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.
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 OClaire,
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.
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
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
Citys 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
contractors work hours compatible with the hours specified in the City Code.
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.
There were none.
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:
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)
Agreement with Bureau of Police, City of Portland, Oregon, for Access to the
Portland Police Data System (PPDS) for Fiscal Year 2002-03.
Traffic Control Board Issues 480 through 483
Authorize Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County
Cooperative Library Services Regarding the Provision of Telephone Reference
CUP 2001-0031 Beaverton High School Cafeteria and Parking Lot Conditional
Boards and Commissions Appointment -- B. I. K. E. Task Force: Katherine
Iverson Reappointed to 12/31/04; Sharon Yee Appointed to 12/31/03.
Bid Award Henry Street Extension/Cedar Hills Boulevard, Phase 1 Utility
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:
Exemption from Competitive Bids and Authorize a Sole Seller/Brand Name
Purchase of an R.S. Technical Services Incorporated, 1306 Color Mini Camera
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)
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
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 Mayors 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
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 Councilors impartiality or
ability to vote on the matter.
Coun. Stanton stated that she had reviewed the process only with a number of
individuals at Saturdays 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 Councils
authority to hear the matter.
There were no challenges.
Mayor Drake explained that Council was acting as the Citys 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
Coun. Soth asked that everyone refrain from demonstrations and/or applause.
Steve Sparks, Development Services Manager, reviewed the Board of Design
Reviews 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 Districts
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
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 Sparks 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
Districts 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
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 Attorneys
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 Attorneys 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 Citys 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 Boards 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 Boards decision was what was written in the
order. He showed the Districts 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
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 Minors 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 Blooms 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 Districts policy that this was unacceptable.
Maloney stated that it was Districts 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
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
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
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
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
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 aerial photo on page 357 of the staff report and noted
that the visibility into the property was not screened. He pointed out that his view
from the southwest side of the Five Oaks property, coming across the bridge,
caused him to be concerned with the homes located on Weybridge Way. He said
he did not get a lot of comfort from the plan.
Alfson assured Mayor Drake that the applicant was planning to plant similar oak
trees along the drive to assist in the screening of that area. He pointed out that
due to the existing water quality facility and the wetlands there was not a lot of
room to plant trees. He said a few trees might be planted along the creek.
Mayor Drake stated that he did not believe that what was there was adequate to
buffer the buses. He also said he was not certain that what the Board of Design
Review required on the west side of the parking lot was adequate.
Alfson advised that this area of the parking lot was a little higher than existing
ground and that the applicant intended to install screening on the top of the berm
at the level of the parking lot.
PROPONENTS FOR APPLICANT (BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT)
John Leeper, Portland, spoke in support of School Districts application. He said
he had been involved in land use in Washington County since the early 1990s, he
was Chair of CPO 1 and served on the Washington County Planning
Commission. He said that he felt that the States land use planning system was a
very good system, but it did require that people be willing to accommodate
different uses and accept the fact that there was a dearth of land within the UGB.
He said that the District was fortunate to have found a site for this facility and that
this location would be an economic measure that would pay off for all concerned
in the long-term. He noted that we all were citizens of one community and
everyone needed to accept their share of the types of facilities that would be
needed to support a livable community.
Coun. Stanton asked Leeper his opinion on the funding and actual construction of
the Capital Improvement Program that would create seven lanes on Cornell
Leeper said he thought that the chances of this happening in the next 20-25 years
were slim to none. He said that there might be a possibility of Cornell going to
four or five lanes, but there were many other significant needs in the County.
Patrick Wheeler, Beaverton, said that he supported the Districts Transportation
Center. He stated he was concerned because the City had zoning codes and
regulations, which were derived from a massive amount of public input. He noted
that businesses made investments based on these codes and when the codes
changed suddenly, it sent the wrong message. He felt that in this recession that
the City needed to adhere to the regulations to promote the economy and develop
employment. He said that this next year the District would take a $14 million
budget cut and putting in this center would save $600,000 that could go back into
the classroom. He asked that the application be approved and that the Council
support the Zoning Code.
Mayor Drake called for a recess at 8:55 p.m.
Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
SECOND APPELLANT: FIVE OAKS/TRIPLE CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE (NAC)
David Kamin, Chair Five Oaks/Triple Creek NAC, said that the NAC was primarily
concerned about the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, emphasizing that
these issues basically involved livability. He said there was concern about the
lack of professional endorsements for this project from any medical or health
organization. He noted that there were several letters in the Council packet from
health organizations and medical professionals speaking about the dangers of
this project. He stated that Willow Creek and Schotsky Woods were the pride
and joy of these neighborhoods. He said that they did not want the people,
woods, and the animals threatened by the pollution that would come from this
project. He said that the potential for traffic impact was greater than what was
predicted by the model, which was demonstrated by a bus test. He said that on
April 29, 2002, at 5:01 p.m., on a clear day, with dry pavement, with no special
events at any of the local businesses, the bus consultant who was in charge of
the test deemed the intersections of Cornell and Bethany too hazardous to
continue and cancelled the bus test. He said that every intersection failed to the
level of service F. He said they only used 30 buses on the test, coming and going
randomly; that would be one-third of the number that the District had planned.
Kamin reported that another safety concern was the Districts plan to use a
mobile tanker to refuel the parked buses. He said 60 buses would be parked
under high power electric lines and that Portland General Electric had not given
the District permission to refuel under those lines. He said there was no
circulation plan in the Districts application that demonstrated how the buses
would be refueled safely. He said that if the Council approved the project, the
NAC suggested that as a condition of approval that the District be required to
construct an enclosed fuel/wash facility. He said that a state-of-the-art facility
would minimize noise and ensure that diesel and other pollutants would not
accidentally spill and wash into Willow Creek.
Kamin referred to the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that control
this subdivision, noting that the School Districts property involved two parcels and
was subject to two sets of CC&Rs. He said that the voting power of each
property was based upon the number of acres owned, he advised that the
property in Parcel 2 owned by the School District equaled less than 20% of the
area. He referred to Page 2 of the CC&Rs of the Doubletree Park Subdivision,
Section 6.2 that clearly stated that a simple majority (by acreage) could amend
the CC&Rs with regard to the use of the fire lane. He said that the District was
not in control of this private road and that the District was at the mercy of the
other owners who would control how this road was used. He said that the
purpose of the CC&Rs was to maintain this area as a first-class business area
for the mutual benefit of all the property owners. He said that having a bus
service and maintenance facility in this area would create an antagonistic
relationship between the School District and the other eight property owners.
Rachel Nettleton, Beaverton, NAC member, read a prepared statement dated
June 3, 2002 (in the record), that asked the Council to deny the Districts request
to place the bus facility on this site. She said she was concerned with keeping
livability standards high while providing needed services to residents. She said
that an overwhelming majority of the NAC members were opposed to this project
because of their concerns about air and water quality, traffic, services and
development. She emphasized that the District had failed to meet the Citys odor
regulations and requested that the application be denied.
Coun. Soth explained that it had never been the Citys policy to enforce CC&Rs
specific to any development.
Kamin said he was aware of that, but his point was to make it clear that the
School District could not control that road. He said he was concerned as a
taxpayer that the District would be building something it may not be able to use.
Coun. Soth reiterated that this issue was between the School District and the
other property owners. On the refueling issue, Soth explained that State and
Federal regulations require automatic shut-off nozzles as well as vapor recovery
units on refueling equipment. He said that the vapors were funneled back into the
tank and not released into the air. He said that most refueling vehicles were
required to use that same type of equipment.
