 3-3 
4 Recommended US 101 Business Cross Section 3-5 
5 Three Lane Traditional Cross Section 3-7 
6 Westbound Deceleration Lane for Right Turns to the Airport 3-10 
7 Southbound Left-turn Pocket from Airport Road to US 101 Business 3-10 
8 Airport Road Deceleration Lane for Right Turns and Southbound Left Turn Pocket 3-13 
9 Example of Additional Signage along US 101 Business 3-15 
10 Roundabout at Miles Crossing 3-16 
11 Miles Crossing Roundabout 3-19 
12 OR 202/ US 101 Business Roundabout 3-21 
13 OR 202/US 101 Business Roundabout 3-23 
14 Possible Realignment of Riekkola Road and E Road 3-27 
15 Local Connectivity Recommendations 3-31 
Exhibits 
1 View of US 101 Business Facing West 2-3 
2 Example of Wide Driveways and Uncontrolled Access Along US 101 Business 2-4 
3 Old Youngs Bay Bridge 2-5 
4 Lewis and Qark River Bridge 2-5 
5 View of Current Drainage Along the North-South Section of US 101 Business 3-6 
6 US 101 Business at Airport Road Looking West 3-9 
7 Airport Road at US 101 Business Looking South 3-10 
8 Miles Crossing Intersection Looking East 3-15 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN III 
JUNE 2009 
M I L E S C R O S S I N G / J E F F E R S G A R D E N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N 
Project Staff 
ODOT 
Ingrid Weisenbach, ODOT Project Manager 
CITY OF ASTORIA 
Brett Estes, Community Development 
Director 
CLATSOP COUNTY 
Ed Wegner, Transportation & Development 
Services Director 
Jennifer Bunch, Land Use Planner 
CH2M HILL 
Theresa Carr, AICP, Project Manager 
Andra Henriques, PE, Traffic Engineer 
Darren Hippenstiel, PE, Roadway Engineer 
Terra Lingley, Transportation Planner 
Laura Hunt, Graphics Designer 
ANGELO PLANNING GROUP 
Shayna Rehberg, AICP, Land Use Planner 
K/TTELSON AND ASSOC/A TES 
Del Huntington, PLS, Access Management 
Lead 
Kirsty Bilton, Access Management Analyst 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN III 
JUNE 2009 
Advisory Committee 
Tom Bergin, Clatsop County Emergency 
Services 
Linda Brim, Miles Crossing Business 
Owner 
Jack Crider, Port of Astoria 
Sheila Johnson, Astoria-Warrenton 
Chamber of Commerce 
Fred Mestrich, Miles Crossing Water 
District, Business Owner 
Brian Ploghoft, Astoria School District 
John Raichl, Clatsop County Board of 
Commissioners 
John Riekkola, Miles Crossing Business 
Owner 
Tom Tetlow, Miles Crossing Sewer District 
Klyde Thompson, Miles Crossing 
Volunteer Fire Department, Business 
Owner 
Peter Troedsson, US Coast Guard 
Russ Warr, City of Astoria City Council 
Member 
CITY OF WARRENTON 
Carol Parker, Planning Director 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVA T/ONAND 
DEVELOPMENT 
Laren Woolley, Land Use Planner 
Matt Crall, Land Use and Transportation 
Planner 
The Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Transportation Plan identifies ways to balance the needs 
of local residents, long-distance travelers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and freight along US 101 
Business through the unincorporated rural communities of Miles Crossing and Jeffers 
Garden, given expected land use development in the area. This plan was led by the Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Clatsop County, in coordination with the cities 
of Warrenton and Astoria. 
The objectives of the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Transportation Plan are to: 
• Identify highway and intersection improvements to allow local and regional through 
traffic to flow smoothly along US 101 Business 
• Develop ways to improve safety for and encourage more bicycle and pedestrian travel 
• Consider potential road connections to serve future development 
• Explore potential access management measures to improve safety and protect the 
capacity of US 101 Business 
• Develop potential safety and design improvements at the Miles Crossing intersection, 
the OR 202/US 101 Business intersection, the Old Youngs Bay and Lewis and Clark 
River bridge areas, and along US 101 Business 
The Miles Crossing and Jeffers Garden rural communities are located in the northwest 
corner of Clatsop County. US 101 Business enters Miles Crossing from the north, curves to 
the west at the Miles Crossing intersection and then continues through Jeffers Garden. This 
segment of US 101 Business, classified by ODOT as a District Highway, serves as an 
alternate to US 101 and die New Youngs Bay Bridge between Astoria and Warrenton. The 
land use and zoning in the Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden rural community is primarily 
single-family residential with commercial and light industrial uses and zoning fronting 
portions of US 101 Business. Logging trucks and other large vehicles use US 101 Business to 
access Astoria and Warrenton. 
The study area, shown in Figure 1, generally includes US 101 Business between the Lewis 
and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridges. However, the study area extends west of the 
Lewis and Clark River Bridge to include the intersection of US 101 Business and Airport 
Road in Warrenton, and it also extends north of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge to include the 
intersection of US 101 Business and OR 202 in Astoria. 
This project assumes that US 101 Business remains a Distr ict Highway to serve the mobility 
and access needs of the community. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN III 
JUNE 2009 
1 - 1 
1 INTRODUCTION 
This page intentionally left blank. 
1-2 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 

2 PLANNING PROCESS 
This section describes the five elements of the project's planning process: project 
management; public involvement; goals and evaluation criteria; existing and future traffic 
conditions analysis; and development and evaluation of alternatives. 
Project Management 
A project management team (PMT) consisting of staff from the Cities of Astoria and 
Warrenton, Clatsop County, the Department of Land Conservation and Development 
(DLCD) and ODOT provided guidance and policy direction for this plan. The PMT 
reviewed and provided comments on all technical materials, participated in advisory 
committee meetings and public workshops, and met with community members to discuss 
elements of this plan. Two PMT meetings were held as part of this process —one in 
September 2008 and the second in December 2008. Agendas and summaries for these 
meetings can be found in Appendix A, Public Involvement. 
