BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 3, 2002
CALL TO ORDER:
The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor
Rob Drake in the Forrest C. Soth Council Chambers, 4755 SW Griffith Drive,
Beaverton, Oregon on Monday, June 3, 2002, at 6:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present were: Mayor Drake, Couns. Fred Ruby, Evelyn Brzezinski, Dennis Doyle,
Forrest Soth and Cathy Stanton. Also present were: City Attorney Mark Pilliod,
Human Resources Director Sandra Miller, Finance Director Patrick O’Claire,
Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Engineering Director Tom Ramisch,
Economic Development Manager Janet Young, Police Chief Dave Bishop, Library
Director Ed House, Development Services Manager Steve Sparks, Associate
Planner Scott Whyte, Traffic Engineer Randy Wooley, Project Engineer Jim
Duggan, City Recorder Sue Nelson, Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen,
Support Specialist III Debbie Baidenmann.
CITIZEN COMMUNICATION:
Betty Bolz said that she appreciated the Saturday meeting with Police
Department. She said it was a good opportunity to talk with the Police and
receive information.
Francine Kaufman asked about the commuter rail project in Beaverton. Mayor
Drake said she could contact Margaret Middleton or Tom Ramisch for
information. Kaufman suggested combining City publications (City newsletter
and police newsletter) to save on mailing costs and stated she wanted to receive
the Council minutes. Mayor Drake explained that the minutes are posted on the
City’s Web site or she could contact the Neighborhood Office at City Hall to get on
the mailing list. Kaufman asked if the Police Department had a citizen review
board and, if not, how one could be established. Mayor Drake explained that the
City has an internal review process headed by the Police Chief; there is no citizen
review board. Mayor Drake said that if she would write down her ideas, he would
be glad to discuss them with her.
Victor Gallegos said that he lived near the Shaughnessey Woods subdivision that
was being constructed by Polygon. He said the subcontractors were working
from 6:15 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. He said he contacted Code
Enforcement several times, he made calls to the Police non-emergency number
four times and he talked with the contractor, but the noise had continued. He said
he would like to see more control on this project.
Mayor Drake said he would have staff contact Mr. Gast about keeping the
contractor’s work hours compatible with the hours specified in the City Code.
COUNCIL ITEMS:
Coun. Soth said he attended the National League of Cities Steering Committee
where they discussed legislation to pre-empt bargaining for public safety unions.
He said this was an important issue as it would pre-empt local bargaining
authority and procedures.
Coun. Stanton thanked those who participated in the cleanup last weekend and
congratulated the Beaverton High School track team for its victory in the 4 x 400
relays at the State Meet in Eugene.
STAFF ITEMS:
There were none.
CONSENT AGENDA:
The Minutes for the Regular Meeting of April 8, 2002, were pulled from the
Consent Agenda (rescheduled to the June 17, 2002 agenda).
Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth, that the Consent Agenda be
approved as follows:
02169
A Resolution Certifying that the City of Beaverton Provides Certain Services
Necessary to be Eligible to Receive State Shared Revenues Under ORS 221.760.
(Res. No. 3666)
02170
Agreement with Bureau of Police, City of Portland, Oregon, for Access to the
Portland Police Data System (PPDS) for Fiscal Year 2002-03.
02171
Traffic Control Board Issues 480 through 483
02172
Authorize Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County
Cooperative Library Services Regarding the Provision of Telephone Reference
Service
02173
CUP 2001-0031 Beaverton High School Cafeteria and Parking Lot Conditional
Use Permit
02174
Boards and Commissions Appointment -- B. I. K. E. Task Force: Katherine
Iverson Reappointed to 12/31/04; Sharon Yee Appointed to 12/31/03.
02175
Bid Award – Henry Street Extension/Cedar Hills Boulevard, Phase 1 Utility
Improvements.
02176
Authorize Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreements with Washington County
Cooperative Library Services Regarding the Public Library Services Agreement
and the Washington County Inter-Library Information Network Agreement.
Contract Review Board:
02177
Exemption from Competitive Bids and Authorize a Sole Seller/Brand Name
Purchase of an R.S. Technical Services Incorporated, 1306 Color Mini Camera
System.
02178
Exemption from Competitive Solicitation: Purchase of a High-End Backup Server,
and Add Two Additional Vendors to the List of Primary Vendors for Computer
Units, Network Devices, Scanners, Printers, and Replacement Parts.
