JUNE 3, 2002


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 O’Claire,

Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Engineering Director Tom Ramisch,

Economic Development Manager Janet Young, Police Chief Dave Bishop, Library

Director Ed House, Development Services Manager Steve Sparks, Associate

Planner Scott Whyte, Traffic Engineer Randy Wooley, Project Engineer Jim

Duggan, City Recorder Sue Nelson, Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen,

Support Specialist III Debbie Baidenmann.


Betty Bolz said that she appreciated the Saturday meeting with Police

Department.  She said  it was a good opportunity to talk with the Police and

receive information. 

Francine Kaufman asked about the commuter rail project in Beaverton.  Mayor

Drake said she could contact Margaret Middleton or Tom Ramisch for

information.  Kaufman suggested combining City publications (City newsletter

and police newsletter) to save on mailing costs and stated she wanted to receive

the Council minutes.  Mayor Drake explained that the minutes are posted on the

City’s Web site or she could contact the Neighborhood Office at City Hall to get on

the mailing list.  Kaufman asked if the Police Department had a citizen review

board and, if not, how one could be established.  Mayor Drake explained that the

City has an internal review process headed by the Police Chief; there is no citizen

review board.  Mayor Drake said that if she would write down her ideas, he would

be glad to discuss them with her.  

Victor Gallegos said that he lived near the Shaughnessey Woods subdivision that

was being constructed by Polygon.  He said the subcontractors were working

from 6:15 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., seven days a week.  He said he contacted Code

Enforcement several times, he made calls to the Police non-emergency number

four times and he talked with the contractor, but the noise had continued.  He said

he would like to see more control on this project.  

Mayor Drake said he would have staff contact Mr. Gast about keeping the

contractor’s work hours compatible with the hours specified in the City Code.  


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

Use Permit

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

actual hearing.

Joe Grillo, Community Development Director, reviewed the appeals received on

this proposed project (in record) and stated that the applicant, Beaverton School

District, had extended the 120-day rule to June 18, 2002. 


Grillo asked if any Councilor wished to hear the appeals separately.  

The Councilors indicated they wished to hear the appeals separately.  

Grillo  reviewed the nature of the appeals (in the record)  He read a prepared

statement defining the process that needed to be followed for this hearing,

including the various required disclosure statements (in record).  

Grillo asked if there was anyone present who wanted to challenge the Mayor’s or

Councilors’ right to hear the matter that evening.

There were no challenges.

Grillo asked if there were any Councilors who wished to abstain due to


There were none.  

Grillo asked if there were any Councilors who received ex parte contacts, the

nature of such contacts and if the contacts impaired the Councilor’s impartiality or

ability to vote on the matter.  

Coun. Stanton stated that she had reviewed the process only with a number of

individuals at Saturday’s cleanup.  She said she had visited the site.   

Mayor Drake said that he visited the Yamamoto site, drove around the Stonegate

neighborhood, walked along the boardwalk and the school ball field to view the

Yamamoto site.  He said he visited the current bus facility on Allen Boulevard, but

was not able to get in, although he viewed it from both sides.  He said he had

general conversations regarding process with some citizens, Mr. Orchard and Dr.

Katz.  He said he did not feel biased by these contacts.

Coun. Brzezinski said she visited the site and the bus facility on Allen Boulevard.

Coun. Soth said he visited the site and is familiar with the Allen Boulevard facility.

Coun. Ruby stated he had received comments in opposition to the bus barn on

his Council voice mail and did not return any calls.  He received one call from Dr.

Katz in support of the bus barn.  He said he drove around the area.

Coun. Doyle said he had the same phone calls and did not discuss this issue with

anyone.  He said he was familiar with the site and the Allen Boulevard facility.

Grillo asked if there was anyone present who wished to challenge the Council’s

authority to hear the matter.

There were no challenges.