Public Involvement 
Miles Crossing and Jeffers Garden community members, stakeholders, and other interested 
parties actively participated in the development of this plan. A Project Advisory Committee 
(PAC) made up of local residents, business owners, and public officials met twice, in 
September 2008 and again in January 2009, to provide input on the project needs, existing 
conditions and deficiencies, possible transportation improvements, and to recommend 
project improvements. Two public workshops were held at the Lewis and Clark Elementary 
School in the study area (October 2008 and January 2009) that allowed substantial input and 
feedback from the public. 
Project background information, the project schedule, open house announcements, along 
with meeting summaries and technical materials were all available on a project website 
(www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION2/MilesCrossingTeffersGarden.shtml). Public 
comments were also collected via phone conversations, targeted outreach to affected 
property and business owners, and email. Documentation of the public involvement process 
is included in Appendix A, Public Involvement. 
Evaluation Framework 
The project team developed evaluation criteria based on input from the PMT and PAC. The 
goals and evaluation criteria are provided in Table 1. They establish a framework to assure 
that the plan responds to the goals and desires of the community. The draft alternatives 
were developed to address and were subsequently evaluated by these criteria. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN III 
JUNE 2009 
:-? PLANNIWG P R O C E S S 
TABLE 1 
Alternative Evaluation Criteria 
Criterion 
Connectivity 
Safety 
Environmental 
Impacts 
Quality of Life 
Multimodal 
Solutions 
Objective 
Improve street and path connectivity 
Performance Measure 
Out-of-direction travel, travel time, access to local 
and regional destinations 
Create an interconnected local street Change in trip travel distance along US 101 
system that provides the opportunity for Business, access to local and regional destinations 
off-highway local circulation. 
Mobility 
Constructability 
Address known safety issues 
Reduce potential conflicts between 
vehicles, and between vehicles and 
bicyclists and/or pedestrians 
Maintain the structural integrity of the 
Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs 
Bay bridges 
Maintain local and regional through 
traffic mobility 
Cost effectiveness 
Construction methods 
Minimize impacts to natural 
environmental resources 
Minimize impacts to built environment 
resources 
Maintain consistency with the Miles 
Crossing/Jeffers Garden Rural 
Community Plan 
Maintain livability 
Obtain buy-in and support from local 
community and region 
Address needs of bicyclists and 
pedestrians 
Ability to address or divert traffic away from known 
safety concerns 
Width of approaches, number of potential conflict 
points 
Address identified structural deficiencies on the Lewis 
and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay bridges 
Volume-to-capacity ratio (mobility), vehicle delay 
Assessment of cost efficiencies during construction; 
comparison of project alternative with other projects 
in the area for funding competitiveness 
Ability of the concept to be built in phases, ability to 
use existing pavement, impacts during construction 
Wetland impacts, encroachment on known fish 
habitat, impact to identified threatened and 
endangered species habitat 
Number of businesses and residences impacted, 
ability to appropriately mitigate impacts 
Qualitative assessment of projected future 
development compared to the Rural Community Plan 
goals 
Local business redevelopment potential, and support 
from the majority of the community 
Qualitative assessment of likelihood of project to 
garner support from the local community and region 
Qualitative assessment of alternative's provision of 
services to users of all modes, improvements to 
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and improvements 
geared toward future transit routes 
Existing Conditions and Deficiencies 
Prior to the first PAC meeting, the project team reviewed and documented existing and 
future conditions on US 101 Business within the study area, identifying issues that would 
serve as the basis for the evaluation framework and development of alternatives. A review 
of relevant area plans and policies is included as Appendix B, Plan and Policy Review. A 
2-2 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
M I L L S C K O S S I N G . ' . I L ! I L K S G A R U L N I K A N S P O K 1 A V I O N P L A N 
full summary of existing and future conditions is included as Appendix C, Traffic 
Methodology, Existing and Future Conditions. Key findings are below: 
• There are variable shoulders widths, no sidewalks, and no bicycle facilities along US 101 
Business. Throughout the study area, the roadway shoulder serves as the pedestrian and 
bicycle facility, but shoulder widths are inconsistent. Parking is not allowed along US 
101 Business; however, vehicles regularly park illegally on the shoulder (Exhibit 1). 
Pedestrians use dirt paths and gravel shoulders throughout the two communities. 
EXHIBIT 1 
View of US 101 Business Facing West 
• During peak travel periods, vehicles back up in intersections, creating delays and safety 
issues at two study area intersections. Specifically, vehicles traveling north through the 
Miles Crossing intersection, vehicles turning south onto US 101 Business from OR 202, 
and vehicles continuing south from OR 202 onto US 101 Business through the 
intersection north of the bridge back up onto the highway and create potential safety 
issues. 
• Analysis of crashes in the study area did not identify a specific safety problem, though 
sight distance is inadequate in several areas, and potential safety issues were identified 
during conversations with the public at all study intersections, especially at the US 101 
Business/OR 202 intersection. 
• Local street connectivity is limited throughout the study area; residents need to use US 
101 Business for short local trips. 
• Driveway spacing in the study area, especially along the east-west section of US 101 
Business, do not meet ODOT access spacing standards. There are a number of very wide 
driveways and parcels with multiple driveways, which affects safety (Exhibit 2). 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN VRANSPORVAVION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 

.S CROSSINGtJEFF'tRS GARDEN rRANSI 'OK ATION PLAN 
2 PLANNING PROCESS 
2. Higher than expected level of development with no changes to the transportation 
network2; and 
3. Expected level of development under a scenario where US 101 or the New Youngs Bay 
Bridge is closed between Astoria and Warrenton. 