Coun. Brzezinski explained that surveys consistently show that the citizens of
Beaverton supported retaining the present boundaries of the UGB and supported
increased density and increased mixed-use area, to prevent spreading into the
farm and forestland that surrounded the community. She pointed out that there
was little disagreement that land was available that would support such a facility,
and expressed her concern about how to provide necessary and required
services while retaining the UGB.
Kamin said he had never reviewed any document that indicated that this facility
must be located within the City limits. He noted that Maloney stated that this
facility would serve the homes that were constructed over the last ten years north
of the freeway.
Kamin noted that these homes were not in the City limits and they had Portland
addresses. He said the School District was extending its boundaries too far and
was not adequately planning its facilities. He said that as a result this facility
would be going into an established neighborhood.
Coun. Brzezinski advised Kamin that the area north of the Sunset Highway was
within the Urban Planning Area and, when annexed, it would come into the City of
Beaverton. She explained that the City limits and the School District boundaries
were two separate jurisdictions; the District boundaries extended beyond the City
Kamin said that his point was the District was not doing adequate job with
planning a facility. He said he received notices every week about expansions in
their NAC for two elementary schools that would double in size to 1,000+
students. He said this did not sit well with the people in the neighborhood and
was directly a result of a lack of planning. He said that the District had the
opportunity to plan and purchase property and it failed to do so.
Coun. Brzezinski said she served on the School Districts Long-Range Facility
Planning Committee when this issue was discussed and the bond measure was
passed for the purchase of land. She explained that the difference for the cost of
land was much higher than they predicted.
Kamin pointed out that long-range planning involves predictions.
Mayor Drake stated that while he agreed with Kamin regarding adequate funding,
it was necessary to address only the design review application.
Coun. Brzezinski observed that she was having a dilemma with attempting to
reconcile two incompatible issues, specifically locating the facility elsewhere while
retaining the UGB.
Kamin said that the Concerned Citizens of Beaverton (CCB) had suggested
several alternatives. He said other people would cover that in their testimony.
Mayor Drake noted that Mr. Oien, the Concerned Citizens of Beaverton and Opus
would now be allotted 15 minutes to address their issues.
THIRD APPELLANT: DR. HAL OIEN, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF
BEAVERTON (CCB) AND WILL DENECKE/OPUS NORTHWEST
Ed Sullivan, Preston Gates & Ellis, attorney representing Oien, CCB and OPUS,
stated that he would address the use issue as it related to legal and code issues,
and that this issue involved the legality of whether this use was permitted. He
noted that the applicant had indicated that this use was a transit storage use, and
referred to Item 12, which listed the permitted uses within the LI zoning district.
Sullivan clarified that this outright permitted use actually designated a storage or
sale yard for contractors equipment, house moving, delivery vehicles, transit
storage, trucking terminal and use equipment in inoperable condition, and did not
include the proposed use. He stated that the proposed use was a vehicle
storage use, which involved the storage of automobiles and other equipment in
connection with the processing and fabrication. He stated that he was aware of
the 1983 code amendments to accommodate what was at that time a vehicle
storage yard and emphasized that this did not overcome the words of the
ordinance itself. He stressed that this proposed use involved a vehicle storage
yard in which school buses were stored and that this was the only freestanding
similar use that was consistent with the use proposed by this applicant. He
stated that this use did not involve transit storage either by Tri-Met or for
Sullivan emphasized that this use provided for the storage of vehicles, which was
a conditional use and subject to the notice and hearing provisions relating to
conditional uses. He said he was aware that the Planning Director had the
authority to authorize a similar use determination under Section 40.40 of the
Development Code, he pointed out that this had not been requested and that the
issue involved whether the use was allowed. He stated that the primary use was
the storage of these buses, unlike City Hall, where the primary use was a public
center and parking was incidental.
Sullivan discussed the issue of odor, stating that however the use may be allowed
in the LI Zoning District, it was subject to the standards of this district. He
stressed that this was not a performance standard and that the Development
Code referred to this as other requirements, one of which related to odor. He
read from the Code that The emission of odorous gases or matter to be readily
detectible at any point beyond the property line was prohibited. He expressed his
opinion that this section presents a direct conflict beyond what had been
suggested to the City by the applicant and the planning staff. He noted that after
several inadequate reports from the applicant, an attempt was made to come to
grips with the standard by both the Facilities Review Committee and the Board of
Design Review, and then a reversal of staffs position occurred on Friday, May 31,
2002. He explained that this reversal had, in essence, suggested forgetting all
that had occurred previously, and that the code section was meaningless and
only slightly different from the applicants view that this section was invalid
because it was not clear and objective.
Sullivan emphasized that this was not a standard for this proceeding, and noted
that in support of its views, staff had stated that it was inconsistent with the intent.
He added that neither practice, in staff reports or in enforcement, would overcome
the clear words and that the Planning Advisory Study had not focused on these
words. He suggested that the standard was not unconstitutionally vague or
unenforceable, but could, with proper application and enforcement, alleviate most
of the air quality concerns.
Sullivan pointed out that both the Facilities Review Committee and the Board of
Design Review attempted to apply this standard and that the City Council should
also attempt to apply the standard. He expressed his opinion that the School
District was probably unable to meet these standards with all of the buses and
history of operations at the Allen Boulevard facility. He emphasized that this
standard could not be ignored or turned into a double-jointed interpretation. He
noted that a third set of standards related to transportation and that he had
provided a set of technical standards from the Development Code that required a
determination on the sufficiency of transportation facilities, which would be
addressed by Mr. Denecke and Mr. Wood, along with the design standards.
Sullivan observed that Opus had obtained an independent study, which had been
presented to both staff and the Board of Design Review, and that it was equally
applicable to the current proposal, as well as consistent with Council Goals 3
through 6, as stated on the wall of the Council Chambers. Referring to the issue
of the enclosed building and site-obscuring fence, he quoted from Development
Code Section 20.15.11.B.1, all business, service, repair, processing, storage or
merchandise display shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building unless
screened by a site-obscuring fence or wall. He stressed that there was no
interpretive discretion in this section that the standard had to be applied; either
storage must be within an enclosed building or it must be screened by a site
obscuring, not chain link, fence or wall. He noted that this applied to any use in
this zone and that the applicant had not requested a variance from this provision.
He requested that the application either be denied or conditioned to meet the
Robert Gantenbien, Portland, stated that he was a registered professional
engineer in four states, that he had a specialty registration in the State of Oregon
as an environmental engineer and was also a diplomat with the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers in Air Pollution Control. Observing that he
represented the CCB, he submitted a report with regard to Michael Minors report.
He noted that while there had been a highly significant increase to the
contaminant concentrations listed in Table 3, no explanation was provided about
that increase. He stated that the general review portion reports that both the bus
lot and an employee lot were included in the project, although the modeling results
do not specify any non-bus related emissions. He said only the bus emissions
had been monitored, he pointed out that another parking lot, as well as what
already exists in the atmosphere, had not been included.
Gantenbien pointed out that while the air pollution intersection model had been
used, the report indicated that the worse case scenario involves idling vehicles
only and this was a non-consistency. Gantenbien mentioned that a local resident,
David James, had a great deal of experience with commute computer modeling
and that he had utilized the same model and input data provided by the applicants
consultant. He said that the results were not consistent and James showed that
idling concentrations were significantly greater than those indicated by the
applicant. He mentioned that no effort had been made to measure peak
concentration levels, which last approximately five to 15 seconds, noting that this
was connected to the issue of odor.
Gantenbien recommended prior to full acceptance of the proposal that a
competent professional air quality-engineering firm review the second report. He
added that this involved very complex issues and that the School District would
not be able to adequately address the odor issues.