Mayor Drake explained that Council was acting as the City’s Design Review

Board in this de novo hearing.  He emphasized that there had been a significant

amount of correspondence, all of which was a part of the record and that Council

did want to hear from the citizens.  He asked that anyone who wished to repeat

comments made by a previous speaker simply express agreement with other


Coun. Soth asked that everyone refrain from demonstrations and/or applause.

Steve Sparks, Development Services Manager, reviewed the Board of Design

Review’s decision to conditionally approve BDR 2001-0198, the Proposed Bus

Transportation and Support Center.  He described the proposed parking, grading,

storm water swales, detention ponds, fencing, and landscaping improvements,

which were reviewed by the Board.  He said that the Board had not reviewed the

interior remodeling or the use of the site.  He noted that this was a permitted use

and not subject to a conditional use discussion at the Planning Commission level.  

Sparks said the Beaverton School District could actually operate the site at this

time without design review, he noted that the changes to the parking lot would

require design review prior to operation. He explained that the appeals from the

Five Oaks NAC and the Concerned Citizens of Beaverton challenged this use

determination.  He said staff responded to this issue on Pages 6 and 7 of the staff

report.  He noted that in addition to the staff report, staff prepared two

supplemental memoranda.  He said the first memorandum (dated May 24, 2002,

from Engineering Director Tom Ramisch and Transportation Engineer Randy

Wooley) recommended that if Council approved this project, a condition be added

that if the School District changed its operation or use of the site, it would be

required to do a new transportation analysis.  He said that the Transportation

Division prepared a revised set of conditions, in addition to the nine conditions

imposed by the Facilities Review Committee.  He said the second memorandum

(dated May 30, 2002, from Sparks) dealt with the performance standards issue

specific to odor on this site.  

Sparks explained that there was a condition of approval requiring that the odor be

monitored.  He said that since then staff did a great deal of research to find the

intent of adopting these standards; no clear legislative intent was found and there

was no record of performance standards in previous industrial proposals.  He

noted that staff has made recommendations on how to proceed with the appeals

in the May 13, 2002 staff report.  He referred to his memorandum regarding odor

dated May 30, 2002, recommending that with regard to the School District’s

appeal (APP 2002-0005), if the Council concurred that performance standards as

stated in Section 20.15.80 of the Development Code were not approval criteria,

and that the movement of licensed vehicles to and from a property did not

constitute a land use, the appeal could be partially granted by removing the

condition for monitoring.  He said if the Council did not concur with those

conclusions, then the appeal should be denied and the condition for monitoring

should remain.  He recommended that staff be directed to initiate a text

amendment application to prepare clear and objective performance standards for

Industrial and Station Community Employment Zoning Districts where these

performance standards apply.  

Coun. Soth confirmed that odor was a performance standard not an approval


Coun. Brzezinski noted on that on Page 9 of record, first paragraph, there was a

distinction between a vehicle storage yard, which was a conditional use, and a

storage yard/transit storage which was allowed outright.  She stated that this

proposed use was clearly not a vehicle storage yard because it was not for the

storage of inoperable or towed vehicles.  She quoted from Page 5 of Spark’s May

30, 2002, memorandum, “The movement of licensed vehicles of any type was not

a primary or accessory use of land.”  She thought that the movement of vehicles

was what kept it from being a vehicle storage yard.

Sparks compared this to the City Hall parking lot and explained that the act of

storing the buses on the site was the use of land; moving a vehicle to and from

the site was not the use of the land.    

Coun. Brzezinski said she did not feel this was exactly comparable to a parking

lot, adding that the allowed use was based upon the fact that the vehicles are not

simply sitting there.  

Sparks reiterated that the act of bringing a vehicle onto the land, such as a tow

truck bringing in a vehicle, was not a use.  

Coun. Stanton said that the City Hall parking lot on the south side was not a

storage facility; this land had a purpose for the City of Beaverton.  She said that

letting something sit overnight was not storage.  She said she saw the School

District’s position as an embarking point.  She stated that the impact was not to

the site, but to everything around the site.