Question called on the motion. Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and
Stanton voting AYE, MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)
PUBLIC HEARING:
02179
APP 2002-0005, APP 2002-0006, and APP 2002-0007; Appeals of the Board of
Design Review Decision Concerning the Proposed Transportation and Support
Center at NW 167th Place (BDR 2001-0198) (Beaverton School District)
Mayor Drake opened the Public Hearing.
Mayor Drake said that Community Development Director Joe Grillo would read a
legal statement with regard to the hearing, followed by questions to be answered
by Council, at which time general ground rules would be provided prior to the
actual hearing.
Joe Grillo, Community Development Director, reviewed the appeals received on
this proposed project (in record) and stated that the applicant, Beaverton School
District, had extended the 120-day rule to June 18, 2002.
Grillo asked if any Councilor wished to hear the appeals separately.
The Councilors indicated they wished to hear the appeals separately.
Grillo reviewed the nature of the appeals (in the record) He read a prepared
statement defining the process that needed to be followed for this hearing,
including the various required disclosure statements (in record).
Grillo asked if there was anyone present who wanted to challenge the Mayor’s or
Councilors’ right to hear the matter that evening.
There were no challenges.
Grillo asked if there were any Councilors who wished to abstain due to
impartiality.
There were none.
Grillo asked if there were any Councilors who received ex parte contacts, the
nature of such contacts and if the contacts impaired the Councilor’s impartiality or
ability to vote on the matter.
Coun. Stanton stated that she had reviewed the process only with a number of
individuals at Saturday’s cleanup. She said she had visited the site.
Mayor Drake said that he visited the Yamamoto site, drove around the Stonegate
neighborhood, walked along the boardwalk and the school ball field to view the
Yamamoto site. He said he visited the current bus facility on Allen Boulevard, but
was not able to get in, although he viewed it from both sides. He said he had
general conversations regarding process with some citizens, Mr. Orchard and Dr.
Katz. He said he did not feel biased by these contacts.
Coun. Brzezinski said she visited the site and the bus facility on Allen Boulevard.
Coun. Soth said he visited the site and is familiar with the Allen Boulevard facility.
Coun. Ruby stated he had received comments in opposition to the bus barn on
his Council voice mail and did not return any calls. He received one call from Dr.
Katz in support of the bus barn. He said he drove around the area.
Coun. Doyle said he had the same phone calls and did not discuss this issue with
anyone. He said he was familiar with the site and the Allen Boulevard facility.
Grillo asked if there was anyone present who wished to challenge the Council’s
authority to hear the matter.
There were no challenges.
Mayor Drake explained that Council was acting as the City’s Design Review
Board in this de novo hearing. He emphasized that there had been a significant
amount of correspondence, all of which was a part of the record and that Council
did want to hear from the citizens. He asked that anyone who wished to repeat
comments made by a previous speaker simply express agreement with other
testimony.
Coun. Soth asked that everyone refrain from demonstrations and/or applause.
Steve Sparks, Development Services Manager, reviewed the Board of Design
Review’s decision to conditionally approve BDR 2001-0198, the Proposed Bus
Transportation and Support Center. He described the proposed parking, grading,
storm water swales, detention ponds, fencing, and landscaping improvements,
which were reviewed by the Board. He said that the Board had not reviewed the
interior remodeling or the use of the site. He noted that this was a permitted use
and not subject to a conditional use discussion at the Planning Commission level.
Sparks said the Beaverton School District could actually operate the site at this
time without design review, he noted that the changes to the parking lot would
require design review prior to operation. He explained that the appeals from the
Five Oaks NAC and the Concerned Citizens of Beaverton challenged this use
determination. He said staff responded to this issue on Pages 6 and 7 of the staff
report. He noted that in addition to the staff report, staff prepared two
supplemental memoranda. He said the first memorandum (dated May 24, 2002,
from Engineering Director Tom Ramisch and Transportation Engineer Randy
Wooley) recommended that if Council approved this project, a condition be added
that if the School District changed its operation or use of the site, it would be
required to do a new transportation analysis. He said that the Transportation
Division prepared a revised set of conditions, in addition to the nine conditions
imposed by the Facilities Review Committee. He said the second memorandum
(dated May 30, 2002, from Sparks) dealt with the performance standards issue
specific to odor on this site.