Key findings of the 2030 future conditions analysis were as follows: 
• Traffic stopped near the intersection remains a concern at both the Miles Crossing and 
the OR 202/US101 Business intersections. In scenarios 1 and 2, current problems will 
continue to be safety hazards, and the US 101 Business and OR 202 intersection will have 
vehicles backed up into the next intersection. In addition to the existing problems, the 
Miles Crossing intersection will have vehicles back up into the roadway on three legs. 
» The OR 202/US 101 Business intersection is congested and does not meet ODOT 
mobility standards. 
• Under the high growth scenario (Scenario 2), the US 101 Business/ Airport Road 
intersection is congested and does not meet ODOT mobility standards. 
• In Scenario 3, all intersections fail mobility standards from highly congested conditions 
and long backups. Traffic demand will exceed the capacity of the travel lanes. It was 
determined that this plan would not use scenario 3 to create alternatives because a New 
Youngs Bay Bridge and US 101 closure is not expected to be a regular occurrence. This 
plan focuses on addressing expected growth scenarios, and recognizes that in the event 
of a closure on US 101 or the New Youngs Bay Bridge that there is no way to avoid 
severe congestion, and therefore the alternatives do not address the scenario. 
The basis of the first PMT, PAC, and public meetings were to review and discuss existing 
and expected future conditions for the study area, and identify issues related to traffic, 
circulation, access, and safety. Personal experience was also gathered on existing conditions 
to supplement the technical analysis. 
Figure 2 shows an overview of project needs identified through the technical analysis and 
conversations with the PMT, PAC, and public. 
2 Scenario 2 assumed a full build-out of available land to the capacity of the new water and sewer systems. 
2-6 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
2 PLANNING PROCESS 
Back 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORT A] ION PLAN 
Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 
Following the first PMT, PAC, and public meetings, the project team developed alternatives 
to respond to the project needs, purpose, and goals. This process is documented as 
Appendix E, Alternatives Development and Evaluation. Key steps in the alternatives 
development process were as follows: 
1. Develop a range of alternatives that seek to meet project goals and evaluation criteria, 
incorporating input from the project team, the PAC (September 2008), and the public 
(October 2008). 
2. Evaluate each potential improvement to illustrate how it addresses each project goal. 
3. Present draft alternatives to ODOT, Clatsop County, the City of Astoria, and the City of 
Warrenton for review against adopted state and county policies and standards 
(December 2008); revise draft alternatives to respond to comments. 
4. Present draft and preferred alternatives to the PAC and the public (January 2009). 
5. Incorporate feedback from the PAC and public workshop into the recommended 
alternatives. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
2-9 
2 PLANNING PROCESS 
2-10 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
The Miles Crossing/Jeffers Garden Transportation Plan recommendations are organized 
into four sections: (1) US 101 Business cross sections; (2) study area intersections; (3) access 
management strategies; and (4) local connectivity recommendations. An overview of 
recommended improvement concepts are illustrated in Figure 3. Conceptual designs of each 
of the proposed improvements are included at the end of each recommendation. 
US 101 Business Cross Section 
For the improvement development process, US 101 Business was divided into two sections: 
north-south and east-west. The north-south section extends from the Miles Crossing 
intersection north to the Old Youngs Bay Bridge, and the east-west section extends from the 
Miles Crossing intersection west to the Lewis and Clark River Bridge. The north-south 
section is currently more rural in character with fewer businesses and residences along the 
highway, while the east-west section has a more commercial feel, with many of the area's 
businesses. Alternatives for these two sections were evaluated separately, however, the 
same cross section was ultimately recommended for both segments. 
The PMT at the onset of the project determined that US 101 Business would remain a 
District Highway and that a change in designation to an expressway would not be 
considered. Keeping US 101 Business as a District Highway balances mobility, access, and 
capacity, rather than focusing more on mobility along US 101 Business through the area. 
RECOMMENDATION: THREE-LANE TRADITIONAL CROSS SECTION 
For both sections of US 101 Business, the recommendation is to modify the existing two lane 
facility to three lanes to accommodate left turns into existing and future businesses. This 
would be an urban section with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and an enclosed drainage 
system. The total cross section would be 62 feet wide and include two 6-foot sidewalks, two 
6-foot bike lanes, two 12-foot travel lanes, and a 14-foot center continuous center turn lane 
(Figure 4). The center turn lane would allow for emergency vehicles to pass vehicles, traffic 
to move around disabled vehicles, and left turning traffic to maneuver out of the travel lanes 
while waiting to take a left turn. The section was also selected for its ability to improve 
safety and mobility along US 101 Business, and its provision of separate facilities for both 
bicyclists and pedestrians, though mobility along the highway in two of the three future 
scenarios was not an identified need. The curb-gutter-sidewalk cross section would 
delineate driveways by providing a cut in the curb to allow vehicular access to businesses 
and residences along the highway. This cross section mainly fits within the available right of 
way, which is 80 feet. There is one parcel on the east-west section of US 101 Business near 
the Miles Crossing intersection that narrows the available right of way to approximately 63 
feet. In the north-south section, right of way data north of Miles Crossing were not available. 
Therefore, tax lot data were used to estimate the available right of way and may not 
accurately reflect the actual right of way available in that section. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN III 
JUNE 2009 


3 RECOMMENDATIONS 
back 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORT A] ION PLAN 
FIGURE 4 
Recommended US 101 Business Cross Section 
I_i_JL I " I ' I 
SIDEWALK BIKE 
6 ' 6 ' 
t t I 1 I " I 
TRAVEL LANE 
12 ' 
TURN LANE 
14' 
TRAVEL LANE 
12 ' 
BIKE SIDEWALK 
6 ' 6 ' 
6 2 ' 
Areas of Concern 
While there appears to be adequate right of way along most of both sections of US 101 
Business, the road shoulders are used informally and illegally for parking or other frontage. 