Coun. Soth asked if there was a difference between this use and an automobile

storage lot where vehicles were moved around all the time.  He said that there

were buses stored on the Allen Boulevard facility all the time; not all the buses

were moved everyday.  He asked Sparks if that was a storage use.

Sparks said he could not address the operation characteristics of the various bus

facilities within the City and noted that the use characterization in the staff report

was an abbreviation of the entire use.  He explained that the permitted use would

allow vehicle storage such as the pooling of vehicles for an auto dealer or rental


Coun. Ruby stated that he felt this was an issue about the definition in the

Development Code of vehicle storage yard.  He noted that on Page 51 of the staff

report there was a good discussion of that issue, including the City Attorney’s

interpretation that the purpose for vehicle storage yards was for the storage of

inoperable vehicles, for example, towing yards.  He said that he did not think he

was in the position to challenge the City Attorney’s interpretation of the definition.

Coun. Ruby asked about the odor monitoring issue, specifically the alternative to

requiring the compliance stations imposed upon the District by the Board of

Design Review.  He read from a May 30, 2002, memorandum from Mr. Orchard

and Mr.Krawczuk, School District representatives, as follows: “In order to insure

compliance with the odor performance standard, the City could then impose a

condition of approval that would require the School District to respond to any

documented odor complaints.  The condition could elaborate on what a

documented complaint entailed.  In the Miller case the complaints needed to be

written and signed.”  He asked Sparks if this was what he was suggesting as an

alternative to the compliance stations for monitoring odor control.  He also

suggested that it would be helpful to have this as a condition of approval rather

than a generalized Code compliance issue.  

Sparks confirmed that that was what he was suggesting.  He said that because

this issue was important, he felt that establishing conditions that dealt with

performance standards was a viable alternative.  He said the Facilities Review

Committee attempted to establish the standards for odor and could continue to do

so.  He said this was an option the Council could pursue.


Jack Orchard, Beaverton School District, clarified that the following people would

be speaking for the District during the initial presentation:  Jack Orchard, attorney;

Michael Maloney, Facilities Administrator; Michael Minor, Michael Minor &

Associates; and Randy McCourt, DKS Associates.  He noted there were other

people present as expert resources if needed.    

Orchard addressed the odor monitoring issue.  He stated that the District had no

problem with having its activities monitored.  He said the District was objecting

because there were no performance standards on what was to be monitored, and

there was no guidance in the Code or in the City’s legislative history to determine

what this was about.  He stated that this standard had never been applied to any

other industrial development in the City, except for the Miller Sanitary case.  He

said it had never been administered or enforced as the opponents contend it

should be enforced.  He said that if it were enforced as the neighbors were

requesting, it would shut down any industrial operation in the City that was

dependent on moving vehicles in or out, whether personal or delivery vehicles. 

He stressed that it was a performance standard that would not apply to vehicular

movements.  He handed out information about the Miller Sanitary case; he noted

that Conditions 12 and 23 indicated how the odor monitoring issue was handled.

Maloney stated that the District was growing by 1000 students per year and

student transportation was mandated.  He noted that the maintenance/transit

storage yard was a permitted use in the Light Industrial Zone and that the supply

of industrial land in the Metro region was about 20% of the demand; industrial land

was a rare commodity in Beaverton.  He explained how maintaining the UGB had

affected the amount of land available and created a need to accommodate all

competing and compatible uses within the UGB.  He stated that when the site

opened it would have 120-196 buses; these buses would serve the northern part

of the District.   He explained that the School Board’s direction was to be as

attentive as possible to the neighbors’ concerns and to be as low impact as

possible.  He stated they would be getting new buses and retrofitting buses to

clean exhaust levels.  He said they had the largest transit center in Washington

County with more riders than Tri-Met. He noted that the Tri-Met Merlo Station was

an LI Zone and that if transit storage and maintenance were not permitted in the LI

Zone, then that had implications for the Merlo Station garage.  

