Gresham Wal-Mart seems to have few fans

Some public comments mention crime and local businesses, but the biggest concern is traffic congestion
Friday, July 08, 2005

GRESHAM -- By e-mail, form letter and flowered postcard, with streams of capital letters and ranks of marching exclamation points, thousands of people let Gresham planners know their stand on a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter.

The city counted roughly 1,181 comments by Wednesday's public comment deadline, along with an anti-project petition containing about 6,290 signatures. The last development to raise such a furor was more than a decade ago, planners said, when 233 people weighed in on a plan to establish permanent sweat lodges at a Native American rehabilitation center in Gresham.

Although a few writers said they would welcome a Wal-Mart at 182nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard, the majority did not. They attacked the proposal from dozens of angles: fear of crime in the store's two-story parking deck; fear of oil- and chemical-tainted runoff flowing into nearby Johnson Creek; fear of other stores dying in Wal-Mart's wake; even fear of "riffraff" being attracted to the neighborhood.

Some writers detailed their objections to Wal-Mart's business practices by including newspaper clippings, academic studies and even a government report.

But many cards and letters focused squarely on traffic. The store is planned with parking for at least 878 cars, most of it on two levels below the store. During the peak Saturday shopping hour, the store is expected to generate 1,105 car trips.

"NO WAL-MART!!!!! Come on, what are you thinking?" wrote neighbor Liana Hawes. "The traffic alone would be a nightmare!"

"No amount of traffic lights will fix this situation," wrote neighbor Alyson Huntting, calling the hill behind the development "road rage hill" and saying "a big box bully will add to the already existing traffic problems. . . ."

The store would hurt property values, some neighbors said. A few threatened to sell their houses.

"Who wants to live next door to a Wal-Mart. Do you?" Laurie and Richard Schwarzkopf asked.

Store's analysts address traffic

Wal-Mart's traffic analysts said the retailer could make changes to local roads to prevent serious traffic jams and safety problems; it plans to spend about $2 million in fixes and in traffic fees.

But a detailed review by traffic engineer Rick Nys of Greenlight Engineering called Wal-Mart's traffic study flawed and inadequate. Nys was hired by GreshamFirst, a group that opposes a Wal-Mart at that location.

Some of Wal-Mart's proposed fixes, such as better timing of traffic lights, may not solve jams or safety problems, Nys wrote. Others may prove unsafe, Nys wrote, such as allowing drivers to turn left from Powell on a flashing yellow arrow if they don't see oncoming traffic.

Still other changes are the responsibility of other developers, and Wal-Mart shouldn't assume that they will be built, Nys wrote. In some cases, Wal-Mart's traffic consultants didn't provide enough correct information for the city to make a decision, he wrote.

Some letters devoted pages to whether the project lives up to city codes.

Rick Dwyer, Centennial Neighborhood Association president, told the city that Wal-Mart wasn't following the correct application procedure. Under one development scenario, the retailer would ask the city to vacate the right of way to Powell Court, a street that exists only on paper.

According to city code, Dwyer said, such an application requires a more demanding legislative review. That would include a public hearing by the planning commission and a decision by the City Council, rather than a review and decision by a city planner. Under the code, Wal-Mart should follow the more demanding procedure first, Dwyer said.

The size of the development should classify it as a regional shopping center under city code, GreshamFirst board member Javon Gilmore wrote on the organization's behalf.

Area is transit corridor

The congestion it could create makes it a bad fit for an area the city has designated as a transit corridor and commercial area for residents' day-to-day needs, Gilmore wrote. The store could hurt police and fire department response times, partly because of congestion and partly because of the store's needs on issues such as shoplifting, Gilmore wrote.

Sprinkled through the city's files were occasional cards from people who think the store would be good -- and better than the vacant QFC there now.

"As a senior citizen who lives in the area, it would be a great advantage and joy to be able to walk a short distance to shop there," Loretta Chamberlain wrote.

But even those supporting the store often acknowledged the strength of the voices opposing it.

"Just a note to let you know that there are some of us who do not oppose the proposed Wal-Mart opening," Marilyn W. Custis wrote, "if the traffic and safety concerns have been dealt with."

The city's decision on Wal-Mart's application is not expected for several more weeks.

Catherine Trevison: 503-294-5971; ctrevison@news.oregonian.com
Original story here: http://tinyurl.com/dae4p