This occurs more often in the commercial east-west section and near the Miles Crossing 
intersection. Construction of a 62-foot cross section could eliminate these informal uses and 
locate the roadway closer to businesses and residences along US 101 Business. 
On the north-south cross section, the existing roadway is located on a levee at a different 
level from the surrounding landscape. Widening the roadway would require additional fill 
to construct the recommended cross section. This raises concerns for possible increased cost 
and impacts to wetlands or sensitive lands within the right of way and may impact 
approaches along the road that are already short and steep. The current road is offset to the 
west within the available right of way, and expansion is possible east of the current 
roadway. However, it may be possible to construct the bicycle lane and sidewalk separate 
from the roadway, at the same level as the surrounding landscape. Wider cross sections also 
increase the amount of asphalt surface within the right of way, which could increase 
stormwater runoff. 
The cross section assumes an enclosed drainage system consistent with an urban highway 
section. However the current drainage system is open (Exhibit 5). The highway may be 
constructed in several sections and implementing an enclosed drainage system piecemeal 
may cause some concern as it relates to water quality treatment. Clatsop County and ODOT 
would coordinate about drainage and development in this area to ensure that the section is 
constructed to water quality s tandards and requirements. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
2-5 



MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
Study Area Intersections 
Improvements are recommended for three of the five s tudy area intersections: Airport 
Road/For t Clatsop Road and US 101 Business, the Miles Crossing intersection, and the OR 
202/US 101 Business intersection. These recommendations are described below. No changes 
were deemed necessary at Wireless Road or Clover Road. 
AIRPORT ROAD/FORT CLATSOP ROAD AND US 101 BUSINESS 
The Airport Road /For t Clatsop Road and US 101 Business intersection exceeds mobility 
s tandards in the fu ture analysis growth scenario 2 (high growth) for southbound left turn 
movements. Vehicles turning east onto US 101 Business f rom Airport Road will back u p 
waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic. 
Furthermore, in conversations with the PAC and public during the open houses, an 
additional potential safety issue was identified at the Airport Road /For t Clatsop Road and 
US 101 Business intersection. The speed limit along US 101 Business at the intersection is 55 
miles per hour, and vehicles traveling west on US 101 Business and making the right turn 
onto Airport Road need to slow down considerably to make the sharp turn. This creates a 
traffic hazard for through vehicles. 
Two improvements are recommended at this intersection: A deceleration lane for right turns 
north to the airport, and a southbound left turn lane f rom Airport Road to US 101 Business. 
It is assumed that both of the following alternatives would be implemented at the same 
time, and the cost estimate includes both components. 
RECOMMENDA T/ON; DECELERA T/ON LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS NORTH TO THE AIRPORT 
The 485 foot deceleration lane would allow westbound through vehicles to maintain 
h ighway speeds while allowing turning vehicles to move out of the way. Exhibit 6 shows 
the existing configuration at the intersection. This concept could be built completely within 
existing right of way (Figure 6). 
EXHIBIT 6 
US 101 Business at Airport Road Looking West 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3-9 
JUNE 2009 
:» RECOMMENDATIONS 
=i i i c 
Westbound Deceleration Lane for Right Turns to the Airport 
RECOMMENDA T/ON: SOUTHBOUND LEFT• TURN POCKET 
This concept would add a 150-foot southbound left turn pocket on Airport Road for vehicles 
turning left towards Miles Crossing and Jeffers Garden. Adding the turn pocket would 
decrease congestion, improve mobility, and allow left turning vehicles to maneuver out of 
the through travel lane for vehicles continuing south. Exhibit 7 shows the existing 
intersection with US 101 Business at Airport Road. This concept is completely within the 
available right of way (Figure 7). 
EXHIBIT 7 
Airport Road at US 101 Business Looking South 
F I G U R E / 
Southbound Left-turn Pocket from Airport Road to US 101 B 
3-10 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 



3 RECOMMENDATIONS 
back 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
MILES CROSSING INTERSECTION 
Two concepts are recommended by the project team and endorsed by the public for this 
intersection: improved signage in the short-term, and a roundabout in the long-term. 
Currently the intersection is free flow for travel along US 101 Business and includes a sharp 
turn from the east-west alignment of US 101 Business to the north-south alignment. There 
are stop signs at the Lewis and Clark Road and Youngs River Road intersection. Vehicles 
continuing east towards Youngs River Road must stop at the intersection of Lewis and 
Clark Road, and vehicles entering US 101 Business in either direction must stop before 
entering the highway (Exhibit 8). The current configuration of the intersection is confusing 
for visitors, and the community noted that congestion from the Lewis and Clark Elementary 
School causes traffic to back up at the intersection. The existing curve requires vehicles to 
slow, does not meet existing highway design standards, and future mobility standards 
under all scenarios would not be met. 
EXHIBIT 8 
Miles Crossing Intersection Looking East 
IMPROVED SIGNAGE—SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATION 
The com in unity expressed a desire for lower-cost 
options that could be implemented on a short timeline, 
and agreed on the benefits of additional signage. The 
short term recommendation is to improve signage 
through the intersection area. This would reduce 
driver confusion and enhance safety for vehicles 
traveling through the intersection. Currently 
directional signs for the intersection are located in the 
middle of the intersection. Additional signage would 
be located in advance of the intersection to alert 
drivers of the complex intersection and to reduce 
confusion for drivers unfamiliar with the area. Figure 
9 is an example of a new sign. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3-15 
JUNE 2009 
1 RECOMMEND ATI QMS 
Areas of Concern 
The signage option would not address mobility, connectivity, or bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities in the study area. 