Bruce Wood, Senior Director of Opus Northwest, discussed several local
projects he had been involved in, the most recent being the Cornell West Project
on 158th Avenue and Cornell Road. He said that his firm studied the traffic in this
area prior to making a $22 million investment and that he spent 18 months
reviewing the issues with Washington County. He noted that Opus Northwest
spent more than $300,000 in traffic mitigations at this site and that the studies
indicated this was a very complex issue involving many challenges. Noting that
approximately 80 individuals were currently employed at this location, he
mentioned that this number would eventually increase to 500.
Wood stated that this site had more than 1 million feet of vacant office space at
this time and that approximately 600,000 square feet of this space was within a
very short distance of the subject site. Pointing out that Cornell West was located
right on the border, he commented that although the development was currently
located within a non-annexed portion of Washington County, it was everyones
intention that this area would eventually be annexed into the City of Beaverton. He
said that he was not opposed to the proposed site for this bus barn but he was
trying to understand the traffic at that intersection. In conclusion, he suggested
that a condition be imposed providing that the applicant would address any
problems resulting from this proposal. He emphasized that the School District
should be required to address any issues with the same expectations as any
Coun. Soth referred to the Cornell West Project and asked Wood how far from
the actual development he was required to provide improvements to the street.
Wood stated that it had been necessary to address every intersection impacted
by the project and that this involved improvements on Cornell Road to the other
side of Marie Calendars, as well as adding a right hand turn lane onto Bethany
Road and a great deal of work on the traffic signals. He pointed out that his firm
had recently spent $20,000 installing signal-timing improvements in that area and
that he was not certain that further improvements were necessary. He
announced that within the next few days, a company intended to make a decision
with regard to locating 240 new jobs either at Cornell West, at the PS Business
Parks, or across the street at Gray Oak, and that they would be moving into their
new location by September 1, 2002.
Coun. Stanton questioned whether Wood had submitted the Traffic Report that he
had referenced to the City and was informed that this report had been submitted
at the Facilities Review Meeting in February, 2002.
David James, Beaverton, stated that the School District appealed the odor
standards because it knew that their proposed project would never comply with
those standards. He said that the air quality report for this proposal was flawed
and that he had supplied a list of the major errors within this report.
James said that he had a four-year degree in electronics and 22 years of
experience utilizing computer simulation models. He said that he reviewed and
understood every word of the air quality study prepared by Michael Minor and that
he obtained all of the EPA models utilized in this report, as well as the user
manuals and models. He explained that his own testing revealed significantly
greater levels of pollution than indicated in the report. He noted that the report did
not contain any of the input data used for the tests, despite many requests to
Michael Minor and the Beaverton School District for the information. He stated
that he only received the data with regard to four tests and that this was far less
than the number of tests that should have been performed. He emphasized that
none of these four tests involved idling buses. He explained that the greatest
amount of pollution was created when a cold engine was started. He added that
although neither of these conditions was considered in this report, every trip from
this site would begin with starting a cold engine. He said that the only chart in the
report showed pollution levels 100 feet from where the buses were parked. He
felt the report should study the pollution levels on the site with the furthest
distance being the property line, which was 26 feet from the buses. He said that
the report claimed to be a worst-case analysis, but that in many cases the best
possible conditions were selected. He emphasized that with a best-case
analysis, it was always possible to make certain that the lowest pollution levels
would be reported.
James formally requested that Michael Minor and the Beaverton School District
take necessary action to remove this report from the public record, and also
requested that a new report be prepared by an independent, licensed and
qualified air quality expert, and that the new report fully address pollution and odor
issues through a true worst-case analysis. He emphasized that the School
District had not demonstrated that odor would not be a problem and asked that
pollution be included with the approval criteria. He stated that if this pollution
factory were built, it would have to meet applicable standards. He said that he
would be present on the first day the buses parked on that site, and that as soon
as he detected an odor, he would file a pollution violation report. He added that he
intends to file such a report every day until the facility was closed down. He
asked that the Council vote against this development.
Bob Lampkin, Beaverton, stated that he was a concerned citizen and a
concerned grandparent of students in the Beaverton School District who ride the
Districts buses. He reviewed the bus test that was performed on April 29, 2002,
at the intersection of NW Bethany Court and NW Cornell Road. He said that the
test was done to determine the ability of this roadway to handle the volume of
buses projected in this proposal.
Lampkin said that this intersection would be required to handle 560 bus trips daily,
he pointed out that this number would increase significantly when the school
converts to split shifts. He explained that only 30 buses were used in the test and
no vehicles were included, although the District would have 262 cars making an
additional 800 trips per day. He said provisions were made to eliminate bias in
their test and data. He explained that the test findings were that all intersections
failed to a level of service F and failure was caused by gridlock. He said the test
was stopped in one hour by the professional staff administering the test because
it was too dangerous.
Coun. Soth commented that he was reminded of a situation that occurred 25
years ago, when Tri-Met experienced odor issues with regard to their fuel; they
injected a perfume into the tank with the fuels so that the emissions from the
buses were not as obnoxious.
James pointed out that because the odor would be readily detectable, this solution
would also fail the emissions test.
Coun. Stanton referred to Lampkins statement that the City had recently
increased the number of buses allowed in the p.m. rush hour traffic to 230 per
hour without the School District completing a new traffic report or paying
additional traffic impact fees. She said she was not certain what this meant and
asked if the Development Code had been revised with regard to how many buses
would be allowed in traffic.
Lampkin advised Coun. Stanton that this was a condition of development.
Coun. Doyle asked James if he had performed a similar study involving an
existing bus facility.
James said he had not.
Layne Rockford said that he lived in the Five Oaks/Triple Creek Neighborhood,
and that he was a member of the NAC and the CCB. He said he had two children
who attend El Monica and they would soon be attending Five Oaks. He referred
to the bus test performed on April 29, 2002, which he said illustrated the
immensity of the traffic that 197 school buses would have on the neighborhoods,
businesses, and children. He said that the news coverage of the test was
unsolicited and produced independently of any input by any individual or member
of their group. He showed the video to the Council and audience.
Coun. Stanton asked what time of day the test was performed.
Rockford replied that the test was performed from approximately 4:00 p.m. until
6:00 p.m. on April 29, 2002.
Nancy Ebel reviewed a traffic drawing of the intersection of NW Bethany Court
and the fire lane. She noted that although DKS Associates indicated that the
buses theoretically pass between the fire lane and NW Bethany Court, the school
buses must actually cross over the oncoming traffic lane and within a few feet of
the fire hydrant. She pointed out that the DKS drawing was flawed because it did
not show any parked cars on NW Bethany Court and it placed the bus in the
middle of the road. She emphasized that this was not an accurate real-life
scenario. She stated that the live bus test determined two areas of traffic conflict
and observed that conflict was the traffic consultants technical term that
indicated vehicle accidents. She stressed that this means life and death for the
children at the Oregon Gymnastic Academy and Indoor Goals. She discussed
the necessary additional parking for the businesses, saying that this issue was
either not considered or ignored by the Districts consultants.
Ebel described the first area of conflict at the west entry at NW Bethany Court.
She pointed out that the illustration depicts three school buses and one small
green car jammed together due to the fact that the bus traffic on NW Bethany
Court would have to be one-way in order to accommodate street parking. She
noted that buses could not pass each other if parking were allowed on the street.
She pointed out that the traffic moving on NW Bethany Court would not be
efficient and would lead to a level of service F at this intersection of NW Bethany
Court and NW Cornell Boulevard.
Ebel said that the second area of conflict occurred when two school buses tried
to pass one another in an area where cars were parked on both sides of NW
Bethany Court. She emphasized that this area was not wide enough for two
buses. She concluded that the road was not big enough to accommodate this
proposal, that this involved a fire lane rather than a legal street so there was no
striping on the roads, that the businesses needed the street parking because they
did not have enough parking on site, and that this project was a dead end for both
traffic and children.