Sparks explained that there was a condition of approval requiring that the odor be
monitored. He said that since then staff did a great deal of research to find the
intent of adopting these standards; no clear legislative intent was found and there
was no record of performance standards in previous industrial proposals. He
noted that staff has made recommendations on how to proceed with the appeals
in the May 13, 2002 staff report. He referred to his memorandum regarding odor
dated May 30, 2002, recommending that with regard to the School District’s
appeal (APP 2002-0005), if the Council concurred that performance standards as
stated in Section 20.15.80 of the Development Code were not approval criteria,
and that the movement of licensed vehicles to and from a property did not
constitute a land use, the appeal could be partially granted by removing the
condition for monitoring. He said if the Council did not concur with those
conclusions, then the appeal should be denied and the condition for monitoring
should remain. He recommended that staff be directed to initiate a text
amendment application to prepare clear and objective performance standards for
Industrial and Station Community Employment Zoning Districts where these
performance standards apply.
Coun. Soth confirmed that odor was a performance standard not an approval
criteria.
Coun. Brzezinski noted on that on Page 9 of record, first paragraph, there was a
distinction between a vehicle storage yard, which was a conditional use, and a
storage yard/transit storage which was allowed outright. She stated that this
proposed use was clearly not a vehicle storage yard because it was not for the
storage of inoperable or towed vehicles. She quoted from Page 5 of Spark’s May
30, 2002, memorandum, “The movement of licensed vehicles of any type was not
a primary or accessory use of land.” She thought that the movement of vehicles
was what kept it from being a vehicle storage yard.
Sparks compared this to the City Hall parking lot and explained that the act of
storing the buses on the site was the use of land; moving a vehicle to and from
the site was not the use of the land.
Coun. Brzezinski said she did not feel this was exactly comparable to a parking
lot, adding that the allowed use was based upon the fact that the vehicles are not
simply sitting there.
Sparks reiterated that the act of bringing a vehicle onto the land, such as a tow
truck bringing in a vehicle, was not a use.
Coun. Stanton said that the City Hall parking lot on the south side was not a
storage facility; this land had a purpose for the City of Beaverton. She said that
letting something sit overnight was not storage. She said she saw the School
District’s position as an embarking point. She stated that the impact was not to
the site, but to everything around the site.
Coun. Soth asked if there was a difference between this use and an automobile
storage lot where vehicles were moved around all the time. He said that there
were buses stored on the Allen Boulevard facility all the time; not all the buses
were moved everyday. He asked Sparks if that was a storage use.
Sparks said he could not address the operation characteristics of the various bus
facilities within the City and noted that the use characterization in the staff report
was an abbreviation of the entire use. He explained that the permitted use would
allow vehicle storage such as the pooling of vehicles for an auto dealer or rental
fleet.
Coun. Ruby stated that he felt this was an issue about the definition in the
Development Code of vehicle storage yard. He noted that on Page 51 of the staff
report there was a good discussion of that issue, including the City Attorney’s
interpretation that the purpose for vehicle storage yards was for the storage of
inoperable vehicles, for example, towing yards. He said that he did not think he
was in the position to challenge the City Attorney’s interpretation of the definition.
Coun. Ruby asked about the odor monitoring issue, specifically the alternative to
requiring the compliance stations imposed upon the District by the Board of
Design Review. He read from a May 30, 2002, memorandum from Mr. Orchard
and Mr.Krawczuk, School District representatives, as follows: “In order to insure
compliance with the odor performance standard, the City could then impose a
condition of approval that would require the School District to respond to any
documented odor complaints. The condition could elaborate on what a
documented complaint entailed. In the Miller case the complaints needed to be
written and signed.” He asked Sparks if this was what he was suggesting as an
alternative to the compliance stations for monitoring odor control. He also
suggested that it would be helpful to have this as a condition of approval rather
than a generalized Code compliance issue.
Sparks confirmed that that was what he was suggesting. He said that because
this issue was important, he felt that establishing conditions that dealt with
performance standards was a viable alternative. He said the Facilities Review
Committee attempted to establish the standards for odor and could continue to do
so. He said this was an option the Council could pursue.
APPLICANT AND FIRST APPELLANT: BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
Jack Orchard, Beaverton School District, clarified that the following people would
be speaking for the District during the initial presentation: Jack Orchard, attorney;
Michael Maloney, Facilities Administrator; Michael Minor, Michael Minor &
Associates; and Randy McCourt, DKS Associates. He noted there were other
people present as expert resources if needed.