Cost Estimate 
Signage for the Miles Crossing intersection is estimated to cost approximately $50,000, 
which includes signs and posts to replace the existing signs and to add new signs. 
ROUND A BOUT—L ONG- TERM RECOMMENDA T/ON 
The recommended long term 
solution at Miles Crossing is a 
roundabout. The roundabout 
would be a single lane with a slip 
lane. The slip lane would allow 
southbound through traffic to 
continue towards Warrenton 
without passing through the 
roundabout. Lewis and Clark Road 
and Youngs River Road would be 
slightly realigned (Figure 8). The 
roundabout's location could be 
shifted to the east or west of the 
existing intersection. Figure 8 
shows the roundabout shifted to 
the east. Comments from the public 
and PAC suggested when funds 
become available, the design 
should be refined and affected 
property owners should be involved to determine the best placement of the roundabout. 
The benefits of this alternative are increased safety by decreasing vehicle conflict points, 
alleviated traffic backup issues on US 101 Business, and decreased vehicle travel speed at 
the intersection, which reduces the severity of any conflicts that do occur. The roundabout 
improves mobility for traffic along Lewis and Clark and Youngs River Roads, and 
accommodates bus and freight traffic. The roundabout could also be a "gateway" feature to 
enhance the center of the community. 
Areas of Concern 
The roundabout could potentially displace one business, and access to businesses near the 
intersection could be adversely impacted. However, as stated previously, the location for 
the roundabout is flexible. Two concepts were developed for the roundabout, each showing 
a separate business displacement. The design and size of the roundabout was minimized to 
avoid or reduce property impacts. Further refinement is recommended during design to 
minimize impacts to local businesses. The roundabout would slightly decrease traffic 
mobility along US 101 Business from Warrenton towards Astoria as traffic would need to 
navigate around the roundabout to make the eastbound to northbound movement. 
FIGURE10 
Roundabout at Miles Crossing (one of two conceptual 
alignments developed) 
3-16 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
„•• v < I f Sl i .G , ; E F F E R S G A R D E N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N 
However, the projected mobility is within 10 percent of the mobility standard, and the 
increased visibility and navigability of the roundabout, along with acceptable mobility on 
the remaining three legs, provide benefits for the intersection that outweigh the decreased 
mobility for the east-north movement. Special attention needs to be used to address 
pedestrians and bicyclists through the roundabout. Adequate right of way exists to 
implement pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, crosswalks and proper navigations, which 
would improve conditions over what exists today. 
Cost Estimate 
It is expected that the roundabout, while not contingent upon the roadway cross section, 
would be best implemented after the three lane cross section is constructed. Table 4 shows 
the cost for the roundabout and includes curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage, new roadway, 
illumination and concrete islands, but does not include right of way for property acquisition 
and encroachments. 
TABLE i 
Miles Crossing Roundabout Cost Estimate 
Improvement 
Miles Crossing Roundabout 
Estimated Cost (2009$) 
$2.78 million 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
3-17 


3 RECOMMENDATIONS 
back 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
W I L L S C K 0 S S I N 6 / J L I 1 L K S G A X U L N I l < A N G - ! O K I A [ I O N P L A N 
OR202/US101 BUSINESS INTERSECTION 
There are several identified deficiencies at the OR 202 and US 101 Business intersection. 
First, sight distance is a concern, as turning vehicles from US 101 Business have trouble 
seeing oncoming traffic from OR 202. 
Second, traffic queues exceed available 
storage for the westbound left turning traffic 
traveling from OR 202 onto US 101 Business. 
Third, the intersection operates above the 
applicable mobility standard in the future 
(Year 2030) horizon year. 
RECOMMENDA TION: ROUNDABOUT 
The recommended improvement for this 
intersection is a roundabout (Figure 9). The 
roundabout option allows this intersection 
to meet the mobility standard, except for a 
slight mobility concern with the vehicles 
traveling westbound on OR 202 to 
southbound US 101 Business (within 
10 percent of the standard). The safety 
benefits of a roundabout include reduced vehicle conflict points and a reduction in the 
severity of crashes due to lower vehicle travel speeds. There is adequate right of way 
available at this intersection to provide a separated bicycle and pedestrian path, and a 
roundabout could also be a "gateway" feature to enhance the center of the community. 
The roundabout would impact access and circulation for some roads and driveways 
between Hanover Street and 7th Street, predominantly along the north side of OR 202. 
Suggestions to address circulation needs near the intersection include constructing a platted 
but unbuilt street (3rd Street) and relocating existing driveways to access affected 
properties. 
Areas of Concern 
The roundabout would require acquisition of one parcel with one business, removal of 
several mature trees (fir and deciduous) that are in the middle of the existing intersection, 
and the closure of 4th Street at OR 202. Access to businesses near the intersection could be 
adversely impacted due to their proximity to the intersection. Special attention needs to be 
used to address pedestrians and bicyclists through the roundabout. Adequate right of way 
exists for a bicycle and pedestrian path to the southwest, improving bicycle and pedestrian 
circulation over existing conditions. 