Coun. Stanton requested clarification on whether the vehicles parked on NW
Bethany Court belonged to people from the appellants group who were parked
there in conjunction with the video presentation of the bus test.
Ebel and several people in the audience indicated that their vehicles were not
parked on the road and that it was the normal everyday parking.
John Hooson, CCB board member, said he was an environmental analysis and
facilities expert and gave a verbal summary of his written comments that he
submitted to the City (in record). His main concerns were: 1) The inadequacies
of the permit process, which he said were addressed; 2) The significant impacts
upon adjacent land uses, which he said were discussed; 3) Adequacy of
mitigation; and 4) Compliance with land use laws. He gave a slide presentation
that illustrated the flawed reasoning and the consequences of the decision with
regard to the proposed facility and the permitted use definition for a LI land use.
He mentioned that four major functions would occur at this site: 1) Maintenance
and repair; 2) Storage and parking; 3) Vehicle parking; and 4) Transportation. He
stated that the application does not address the transportation function, which
was where the impacts would occur. Referring to Development Code Section
40.15.05, Conditional Use, he explained that this section clearly defined the
functions and characteristics of the proposed bus storage and transportation
facility. He said this was important because the applicant was only required to
address the Citys permitted use codes; however, many significant individual or
cumulative impacts were not subject to permitted use codes but would be subject
to conditional use codes. He concluded that the video presentation clearly
illustrated the concerns of the CCB and asked that the City Council maintain the
environmental quality of the City of Beaverton and deny the application.
Priscilla Oien stated that her family resided in the Stonegate Neighborhood, that
her children attended Beaverton schools and that she was a former school
volunteer and registered nurse.
Oien spoke on how the School District maintained its current SW Allen Boulevard
facility and showed slides to illustrate her point. She referred to the numerous
fluid spills on the blacktopped surface of the Allen Boulevard bus facility,
expressing her opinion that this could be caused by the portable refueling truck
used to refuel the buses while they were parked. She stated that all of the oil and
fluids spilling onto the blacktop were currently illegally discharged into Fanno
Creek, adding that for the past ten years, the School District had knowingly
ignored the required DEQ storm water drainage permit for this site. She pointed
out that the site also included an illegal landfill that had been paved over and
utilized for bus storage. She showed a slide of a low point on the site that drained
into the swale on the west side of the property, emphasizing the existence of oily
sludge within the swale. She added that polluted water was only part of the
terrible legacy of the School District at this site and that air pollution is another
Oien pointed out that dead blackberry bushes were present where the swale
emptied into Fanno Creek on the Districts side of the property and noted that any
Oregonian was aware that it was not easy to kill a blackberry bush. She stated
that the School District had not corrected the pollution problems at the Allen
Boulevard facility and expressed her opinion that everyone in the City of
Beaverton was paying the price for this indifference. She pointed out that
because inadequate funding was available for maintenance, this would also
become an issue at the proposed transportation facility. She stated that as a
registered nurse and parent, she was appalled that the project was being
considered without an appropriate review by qualified health personnel. She
asked that the Council take appropriate action to protect the public and deny this
poorly designed and dangerous project.
Barbara Sem, Stonegate Neighborhood resident, stated that she had lived in
Beaverton for two years and that it was a beautiful city. She asked that the
Council help to maintain the beauty and presented slides showing problems with
garbage pollution at the School Districts Allen Boulevard facility. She showed a
slide of the new bus barns garbage facility from Willow Creek Nature Park and
pointed out that the land falls off from the garbage area directly into Willow
Creeks riparian and wetland area.
Sem showed slides of the School Districts Allen Boulevard bus barn and pointed
out that there was a great deal of garbage litter across the fields and into the
swale from Garbage Can No. 1 on the north end of the western property line. She
pointed out that Garbage Can No. 2 continued the pattern of litter into the swale,
and that Garbage Can Nos. 3 and 4 had more trash spilled.
Sem stated that this demonstrated the lack of consideration the administrator of
the bus yard had for this facility. She expressed her opinion that new and
improved facilities would not resolve the fact that no one was picking up the litter
that would eventually escape into Willow Creek Nature Park. She pointed out that
hundreds of cigarette butts litter the ground where the bus drivers park on the
Greenwood Inn property to enter the Allen Boulevard bus barn. She stated that
the Beaverton School District Transportation Department was not a good
neighbor; that they do not think their garbage needed to be picked up.
Sem asked that the Council carefully consider the term reasonable doubt and
not allow the District to move into and trash her neighborhood and Willow Creek.
She emphasized that it was necessary to protect the environment and maintain
the livability of the City by denying this project.
Doug Eden stated that he lived in the Five Oaks/Triple Creek Neighborhood, that
he was a small business owner, and he had two sons who would be attending the
Five Oaks Middle School. He reviewed alternatives that he felt were ignored by the
School District. He suggested that Tri-Met student bus passes would provide a
good solution to the problem, but said that the District refused to discuss this
option with Tri-Met. He said that the cost would be $16 per month, and that pupil
transportation reimbursement would cover 70% of the cost, for a net monthly cost
of $4.80 per student. He added that this would provide additional assistance to
working students and students of color and would eliminate the need for new bus
transportation facilities. The second alternative he suggested was to disperse the
bus fleet in a way that would reduce the miles driven and localize the pollution
impact; he noted that this would require a conditional use permit to place these
buses at schools and churches.
Eden explained the third alternative was that adequate room currently exists at the
Beaverton School District Administration Facility and parking lot. He noted that
this would provide adequate room to accommodate anticipated growth for several
years. He noted that this facility could also serve as a maintenance center,
located next to both Tri-Met and Clean Water Services (CWS), and that since this
building was already being remodeled, it could also serve as a bus barn. He
stated the final option was to hire vendors to perform some of the functions that
are currently done by the District, such as Tri-Met or Penske Truck, and added
that the District was not willing to discuss this alternative. He reiterated that the
Tri-Met student bus passes would provide a good option for the benefit of
Coun. Brzezinski stated that it was her understanding that the Tri-Met buses did
not actually cover the various neighborhoods as thoroughly as they did in the City
of Portland, where the student bus passes were utilized.
Eden said that that was not his understanding; that he understood this to be a
very viable option and a more cost-effective option for the School District.
Coun. Brzezinski stated that she worked for Portland Public Schools, and that
they recently reviewed data with regard to absenteeism of students who had the
student bus passes; she noted that the difference was not very significant.
Coun. Stanton stated that as a resident of South Beaverton, her child would be
forced to walk nine blocks to access a bus, as well as an additional five blocks
from the bus to the high school. She pointed out that State law mandates that
school districts were required to provide bussing for any distance greater than 1-
Eden stated that this option at least deserved consideration.
Coun. Stanton advised Eden that State law precluded this option, reiterating that
the school district must provide bus service for any distance greater than 1½
Eden expressed his opinion that this issue could be resolved.
Jay Hooson stated that he was a homeowner in the Blue Leaf/Waterhouse
Neighborhood, located just south of the proposed facility. He discussed the
proposed fence and illustrated on the map how the trees and brush would have to
be removed. He explained that the car lights and noise would not be adequately
blocked by the proposed fence and landscaping. He stated that there was an
amazing amount of information available and emphasized that any decision would
have an incredible impact. He said that he understood that the building was
already being worked on and stressed that this was a permanent decision that
should be considered carefully over time.