Orchard addressed the odor monitoring issue. He stated that the District had no
problem with having its activities monitored. He said the District was objecting
because there were no performance standards on what was to be monitored, and
there was no guidance in the Code or in the City’s legislative history to determine
what this was about. He stated that this standard had never been applied to any
other industrial development in the City, except for the Miller Sanitary case. He
said it had never been administered or enforced as the opponents contend it
should be enforced. He said that if it were enforced as the neighbors were
requesting, it would shut down any industrial operation in the City that was
dependent on moving vehicles in or out, whether personal or delivery vehicles.
He stressed that it was a performance standard that would not apply to vehicular
movements. He handed out information about the Miller Sanitary case; he noted
that Conditions 12 and 23 indicated how the odor monitoring issue was handled.
Maloney stated that the District was growing by 1000 students per year and
student transportation was mandated. He noted that the maintenance/transit
storage yard was a permitted use in the Light Industrial Zone and that the supply
of industrial land in the Metro region was about 20% of the demand; industrial land
was a rare commodity in Beaverton. He explained how maintaining the UGB had
affected the amount of land available and created a need to accommodate all
competing and compatible uses within the UGB. He stated that when the site
opened it would have 120-196 buses; these buses would serve the northern part
of the District. He explained that the School Board’s direction was to be as
attentive as possible to the neighbors’ concerns and to be as low impact as
possible. He stated they would be getting new buses and retrofitting buses to
clean exhaust levels. He said they had the largest transit center in Washington
County with more riders than Tri-Met. He noted that the Tri-Met Merlo Station was
an LI Zone and that if transit storage and maintenance were not permitted in the LI
Zone, then that had implications for the Merlo Station garage.
Maloney explained that the District was appealing two matters. The first was the
fence; the District questioned if the Board’s decision was what was written in the
order. He showed the District’s proposed fencing plan, stating that they intended
to screen all of the bus use from the residential areas to the south with the wall
and would have a chain link fence along the roads to allow motorists, law
enforcement and security personnel to view the site for security during non-
operational hours. He said that in the order the wall was longer than they
understood it to be, which created a lot of added expense for unnecessary
screening. He said that the second matter appealed was air quality.
Maloney thought their consultants demonstrated that they were in compliance
with all applicable standards. He said they agree with staff that the odor standard
was not an approval criterion. He said they intended to operate as cleanly as
possible, that they met all applicable standards for air quality and odor, and they
felt on-going monitoring was a superfluous expense. He said they would accept
the additional condition of approval on traffic and noted that the District suggested
many of the conditions being recommended which exceeded Code requirements.
Randy McCourt, DKS Associates, a transportation engineer, said that DKS
conducted the transportation analysis for the District. He reviewed the traffic data
collected and said that they evaluated several issues, impacts and historic traffic
information. He stated that the project met accepted traffic standards from the
City, County, and ODOT Codes. He said that they found that level of service
standards would not be met and that mitigation would be needed. They
developed a seven-point action plan that became the conditions of development in
this application. He said that each of the improvements were reviewed by ODOT,
the County, the City, and the District and were acceptable. He said these
improvements included adding traffic lanes on Bethany, retiming the signals, and
striping an additional lane on Cornell and 158th Avenue that would allow two
through lanes and two turn lanes. He distributed a handout that illustrated the
improved performance that would be achieved with these revisions and
mitigation.
Michael Minor, Michael Minor and Associates, Task Manager for the air and noise
analysis, stated that he performed the noise level analysis and determined that
there was no impact. He said a specialist performed the air quality analysis and
determined there were no significant air quality problems. He said because they
received several comments, they reanalyzed the air quality for odor and PM2.5
and revised the analysis. He said the revised analysis was submitted to DEQ for
review and analysis, and it was approved. He said the analysis was given to the
community members. He said that the Board of Design Review responded with
an odor monitoring condition. He said it came to his attention on Friday that the
Neighborhood Association did some remodeling and concluded that the analysis
was 80,000% off in the results. He said he questioned those results because it
would have meant that an 80,000% error was missed by DEQ, Hart Crowser,
Minor and his consultant. He sent copies of the information to his air quality
specialist, Carl Bloom, and to Martha Moore of TW Environmental for their review.
He said both Bloom and Moore concluded that there were liberties taken in
running the models that were not appropriate.
Minor said that DEQ, Bloom and Moore concluded that the analysis performed by
Minor was performed correctly and accurately.
Coun. Soth noted that the main concern was the site. He confirmed that 1,610
trips meant 805 round trips. He noted that in the record there was a letter from
another consultant disputing the traffic analysis conclusions. He asked if this was
a case of two equally qualified representatives using the same material and
coming to different conclusions.