Cost Estimate 
It is expected that the OR 202/US 101 Business Roundabout would be built in the medium 
term (5-10 years). Table 5 shows the cost and includes curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage, 
new roadway, concrete islands, illumination, landscaping and retaining walls. The cost 
estimate does not include right of way impacts for property acquisition and encroachments, 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3-21 
JUNE 2009 
FIGURE 12 
OR 202/US 101 Business Roundabout 

MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
Figure 
13 OR 202/US 101 Business Roundabout 
Front 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3-23 
JUNE 2009 
3 RECOMMENDATIONS 
Back 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
OLD YOUNGS BA Y AND LEW/SAND CLARK RIVER BRIDGES 
The Old Youngs Bay and Lewis and Clark River Bridges are historic3 structures that connect 
the communities of Miles Crossing and Jeffers Gardens to Astoria and Warrenton. They are 
also located along US 101 Business, the alternate route for the New Youngs Bay Bridge and 
US 101. The following deficiencies on the bridges were mentioned repeatedly by the PMT, 
• Narrow lanes may restrict the size of trucks traveling in opposite directions 
• The vertical rise on both structures limits the ability to see oncoming traffic 
• There are many near misses for crashes, and vehicles often scrape the structure of the 
• The PAC was concerned about actual and "near miss" crashes on the bridges, especially 
• United States Coast Guard personnel, located in Astoria, use the bridges to access the 
• The area's emergency shelter and emergency food supplies are located in Warrenton 
• Emergency vehicles have trouble driving across the bridges due to the narrow lanes 
• There are no bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the Lewis and Clark River Bridge, and 
narrow sidewalks on the Old Youngs Bay Bridge, creating a disconnect between the 
RECOMMENDA TION:AL TERNA TIVESANAL YSIS TO REHABILITA TEOR REPLACE OLD YOUNGS BA YAND LEWIS 
The project team recommends that an alternatives analysis and environmental review 
process start in the near-term for rehabilitating or replacing both bridges. This work would 
include an alternatives analysis, engineering background study environmental studies 
(noise, archaeological, historical, natural resources, floodplain, wetlands, and others), 
Existing deficient conditions of both bridges make this project a near-term priority. The 
bridges are historical structures, and replacement or enhancement of the bridges could 
impact residents in the Miles Crossing and Jeffers Garden communities, as the bridges are 
the most direct way of accessing Astoria and Warrenton. This project is the County's 
3 The Old Youngs Bay Bridge is number 128 in the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and the Lewis and Clark 
River Bridge is HAER 127. Both were built in the early 1920s. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3-25 
JUNE 2009 
:» RECOMMENDATIONS 
Cost Estimate 
TABLE 6 
Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridges Cost Estimate 
Improvement 
Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridge 
Alternatives Analysis 
Estimated Cost (2009$) 
$1.3 million 
Estimated costs to perform alternatives analysis and an environmental review for the 
replacement of the Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridge were developed from 
previous similar work. The estimate includes environmental studies, engineering studies, 
conceptual engineering, cost estimating, and mapping. An environmental assessment 
process was assumed. The cost estimate includes a 30 percent contingency recognizing the 
site geography, proximity to Youngs Bay, the fact that both Youngs River and Lewis and 
Clark Rivers are navigable and would have to be raised enough to allow boats under or 
accommodate lift span type bridges, and the historical significance of the surrounding area. 
TRAIL CONNECTING WARRENTON AND ASTORIA 
The need for a better recreational bicycle and pedestrian link between Warrenton and 
Astoria arose several times during the Transportation Plan's alternatives development and 
evaluation process. Although on street bicycle lanes and sidewalks are recommended on 
both sides of the highway along US 101 Business, this did not address the need for a scenic, 
recreational route for the community and for visitors. Several members of the public 
pointed to the levee system as a potential alignment for a multi-use trail. However, 
sufficient concerns and questions about the feasibility of building a trail along the levee 
system through the study area exist that the PMT felt this could not be forwarded as an 
outright recommendation. Instead, the plan recommends a trail study to more closely 
consider potential alignments for this trail connection. 
RECOMMENDATION: TRAIL STUDY 
A trail study would analyze the demand for a trail connecting Warrenton and Astoria off 
the highway through the study area. This study would include potential alignments, width, 
security, wayfinding details, construction materials, costs, and funding sources. 
Areas of Concern 
Identifying a feasible alignment for an off-highway multi-use trail is likely to be difficult 
due to environmental sensitivities. 
Cost Estimate 
The timeline for the alignment study would be in the short term (0-5 years). The order-of-
magnitude cost estimate for this study is shown in Table 7. 
3-26 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
M I L L S C K O S S I N G / J L I : L K S G A K D L N I K A N S P O K T A ! I O N - L A N 
TABLE 7 
Multi-Use Trail Study Cost Estimate 
Improvement 
Alignment Study for Trail Connecting 
Warrenton and Astoria 
Estimated Cost (2009$) 
$ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 
Access Management Strategies 
The Access Management Strategy inventoried the existing approaches and street network in 
the study area and suggested strategies for ODOT and Clatsop County to preserve and 
improve mobility along US 101 Business. Constraints were first identified through the 
access inventory, and existing approaches were compared to the applicable state and county 
access spacing standards. A variety of Access Management Strategies are recommended 
throughout the study area, as described in the paragraphs that follow. 
RIEKKOLA ROAD/EROAD INTERSECTION OFFSET 
The current offset of Riekkola Road and E Road in the study area results in potential 
conflicts between left turning vehicles entering US 101 Business from the minor streets 
simultaneously, and motorists crossing from Riekkola Road to E Road, and vice versa. 
Figure 14 shows the current offset and possible realignment to address the concern. 
FIGURE 14 
Possible Realignment of Riekkola Road and E Road 
i v - • 
r 
EXISTING 
I ALIGNMENT | 
U J i a f l » J HJV 
- \ \ \ \ 
\ 
CONCEPTUAL 
REALIGNMENT 
wm 
TWO-WA Y LEFT TURN LANE 
The center turn lane of the proposed cross section for US 101 Business would allow left-
turning vehicles to enter and exit approaches and side streets in stages if necessary. The 
center lane would provide an opportunity to increase safety and travel times for through 
and turning vehicles. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION P U N 
JUNE 2009 
3-27 
3 RECOMMENDATIONS 
APPROACH WIDTHMODIFICA TIONSAND DEUNEA TION 
The curb and gutter configuration of the proposed roadway would result in definition of 
driveways along US 101 Business, addressing existing open frontages and wide driveways. 