Mayor Drake reminded Hooson that the City of Beaverton must make this
decision within 120 days of submittal of the application and that the final order
must be mailed out no later than June 18, 2002. He pointed out that unless the
District was willing to waive that 120-day requirement, the City did not have the
luxury of additional time nor did it have the authority to compel an applicant to
waive this requirement.
Hoosen said that this issue was too important to make a decision at this time and
asked the District to consider waiving this requirement.
Dr. Hal Oien stated that his profession was the design and production of medical
products that were approved by the FDA, utilizing 510K protocols. He said that he
was involved with all types of different products that cause adverse reactions in
human beings. He stated he considered himself a specialist on these issues. He
provided a photograph taken March 3, 2002, at the Districts Allen Boulevard site,
which he identified as barrels of hazardous waste materials, which were stored
outside. He stated that these cans were stored illegally and that he had contacted
DEQ with regard to the anti-freeze mixture.
Oien said that this information was provided at the Board of Design Review
hearing on March 14, 2002, and that the barrels were still in the same location.
He thought the School District was not impressed with the DEQ regulation. He
stated that he was concerned that the District was not concerned with
environmental law or protecting the citizens.
Oien noted that the Districts original Air Pollution Report, which was not dated,
had indicated that there would be 0.2 micrograms per cubic meters of air pollution
at the playground boundary and that this was the report upon which the District
had based its decision. He explained that a request by the City of Beaverton for
another report had resulted in an estimated 4.0 micrograms per cubic meters,
emphasizing that this is a 2000% increase in the estimated pollution for this
project. He pointed out that he had been informed that several members of the
school board were not aware of this issue.
Oien said that in the NACs report, they used the same models but moved the
monitors closer to the property line and generated models that exceeded 160.0
microgramsthat is the 80,000% error referred to earlier. He stated that the
DEQs assumed safe level is only 1.0 microgram per cubic meter and
emphasized that the second report that was requested by the City would be
400% over the assumed safe level on the playground.
Coun. Doyle requested clarification of where the test was taken.
Oien advised that this test was conducted at the subject site on NW 167th Place
and NW Twin Oaks Drive, and added that the School Districts model was utilized
with the correct parameters. He confirmed it was a computer simulation test.
Jennifer Ann Hooson referred to the Councils Goal 5 displayed on the wall, To
assure a safe and healthy community. She said that as a mother and
grandmother, she had been concerned with health issues for a long time. She
stated that her children attended Five Oaks Middle School, but she was relieved
that they did not attend it now. She said that she had been a registered nurse for
38 years and that nine years ago she was diagnosed with a chronic and rare form
of leukemia that was environmentally caused. She pointed out that several of the
Councilors address the School District personnel on a first name basis, and she
was discouraged by the potential relationship between the City of Beaverton and
the School District. She referenced a letter that was submitted to the Board of
Design Review from Kirsten Jensen, the Asthma Policy and Programs
Coordinator with the American Lung Association of Oregon, which noted
concerns with this proposal because there had been no health assessment
report on the risk to the surrounding community from this facility.
Hooson emphasized that diesel exhaust had been implicated with regard to
increased lung cancer as well as other respiratory diseases, such as asthma,
which was the most prevalent childhood disease and the cause for more than ten
million school days missed on an annual basis. She explained that children with
asthma were at an increased risk of an asthma attack when exposed to idling
diesel exhaust fumes.
Hoosen stated that locating this facility near a school was frightening, particularly
since no health evaluation was conducted. She stated that as a health
professional, she found it absolutely essential that the school board sponsor a
health assessment for the community that would be most significantly affected by
this proposed facility. She noted that she had submitted two additional letters for
Mayor Drake assured Hooson that copies of the two additional letters were
submitted for consideration to the City Council.
Joann Eden stated that Pat Russell had provided her with a letter for submittal to
the public record, observing that this was a letter Mr. Russell had sent to Mr.
Grillo. She explained she was a member of the CCB and an active Board
Member Five Oaks/Triple Creek NAC. She stated she had spent many hours
working for the good of the neighborhoods and that she was recently honored to
be selected as Beavertons Good Neighbor of the Year.
Eden said that the proposed bus barn would have a severe impact on the
surrounding neighborhood, which was already heavily congested. She stated that
this proposal would decrease property value, eliminate some local business,
pose a threat to the health of the individuals who lived near the facility, cause
traffic gridlock, and threaten the beautiful Willow Creek area. She pointed out that
no one argued the need to provide transportation for the students in the School
District, but felt it was questionable that this proposal was the best option for
providing this transportation. She added that the District had neither considered
other alternatives nor analyzed the implications of what would occur if this facility
were approved. She expressed her opinion that the District had shirked its
responsibilities, misled and not informed the public, demonstrated apathy and a
lack of responsibility in considering other alternatives, and had single-mindedly
pursued this flawed project. She stated that there was a desperate need for the
City of Beaverton to address this situation in its entirety now and consider other
alternatives that had not yet been considered.
Coun. Soth referred to the alternatives and asked Eden if they had any specific
alternate sites to suggest.
Eden responded that the Committee reviewed other locations in Beaverton and
that a site was located north of the highway, west towards Cornelius Pass Road,
closer to Hillsboro.
Coun. Soth noted that it is necessary to locate this facility within the UGB and
within the School District boundary, emphasizing this was a legal requirement.
Eden responded that the NAC concentrated its proposed alternatives within the
parameters of disbursing the buses to satellite locations around the City using
parking lots from schools and churches.
Coun. Soth noted that this did not take care of the maintenance issue.
Dr. Karen Heichelheim stated that she was a pediatrician, had three children, and
that her main concern was for the children attending Five Oaks Middle School.
She said that the school had 900 students from pre-school to teens. She referred
to a letter signed by 42 physicians and 17 pediatric nurses in opposition to this
proposal due to health concerns for the children. She said the letter was signed
by pediatricians affiliated with virtually every pediatric practice in the Beaverton
area, including a pediatric allergist, a pediatric lung specialist, family practice
doctors and other specialists. She emphasized that the detrimental effects of
diesel exhaust on children were well documented in medical literature; that this
exhaust contains tiny carbon particles, and 40 additional chemicals, that were
classified as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. She stated that the
effects of diesel exhaust were more damaging to children than adults because
children have narrower airways and the particles stay in their lungs longer.
Heichelheim submitted a copy of an article documenting the information she
provided. She noted that research conducted by many well-known institutions,
such as the University of Washington and UCLA, showed that diesel exhaust had
the following adverse effects upon children: significant increase in symptoms
associated with asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia; decreased lung function; and
decreased lung growth. She stated that substances that dont ordinarily cause
allergies were up to 60% more allergy provoking when combined with diesel
exhaust, and short-term exposure caused an increased occurrence of asthma.
She noted that children living on busy streets or in close proximity to a freeway
had significantly increased respiratory symptoms and that the higher the
exposure to the diesel exhaust, the greater the frequency and severity of
symptoms. She pointed out that a study conducted at Yale University indicated
that idling buses, particularly those waiting in a line, produce greater
concentrations of carbon particles than moving buses. She emphasizing that
these were not acceptable health risks for the children of Beaverton and that
asthma and allergies were chronic, life-long illnesses that could handicap a child
forever. She urged the City Council to deny the application and relocate the
proposed bus barn to another location. She stressed that the healthy future of the
children depended upon this decision.
Coun. Soth asked Heichelheim if the studies she referred to differentiated
between four or five buses idling in front of a school while waiting to pick up
students and a storage facility located some distance away.
Heichelheim explained that she had omitted this information because it had been
addressed, but that idling buses, particularly in a queue line, produce the greatest
concentration of diesel exhaust. She pointed out that when buses lined up
outside of a school, the air quality was negatively affected both inside and outside
of the school. She stated that she also had concerns with the negative impact of
the increased traffic upon the small businesses in the area.