McCourt said he did not believe so, adding that they had specific information
provided for this site with regard to how the School District operated. He said
they had specific data from the Allen site and they were very comfortable with
their numbers and findings. He said these findings were confirmed independently
by the County and the City.
Coun. Soth noted a letter was received questioning Minor’s qualifications in the
area of air quality analysis and asked Minor to respond.
Minor stated Carl Bloom performed the air quality and noise level analysis. He
said Bloom had 15 years experience in that field.
Sparks noted that Bloom’s resume was on Page 369 of the staff report.
Coun. Brzezinski noted that there had been concern with regard to buses leaving
the site prior to rush hour and idling in neighborhoods. She asked if it was still the
School District’s policy that this was unacceptable.
Maloney stated that it was District’s policy that buses cannot be idled more than
two minutes or during loading. He said a call to the District office with regard to
drivers who were not complying would get quick results.
Coun. Brzezinski said she used to live in that area and it was predicted that 158th
was going to be one of the busiest streets in the city because of surrounding
development. She asked if this was still true and if the traffic engineer took this
into account when level of service drops.
McCourt explained that several improvements were planned in the area that
would affect the 158th Avenue intersection, including the additional westbound
lane on Cornell Road and the additional northbound lane on Bethany Lane. He
emphasized that the most important improvement involved the 173rd/174th
Avenue connection under Highway 26 which would allow crossing Highway 26
traffic without having to go through an interchange area. He said it would allow
traffic to spread out instead of being concentrated on 158th Avenue. He said that
there would be additional traffic but the Transportation Plan had some significant
improvements that would spread the traffic from 158th Avenue to other arterials.
Mark Pilliod, City Attorney, asked McCourt how he responded to criticism of the
assumption that one bus equals two standard vehicles.
McCourt explained that the Beaverton Code required that the Highway Capacity
Manual be the basis of methodology when looking at level of service performance
standards. He said that the Manual standards were based on extensive research
done by the Transportation Research Board over the last 30-40 years and the
“two for one” standard was from the Manual. He said that Washington County
applied the same standards. He noted that this standard was the average of all
bus operation.
Maloney commented that about one third of the buses would be the smaller
Special Education buses.
Coun. Stanton asked if the smaller buses would be going out during the morning
peak hours.
Maloney responded that during any given set of movements of the buses from
this site, approximately one third of the buses would be the smaller ones that
currently go out of the 5th Street facility.
Coun. Stanton asked the results of the Corvallis case on air quality and noise
impacts for a proposed recycling center.
Carl Bloom, Environalysis, Seattle, Washington, an air quality specialist, said that
case involved the City of Tukwila, Washington, and because they did not have
adequate funding, the City decided not to fund the expansion of the recycling
center.
Mayor Drake referred to the handout distributed by McCourt on pre and post
mitigation service levels at the intersections. He observed that three intersections
had not changed, two got worse and two got better.
McCourt explained that the handout summarized the information in the report and
showed the difference with and without mitigation. He noted that on Cornell and
158th Avenue the volume capacity ratio ended up at .91 with the approved projects
and the Bethany and Cornell intersection went to Level Service D with the
approved projects in that area. He said that the net effect was that the level of
service ended up at D at Bethany and Cornell regardless of this project. He said
that 158th Avenue and Cornell was at the margin.
Mayor Drake asked Maloney what landscaping the Board of Design Review
required.
Maloney explained there would be additional trees on both sides of 167th Avenue
and along the south side of the property outside of the fence.
Mayor Drake questioned whether the applicant had considered the view that
would be seen by the neighbors, specifically how effective the proposed
vegetation would be with regard to mitigating the view of the buses and what type
of final grade contour would be on the northern piece of the property.
Maloney replied that looking at the site from the west, the view would primarily
involve the vehicle parking lot and the building, and that the street trees,
landscaping, and fencing around the bus storage would screen the view from the
west. He said that the eight-foot wall would obscure the view from the south.
Mayor Drake questioned the short-term and long-term visual impact of this
proposal.
Gary Alfson, Harper Houf & Righellis, engineer for the applicant, said that in
addition to the fencing and landscaping, the grading was being lowered in some
areas and filled in others.
Afson said the site would be leveled out and overall there would not be a big
change. He said that no revisions were planned on the Five Oaks side of 167th
Avenue because there was a substantial grove of oak trees.
Mayor Drake referred to the