An absence of non-delineated driveways creates a safety hazard along the highway. ODOT 
guidelines for approach widths for the different types of properties are: 
• Single family residential: 16 feet 
• Commercial: 24 feet 
• Industrial: 24 feet 
For higher volume commercial and industrial properties, separate lanes for exiting and 
entering the property is recommended. 
SHARED ACCESS AND CROSSOVER EASEMENTS 
Shared access and parcel crossover easements would allow multiple properties to access US 
101 Business. Usually shared access is located at the property line of two adjacent 
properties. Accesses and parcel crossovers would only be applied when properties along the 
highway are developed or redeveloped. Consolidating approaches or providing easements 
would increase the distance between access points, which would reduce conflict points and 
improve safety and operations on US 101 Business. 
PROPERTY SUBDIVISION AND PARTITION 
Upon development in the study area, it is possible some of the larger lots will be subdivided 
or partitioned into smaller parcels to accommodate additional land uses. These new 
properties will require access to the road network, which could increase the number of 
driveways on US 101 Business. New developments would be limited to one approach to US 
101 Business or local street per parcel. The County and ODOT will review all development 
proposals to ensure they are consistent with spacing standards. 
ALTERNA TE ACCESS AND LOCAL CONNECTIVITY 
Providing alternate access to properties and closing some of the existing approaches on US 
101 Business would help achieve access management goals. Some properties on US 101 
Business front a side road to US 101 Business. In cases where the frontage is on a private 
road, an easement is needed for alternate access. The County also has platted, but not 
constructed, roadways in the study area north of US 101 Business in the Jeffers Garden 
Community. If the streets and lots are developed, development would identify 
opportunities to remove driveways on the highway and provide alternative access on the 
minor street connection based on site specific information to address the areas of need. 
ACCESS CONSOLIDA TION 
Fourteen properties along US 101 Business have multiple driveways. There are 
opportunities to consolidate the driveways into one driveway for each property, which 
would reduce the number of driveways along US 101 Business. 
3-28 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORT A] ION PLAN 
ENSURE ADEQUA TE SIGHT DISTANCE 
In some driveways, a vehicle stopped waiting to turn onto US 101 Business cannot see far 
enough in one or both directions to determine a safe gap to maneuver onto the highway. 
Strategies to improve sight distance include trimming vegetation, modifying existing 
buildings obstructing sight distance, altering the grade of driveways to match the highway, 
increasing building setbacks, and enforcing no parking along US 101 Business. 
These access management strategies could be implemented when parcels are development 
or redeveloped in the study area. Detailed access management strategies can be found in 
Appendix F, Access Management Strategy. 
Local Connectivity Recommendations 
Local street connectivity is limited throughout the study area, requiring that local trips use 
the highway even if traveling short distances. Limited environmental data were available to 
inform the project team where constraints exist to locating new roads. Therefore, alignments 
for local road connections were not prepared, but the project team identified general 
connections that should be constructed as development occurs. These connections are 
shown in Figure 15 and would be constructed upon development or redevelopment of 
parcels either through easements or on existing county right-of-way. 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
2-29 
3 RECOMMENDATIONS 
This page intentionally left blank. 
3-30 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
Insert Figure 
15 Local Connectivity Recommendations 
1 1 x 1 7 

Conceptual Level Cost Estimates 
The cost to design and construct the various improvement concepts was estimated at a 
planning level for the recommended alternatives. The total sum for recommended 
improvements is approximately $18.18 Million (2009 dollars). Table 8 below shows the 
breakdown of costs for each of the project alternatives and the recommended phasing. 
The recommendations listed below would be phased over the 20-year planning horizon. 
The team identified three phases - short term (0-5 years), medium term (5-10 years), and 
long term (10-20 years). The short term recommended improvements include the 
alternatives analysis for the Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridges, Miles 
Crossing signage improvements, the Airport Road left turn lane and deceleration lane, and 
the identification of roadway grades, storm sewer grades / alignments, and water quality 
treatment needs for US 101 Business. Medium term improvements include the north-south 
and east-west cross sections for US 101 Business and the OR 202/US 101 intersection 
roundabout. The Miles Crossing roundabout is the only project identified as long term. 
Clatsop County identified the Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridge 
alternatives analysis as the highest priority recommendation in this plan. 
TABLE 8 
Improvement Concepts and Estimated Costs 
Improvement Concept 
Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Documentation for 
Lewis and Clark River and Old Youngs Bay Bridge 
Replacements 
Miles Crossing Intersection Signage Improvements 
Airport Road Turn Lane and Deceleration Lane 
Identify roadway grades, storm sewer grades and alignments, 
and water quality treatment needs 
Trail plan to consider bicycle/pedestrian connections between 
Astoria and Warrenton 
US 101 Business North-South Three Lane Cross Section 
US 101 Business East-West Three Lane Cross Section 
OR 202/US 101 Business Intersection Roundabout 
Miles Crossing Intersection Roundabout* 
Total 
* Even if the priority of this project shifted, it may need to be constructed at the same t ime or fol lowing construct ion of US 101 
Business segments due to possible roadway grade issues. 
Phasing 
Short Term 
Short Term 
Short Term 
Short Term 
Short Term 
Upon Development/ 
Redevelopment 
(Medium Term) 
Upon Development/ 
Redevelopment 
(Medium Term) 
Medium Term 
Long Term 
Estimated Cost 
(2009$) 
$1,300,000 
$50,000 
$350,000 
$250,000 
$150,000 
$5,470,000 
$4,040,000 
$3,790,000 
$2,780,000 
$18.18 Million 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
2-1 
4 IMPLEMENTATION 
The costs in Tables 8 and 9 only include preliminary engineering and construction. Based on 
the conceptual design of each alternative, a 40 percent contingency has been included in the 
construction cost estimate to account for potential unknowns typically identified during 
preliminary and final engineering design. The estimates are in 2009 dollars, and do not 
include right of way, potential environmental permitting, engineering design fees, or utility 
relocation costs. See Appendix G, Financial Plan and Cost Estimates for more detailed cost 
estimates of each improvement concept. 