Norma Gregor said her home was close to the proposed bus barn site, that she
had two children at Five Oaks Middle School and that she was a former member
of the Five Oaks Middle School Site Council. She stated that she was opposed to
the location of this facility across the street from the schools play area and that
she wished to echo the concerns expressed by Dr. Heichelheim. She said that
she would not allow her child to play in the unhealthy environment that would be
created across from the bus barn and that she did not need numbers or tests to
know what is best for her child. She referred to Councils Goal 5, To assure a
safe and healthy community, and stressed that this care and concern was owed
to all of the students and staff who spend every day at Five Oaks Middle School.
She mentioned the issue of balancing the UBG with the needs of the community,
noting that although this was a difficult situation, it was necessary to determine
how much detriment we would allow to the children, specifically those 900
students attending this school.
Gregor urged the City Council to deny what she referred to as a very ill conceived
plan and added that if this project were completed, it would negatively impact the
school, the neighborhood and the value of her property. She pointed out that Five
Oaks Middle School had recently ceased the idling of buses in the parking lot
because the staff members who were on duty out there were being affected by
breathing the diesel exhaust fumes.
Jeff Gregor, Beaverton, stated his opinion that the movement of buses within the
site constituted a land use and that because this was actually a transit hub, the
movement of the buses was the land use. He noted that these standards existed
to ensure that the City of Beaverton was more livable and that the citizens of the
community depended upon the Council to protect the viability of the businesses in
the area and the property value of the homes. He emphasized that this was the
Councils responsibility and that it could shirk this responsibility because it had not
been necessary to apply this criteria in the past. He said that the pollution study
was seriously flawed and that common sense dictated that 200 buses located
next to a school and a nature preserve would not be able to meet applicable
criteria. He observed that this was more than an odor issue; it was a dangerous
pollutant that was hazardous to the health of 900 children who would be located
next to the proposed facility. He stated that because adequate land was not
available and it was a challenge to locate to another site, that did not mean that
the applicant had the right to make these children sick. He stressed that the
District had administrators and staff that were well compensated to resolve these
issues which could not be resolved at the expense of these children, businesses
and property owners.
Mayor Drake stated that he appreciated Mr. Gregors passion.
Christy Gregor was no longer present to testify; it was noted that she opposed the
proposal on the speakers card.
Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 10:56 p.m.
Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 11:04 p.m.
Lynn Altomare, Beaverton, said he concurred with was said previously by those
opposed to this proposal. He added that his major concern involved the need to
provide busing in a different manner, to think outside of the box.
Patrick Mitchell, Beaverton, stated that he lived near Elmonica Elementary School
and was a member of the Five Oaks/Triple Creek NAC. He reviewed the Council
goals that were posted in the Chambers. He noted that Goal 1 provided for the
preservation and enhancement of the sense of community and said that while this
involved unity and pride, it was obvious that there was no unity within the
Mitchell referred to Goal 2, that City resources should be utilized efficiently to
ensure long-term financial stability, and Goal 4, which provided for responsive,
cost-effective services to the community. He said that it had not been mentioned,
but that the District was proposing to mitigate the traffic problems by starting the
buses an hour earlier in the morning to avoid the majority of the peak hour traffic.
He noted that this additional hour would cost $30 per bus, which would be $5,880
daily, and that this would increase, rather than decrease the cost of busing.
Referring to Goal 3, which involved continuing to plan for, improve and maintain
the Citys infrastructure, he emphasized that during the bus test the traffic had
came to a standstill with only 30 buses. He observed that the proposal would
involve 120 buses and questioned if the Councilors would use this as their
preferred route to travel home after work. He referred to Goal 5, to assure a safe
and healthy community, and observed that the issue of diesel fumes had already
Richard Pogue was no longer present to testify; it was noted that he opposed the
proposal on the speakers card.
Lauren Paulson, Aloha, stated that he wanted to raise a general global issue for
the leaders of Washington County, including the City of Beaverton. He said that
he had no stake in this issue and was speaking as a neutral party. He noted he
was the Chair of CPO 6, which covered Aloha, an unincorporated portion of
Washington County. He said that events have occurred in Washington County
over the past year in which the authorities have ignored the voice of the citizens;
specifically 1) with Roy Rogers Road, the citizens of that area did not want that
name and were shanghaied into not being provided an opportunity to correct
this; and 2) with roundabouts in Roy, although the road builders of Washington
County wanted to construct these roundabouts, not one citizen who attended the
CPO Meeting wanted them and the citizens would most likely be ignored. He said
that he could provide additional examples but he hoped that the City Council
would consider the wishes of the citizens of Beaverton. He suggested that the
School District gracefully and honorably waive the 120-day requirement to allow
all parties involved to review the issues for a responsible and appropriate
Suzanne Rague, Beaverton, Muirwood Neighborhood resident, said that she
wanted to address a design issue on this proposal. She noted that the School
District was utilizing Willow Creek and the greenway as a buffer to eliminate the
noise and visual pollution created by this area. She observed that the proposed
wall crossed over the wetlands and that parking spaces were on the wetlands
boundary with no visual, sound or pollution buffer. She stated that this proposed
wall did not provide adequate protection for the wetlands and that the wetlands
were a resource.
Mayor Drake advised Rague that she was referencing a map that was not
generated by the City of Beaverton and that he was not certain of its accuracy.
Rague stated that the situation would possibly be worse with a more accurate
Mayor Drake explained to Rague that the situation would not be worse, assuring
her that the City of Beaverton had certain regulations with regard to setbacks.
Paulson mentioned that the current Transportation Plan had provided for a freight
transit corridor from 170th Avenue to Merlo Road, cutting off of Merlo Road to
158th Avenue and heading north to Cornell Road, the intersection currently being
Coun. Brzezinksi confirmed that Paulson was not making a value judgment on
this issue; his position was that the City should pay attention to its citizens
Joy Kovaks was no longer present to testify; it was noted that she opposed the
William Love stated that his children either attend or would be attending Five
Oaks Middle School and that he was concerned with the air they would be
breathing. He urged that the City Council review all issues very carefully before
making such an important decision.
Coun. Stanton advised Love that the City of Beaverton did not have the option of
extending the 120-day clock; that only the School District had this option. She
cautioned that if a final decision and all related issues were not completed within
this 120-day period of time, the applicant had the option of going to court and
getting a Writ of Mandamus, which would be an approval on their own terms.
Todd Griswold, Beaverton, owner of Indoor Goals, said he had concerns with life
and safety issues regarding this project. He said that many injuries occurred at
Indoor Goals, which provided soccer, hockey and lacrosse. He noted that
because his business opened at 3:00 p.m., he had concerns with the traffic at
that time and with the ability to get vehicles in and out of the area, particularly
ambulances, when necessary. He noted that while Bethany Court was a glorified
dead end; it was a private road, rather than a fire lane, when he purchased the
property seven years ago.
Griswold mentioned that the new development on Bethany Court (Lands End)
had created a great deal of traffic that had a tremendous impact upon this street.
He added that vehicles that were not there eight months ago were there at all
times throughout the day now. He expressed his opinion that alternatives were
available and pointed out that the Scappoose School District had a maintenance
facility from which the buses were maintained and transferred as necessary. He
said that the fence was originally proposed to surround the parking area and
added that any approval of this proposal should provide mitigation of the potential
impact to small businesses in the area.
Wendell Henry was no longer present to testify; it was noted that he opposed the
Carl Weiss was no longer present to testify; it was noted that he had not indicated
Rodger DeGeorge was no longer present to testify; it was noted that he opposed
Beth Court, Beaverton, stated that her home was three blocks from the proposed
transportation center and three blocks from Highway 26, and that she was very
aware of the impact of traffic noise. She said that the traffic noise was much
more noticeable now than it had been when her family moved into the
neighborhood three years ago. She pointed out that her major concern was the
visual impact of this proposal on the City of Beaverton. She observed that the
majority of the businesses in this area were consumer stores, which create
heavier daytime and evening traffic. She noted that the Tri-Met buses currently
impacted the surface of the road; these additional school buses would cause
further damage. She compared this proposal to living next to an airport and noted
that while it might be acceptable to purchase a home you knew was located next
to an airport, you do not generally anticipate that one would be built next door to
you after you moved in. She expressed concern with the proposed traffic timing,
because it would create conflicts between the School District, local businesses
and commuters who would want their own priority on the timing. She pointed out
that because Beaverton would continue to grow, this proposal would not be the
final bus barn project. She suggested it might be feasible to consider locating the
buses at multiple sites and that it was necessary to begin consideration of these
future locations now.
Bianca Ishikana was no longer present to testify; it was noted that she opposed
Maureen Maloney-Ishikana was no longer present to testify; it was noted that she
opposed the proposal.
Henry Kane, Beaverton, stated that he had received the record on the appeal on
Friday and that he prepared and filed a nine-page response and 42 pages of
exhibits to the City Council. He emphasized that the most important exhibit
consisted of an article from The Oregonian with regard to health problems
caused by the inhalation of diesel fumes. Kane pointed out that that these fumes
created a serious health issue and he criticized Michael Minors report. He urged
the City Council to consider that its first responsibility was to the citizens and
children of this community.
Coun. Stanton clarified that Kane was referring to an article in the May 4, 2002,
issue of The Oregonian with regard to the refining of diesel fuel to reduce the
sulfur level and that this had involved a court ruling from the District of Columbia.
Betsy Natter, Beaverton, provided information from The Union of Concerned
Scientists on health concerns related to diesel-emitted particulates. She noted
that the soot from one diesel bus was the equivalent of that emitted by 125 cars.
She emphasized that this soot was a carcinogen that invaded the lungs and the
bodys natural defenses, causing asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart disease and
premature death. She explained that one landmark study had indicated that the
risk of premature death in the areas containing high particulate levels was 26%
greater than those areas with low particulate levels. Natter said that individuals
who worked at such sites showed a 50% increase in lung cancer or mortality.
Also, that the emissions of the nitrogen oxides also produce ozone, causing
coughing, choking, reduced lung capacity and asthma. She reiterated Dr.
Heichelheims statement that all of these risks and effects were much more
serious with children, whose lungs have not yet fully developed. She added that
the studies she cited had all involved adults. She noted that most of these
effects, such as the reduced lung capacity, were irreversible. She mentioned that
while she had originally not intended to become involved and had moved to
Beaverton with the understanding that she would be living with traffic problems,
she was not willing to accept the effects of the diesel exhaust upon the children at
Five Oaks Middle School.
Dr. Greg Stanchfield, Beaverton, owner of Cornell Center Animal Hospital, asked
what the Council would be able to do regarding this proposal since it did not have
the option of stopping the 120-day clock.
Mayor Drake advised Stanchfield that the City Council had the power to either
approve or deny the application.
Stanchfield stated that he was already concerned with the traffic in the area
because he had clients who have difficulty accessing the medical care he
provided. He noted that the busiest time of his day was between 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., when many individuals brought in or picked up their animals after they
were off work. He stated that the video of the bus test had convinced him that
some of his clients would not be arriving during that time, or at all. He expressed
his opinion that the proposal to restripe the road and revise the light timing was a
smoke-and-mirrors solution and that he did not believe that this was feasible. He
expressed his appreciation to the members of the Council who visited the site,
and questioned whether any of these visits had occurred between 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., which was when the area was most congested. He concluded that
although he was not aware of an appropriate solution, he knew that this was not it.
He urged the City Council to deny the application.
Lois Aikens was no longer present to testify; it was noted that she opposed the
Bill Jensen, Beaverton, Muirwood resident, said that he worked in the construction
industry and was a registered professional civil engineer with the State of Oregon,
although his status was currently inactive because it was not required for his
current job. He noted that he was not a transportation professional but that he
knew civil engineering. He said that he wanted to offer rebuttal to some of the
arguments made by the School District and its consultants and that he was
against the facility for many of the reasons already presented. His comments
included 1) Requiring monitoring at this site would create problems for all
industrial users on SW Allen Boulevard and SW Western Avenue. No schools or
residential areas were located within the same proximity at the Allen Boulevard
facility as with this proposal. 2) The shortage of available land makes this a good
site for this facility. This was not a good reason to allow this project. 3) Operating
Jensen said there would be lost time spent in traffic on Cornell Road, as well as
an erosion of savings due to the cost premiums affiliated with the development of
this site. 4) Tri-Met/Merlo was also an industrial site. This was not an appropriate
comparison because Tri-Mets site was basically out of sight with much better
surface street access as compared to the proposed development. 5) Restriping
will solve the traffic problems. This was totally unrealistic and Cornell Road
needed both widening and a major realignment, which was actually included in
the 20-Year Plan. 6) 80,000% was an error. This was simply an attempt to
discredit the report. 7) Two-for-one analysis discussion. The consultants were
most likely only half right, and two for one is probably correct when considering
how many vehicles can travel through an intersection during a signal cycle, but
not in conjunction with all of the congestion in the area.
Heather Overson, Beaverton, noted that her husband and two sons had asthma
and that Preston, her seven-year-old son, had been to the hospital on numerous
occasions and had pneumonia three times in his short life. She explained that
while he was an infant, she would sleep with him on her chest so she could hear
him breathing and that she had a hard time keeping track of all of the medication
he took. She explained that Preston did not have to actually smell the odor to be
affected. She pointed out that Elmonica Elementary School had many pets,
including a bird and a chinchilla, both of which he had to walk past on the way to
his classroom. She noted that after these animals were relocated, at her request,
that this was the first year that he had not been ill with pneumonia. She explained
that his allergies caused asthma, which in turn caused pneumonia, and that this
is sometimes accompanied by bronchitis; because his body was unable to fight
off viruses, he had a tendency to catch everything he was exposed to. She
pointed out that she was in a difficult position because she had five children, and
although she had considered moving, one of her daughters was a freshman who
did not want to relocate to another school. She said she observed Mayor Drake
on several Neighborhood Walks through her neighborhood and felt that he cared.
She added that if this proposal was approved, she would no longer trust him and
would prefer that he not return and walk through her neighborhood again.
Bill Derville, Beaverton, Muirwood Neighborhood resident, read a letter from Aaron
Wilson, Prevention Specialist, Community Cancer Control, American Cancer
Society (ACS), with regard to the Beaverton School Districts application to locate
a bus barn in close proximity to the Five Oaks School, the Oregon Gymnastic
Academy and the Indoor Goals facility. The main points of the letter were: 1) That
the ACS recognized that environmental pollutants were a serious threat to health
that can lead to increased rates of cancer; 2) That the ACS had also recognized
inappropriate concentrations of environmental pollution as a cause of cancer; and
3) That in all situations, the ACS supported proper scientific evaluation of health
risk factors. Derville observed that the City Council was in a difficult position and
was faced with a difficult decision. He emphasized that this decision involved a
fair amount of risk that must be evaluated. He pointed out that because this
proposal involved a fairly prosperous neighborhood consisting of physicians and
attorneys, the fight would not necessarily stop at the City Council level and could
result in significant ramifications.
Coun. Brzezinski advised Derville that, as with other controversial issues she had
been involved in as a City Councilor, she expected that the City would be sued.