Funding 
A variety of local, state, and federal funding sources can be explored to help fund the 
recommended improvements. Most of the federal and state programs are competitive and 
require clear documentation of the project needs, costs, and benefits. Local funding for the 
projects in this transportation plan would typically come from ODOT, Clatsop County, the 
Cities of Astoria and Warrenton and /o r potential future bond or other local revenues. Other 
local funding sources might include grants and private funds. Please see Appendix G 
Financial Plan and Cost Estimates for a more detailed discussion of funding sources. 
Table 9 summarizes potential public funding sources for the recommended improvements. 
Some of these funds are restricted to the type of improvements that qualify for assistance. 
Typically, state and federal funds require projects to comply with current Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines for accessibility. 
4-2 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORT A] ION PLAN 
TABLES 
Improvements and Possible Funding Sources 
Estimated 
Improvement Concept Phasing Cost (2009$) Potential Funding Sources 
Alternatives Analysis and 
Environmental Documentation 
for Old Youngs Bay and 
Lewis and Clark River Bridges 
Miles Crossing Intersection 
Signage Improvements 
Airport Road Turn Lane and 
Deceleration Lane 
Identify roadway grades, 
storm sewer grades and 
alignments, and water quality 
treatment needs 
Trail plan to consider 
bicycle/pedestrian 
connections between Astoria 
and Warrenton 
US 101 Business North-South 
Three Lane Cross Section 
US 101 Business East-West 
Three Lane Cross Section 
OR 202/US 101 Business 
Intersection Roundabout 
Miles Crossing Intersection 
Roundabout 
Short Term 
Short Term 
Short Term 
$1,300,000 STIP - Bridges Funding 
STIP - Modernization 
Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and 
Rehabilitation Program (From the Federal 
Transportation Bill Reauthorization) 
Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OTIA, phase 
III—all funds are currently programmed, but 
more funding may be authorized.) 
$50,000 STIP -Operations 
$350,000 
Short Term $250,000 
Short Term $150,000 
Upon $5,470,000 
Development/ 
Redevelopment 
(Medium Term) 
Upon $4,040,000 
Development/ 
Redevelopment 
(Medium Term) 
Medium Term $3,790,000 
Long Term $2,780,000 
STIP = Statewide Transportation Investment Program 
LID = Local Improvement Districts 
SDC = System Development Charges 
OTIA = Oregon Transportation Investment Act 
TE = Transportation Enhancement 
City of Warrenton Gas Tax 
County Road District Funds 
SDC/Developer Exactions 
Transportation Utility Fee 
STIP - Modernization 
LID 
SDC/Developer Exactions 
Transportation Utility Fee 
TE 
ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program 
TE 
STIP - Modernization 
ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program 
LID 
SDC/Developer Exactions 
Transportation Utility Fee 
TE 
STIP - Modernization 
ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program 
LID 
SDC/Developer Exactions 
Transportation Utility Fee 
TE 
STIP - Modernization 
ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program 
TE 
STIP - Modernization 
LID 
SDC/Developer Exactions 
Transportation Utility Fee 
TE 
MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 
2-3 
4 IMPLEMENTATION 
Phasing 
It is not expected that the funds to construct all the proposed project improvements would 
be available at the same time or necessarily in the short-term. To address this, the project 
recommendations could be implemented in phases, beginning with any component that is 
stand-alone and that has an identified funding source. 
The project team recommends that the environmental review to replace the Old Youngs Bay 
and Lewis and Clark River Bridges, the improvements to the Airport Lane intersection, 
signage at the Miles Crossing intersection, identification of roadway grades, storm sewer 
grades and alignments, and water quality treatment needs be completed before the US 101 
Business cross section is improved. Some components of the project can be funded by, or in 
association with, development or redevelopment of private properties. Sidewalks and 
related features, for example, are often required to be constructed and paid for by a property 
owner at the time of property redevelopment. 
Next Steps 
Recommendations in this Transportation Plan will be considered by Clatsop County, the 
City of Astoria, and the City of Warrenton for adoption within their Comprehensive Plans. 
Draft plan amendment language and staff reports for each jurisdiction are provided as 
Appendix H, Plan and Code Amendments. 
Additional design and engineering will be needed to construct any improvement concept 
identified in this plan. Design and engineering would occur when improvement concepts 
are selected for implementation through the state and city capital funding process. There 
will be opportunities for additional public input on the design of the improvement concepts. 
4-4 MILES CROSSING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
JUNE 2009 

H I J f mM 
APPENDIX B 
Plan and Policy Review 
MILES CROSS ING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
APPENDIX C 
Traffic Methodology, Existing, and 
Future Conditions 
MILES CROSS ING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
APPENDIX D 
Bridge Condition 
MILES CROSS ING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
M\ 
sf^  1 y 
APPENDIX E 
Alternative Development and Evaluation 
MILES CROSS ING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 

MILES CROSS ING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
v u v 
.ik 
S i c » J S 
APPENDIX H 
PLAN AND CODE AMENDMENTS 
MILES CROSS ING/JEFFERS GARDEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
FIRST CUSS 
CLATSOP C O U N T Y 
i t e P S s Transportation and Development Services 
w - ^ i f Land Use Planning 
800 Exchange Street, Suite 100 
' (503) 325-8611 • Fax (503) 338-3666 
D L 6 D i I * 
S a U m , OSL ^i^UZSVo 
FIRST CLASS MAIL 
W 9 J 8 2 0 2 0 B 7 
$G2.92K 
(= 0 7 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 0 * ' 
1<J =• r-j;•• 9 7 r ••: 
US POSTAGE