Mayor Drake stated that he did not necessarily believe that the City of Beaverton
would be in the position of having to provide any defense for any appeal and noted
that this would be the responsibility of the Beaverton School District.
John Greaves, Beaverton, said that he lived in the Waterhouse Neighborhood and
that he opposed the proposed bus barn. He said that he was a chemical
engineer and an attorney. He referred to a memorandum, dated May 30, 2002,
from Development Services Manager Steven Sparks, with regard to odor and
noted that this memorandum indicated that no threshold standards had been
established. He pointed out that as a chemical engineer, it was very easy to
determine these standards and emphasized that the statute indicated that the
standard involved any odor that is readily detectable. He referred to Page 3,
Paragraph 3 of this memorandum, and stated that it was not appropriate to
establish a precedent of barring performance standards as approval criteria. He
noted that the odor issue was in violation of the law and would fail. He mentioned
that because this had not been legislated in the past did not mean that it should
not be legislated now. He expressed his opinion that this would have hideous
results, including noise, odor, air pollution, water pollution, and traffic gridlock, and
would cause a great impact on the beautiful wetlands. He stated that his best
qualification with regard to this issue was that he was the father of five children
who attended the schools in this area. As an attorney, he noted that with any
controversial issue involving children, the standard was what was in the best
interest of the children. He concluded his remarks by stressing that this
development was not in the best interest of the children or the neighborhood, and
he urged the City Council not to make an inappropriate decision because of a
Coun. Soth advised Greaves that the performance standards referenced in the
memorandum did not exist in the Citys Development Code for comparison.
Soth added that they could be incorporated into the Code but until that occurs,
those standards were not included in the criteria upon which a decision could be
Greaves respectfully disagreed, expressing his opinion that the standard with
regard to readily detectable odor was in the Development Code.
Laurie Horton, Director of the Oregon Gymnastics Academy, pointed out that her
facility had 20 parking spaces to accommodate her 950 gymnastics students and
that Indoor Goals had 7200 visits on a monthly basis. She stated that the hours
that her students come vary and that traffic was a huge issue. She confirmed
that there was some parking in the fire lane. She expressed her opinion that she
would lose business over this issue, noting that while the students at Five Oaks
Middle School have no choice, the parents of her students have other options.
She also pointed out that there was always the potential for injuries and that she
was very concerned with access for emergency vehicles; access would be
extremely difficult with school buses in the fire lane.
Kevin Schaumleffle, Beaverton, Five Oaks/Triple Creek NAC member, said that
he thought that an alternative option could be determined. He referenced a letter
to the City Council from William Lambert, research scientist with the OHSU
Center for Research on Occupational/Environmental Toxicology. He noted the
main points of the letter were: 1) That air pollution models can produce varying
results, depending upon the assumptions made for the input perimeters (such as
emissions of vehicles, wind speed and direction, and atmospheric stability); 2)
That the large discrepancy described to him suggested that careful review of the
modeling work was necessary; and 3) Until these analyses are resolved, and the
likely magnitude of the emissions on the local air quality is more confidently
defined, it is not possible to evaluate the potential impacts on health at this time.
Schaumleffle discussed further information provided within the letter; specifically
the effect that diesel exhaust particulates had on increased symptoms on children
and adults with asthma, as well as increased deaths due to respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases. He submitted a copy of this letter for the record.
Will Denecke stated that while Bruce Wood had not had adequate time to
address Condition of Approval No. 10, which was prepared by Engineering
Director Tom Ramisch, he was confused with the purpose of this condition and
would appreciate an explanation.
Mayor Drake offered to have Ramisch contact Denecke the following day,
emphasizing that action would not be taken this evening.
Paul Tew stated that he had moved here from New York City and was impressed
with the Oregon, Washington County, and Beaverton. He said that he owned a
modest home and that he was concerned with his two children, rather than
property values. He explained that his children would eventually be attending
Elmonica Elementary, which is now the largest elementary school in the state.
Tew expressed his opinion that while the government did mandate some issues,
it appeared that there were choices available with regard to evaluating options on
this issue. He urged the City Council to review the information and make a
decision that would benefit the community.
Mayor Drake stated that public testimony and opposition were now concluded and
that rebuttal evidence would be heard next week, June 10, 2002. He pointed out
that if any additional new information was submitted under rebuttal, the appellants
would then have the opportunity for surrebuttal. He explained that the hearing
would then be closed and Council discussion would occur to reach a decision.
That decision would be made the following week, on June 17, 2002, at which time
the Final Order would be considered.
Oien questioned whether the appellant would be permitted the opportunity for
surrebuttal with regard to new evidence addressing air pollution.
Pilliod explained that surrebuttal would be allowed with regard to new evidence.
Mayor Drake explained that according to State law, the burden of proof was upon
the Beaverton School District to demonstrate that they have met applicable
Mayor Drake pointed out that it would be necessary for the City Council to make a
decision within the 120-day deadline in order to avoid the Writ of Mandamus. He
added that the rebuttal would be up to ten minutes.
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Brzezinski, to continue the Public
Hearing to June 10, 2002, at 6:30 pm. Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and
Stanton voting AYE, MOTION CARRIED (5:0).
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton that the rules be suspended
and that the ordinances embodied in AB 02180, AB 02181, AB 02182 and AB
02183 be read for the first time by title only at this meeting and for the second
time by title only at the next regular meeting of the Council. Couns. Brzezinski,
Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
Pilliod read the following ordinances for the first time by title only:
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan by
Removing a Portion of SW Second Street as a Neighborhood Route from the
Functional Classification Plan Map, Figure 6.7; CPA 2001-0022 (Beaverton High
School) (Ord. No. 4211)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Map and
Ordinance 2050, the Zoning Map for One Parcel Located at 4885 SW Laurelwood
Avenue; CPA 2002-0002/RZ 2002-0013. (Ord. No. 4212)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, on Seven Parcels;
(East Murray/Davies Residential Zone Change) RZ 2002-0010. (Ord. No. 4213)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No.2050, the Zoning Map, on 102 Parcels;
(Downtown Regional Center: R-1 to RC-OT) RZ 2002-0011. (Ord. No. 4214)
Second Reading and Passage
Pilliod read the following ordinances for the second time by title only:
An Ordinance Annexing a Single Parcel Lying Generally Outside of the Existing
City Limits to the City of Beaverton; ANX 2002-0004 (4885 SW Laurelwood
Expedited Annexation). (Ord. No. 4209)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, on Several
Parcels to Conform to the Citys Comprehensive Plan Designation; RZ 2002-
0001, RZ 2002-0002, RZ 2002-0003, RZ 2002-0005, RZ 2002-0006, RZ 2002-
0007, RZ 2002-0008 and RZ 2002-0009. (Ord. No. 4210)
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle that the ordinances embodied
in AB 02165 and AB 02166 now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle,
Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)
Mayor Drake noted that he sent the Councilors a memorandum regarding
additional assistance for the funding of the Quest Litigation.
Coun. Brzezinski MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the Council
authorize an additional $19,368 be applied to League of Oregon Cities Quest
Litigation Fund, per the memorandum from Mayor Drake dated May 17, 2002.
Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION
CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)
Pilliod advised the Council that he would be forwarding a memorandum to Council
regarding a recent Court of Appeals Decision, which could have an impact on
how the City and property owners enforce trespass laws. He noted that in the
memo staff recommended that the City join in submitting a brief in support of the
Petition for Review by the Attorney Generals Office. He asked that if the
Councilors had any concerns or objections, that they let him know right away.
There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:22 a.m.
Sue Nelson, City Recorder
Approved this 9th day of September, 2002.
Rob Drake, Mayor