Maloney explained that the District was appealing two matters.  The first was the

fence; the District questioned if the Board’s decision was what was written in the

order.  He showed the District’s proposed fencing plan, stating that they intended

to screen all of the bus use from the residential areas to the south with the wall

and would have a chain link fence along the roads to allow motorists, law

enforcement and security personnel to view the site for security during non-

operational hours.  He said that in the order the wall was longer than they

understood it to be, which created a lot of added expense for unnecessary

screening.  He said that the second matter appealed was air quality. 

Maloney thought their consultants demonstrated that they were in compliance

with all applicable standards.  He said they agree with staff that the odor standard

was not an approval criterion.  He said they intended to operate as cleanly as

possible, that they met all applicable standards for air quality and odor, and they

felt on-going monitoring was a superfluous expense.  He said they would accept

the additional condition of approval on traffic and noted that the District suggested

many of the conditions being recommended which exceeded Code requirements.  

Randy McCourt, DKS Associates, a transportation engineer, said that DKS

conducted the transportation analysis for the District.  He reviewed the traffic data

collected and said that they evaluated several issues, impacts and historic traffic

information.  He stated that the project met accepted traffic standards from the

City, County, and ODOT Codes.  He said that they found that level of service

standards would not be met and that mitigation would be needed.  They

developed a seven-point action plan that became the conditions of development in

this application.  He said that each of the improvements were reviewed by ODOT,

the County, the City, and the District and were acceptable.  He said these

improvements included adding traffic lanes on Bethany, retiming the signals, and

striping an additional lane on Cornell and 158th Avenue that would allow two

through lanes and two turn lanes.  He distributed a handout that illustrated the

improved performance that would be achieved with these revisions and


Michael Minor, Michael Minor and Associates, Task Manager for the air and noise

analysis, stated that he performed the noise level analysis and determined that

there was no impact.  He said a specialist performed the air quality analysis and

determined there were no significant air quality problems.  He said because they

received several comments, they reanalyzed the air quality for odor and PM2.5

and revised the analysis.  He said the revised analysis was submitted to DEQ for

review and analysis, and it was approved.  He said the analysis was given to the

community members.  He said that the Board of Design Review responded with

an odor monitoring condition.  He said it came to his attention on Friday that the

Neighborhood Association did some remodeling and concluded that the analysis

was 80,000% off in the results.  He said he questioned those results because it

would have meant that an 80,000% error was missed by DEQ, Hart Crowser,

Minor and his consultant.  He sent copies of the information to his air quality

specialist, Carl Bloom, and to Martha Moore of TW Environmental for their review. 

He said both Bloom and Moore concluded that there were liberties taken in

running the models that were not appropriate.  

Minor said that DEQ, Bloom and Moore concluded that the analysis performed by

Minor was performed correctly and accurately.  

Coun. Soth noted that the main concern was the site.  He confirmed that 1,610

trips meant 805 round trips.  He noted that in the record there was a letter from

another consultant disputing the traffic analysis conclusions.  He asked if this was

a case of two equally qualified representatives using the same material and

coming to different conclusions.

McCourt said he did not believe so, adding that they had specific information

provided for this site with regard to how the School District operated.  He said

they had specific data from the Allen site and they were very comfortable with

their numbers and findings.  He said these findings were confirmed independently

by the County and the City.

Coun. Soth noted a letter was received questioning Minor’s qualifications in the

area of air quality analysis and asked Minor to respond.   

Minor stated Carl Bloom performed the air quality and noise level analysis. He

said Bloom had 15 years experience in that field.  

Sparks noted that Bloom’s resume was on Page 369 of the staff report.  

Coun. Brzezinski noted that there had been concern with regard to buses leaving

the site prior to rush hour and idling in neighborhoods. She asked if it was still the

School District’s policy that this was unacceptable.

Maloney stated that it was District’s policy that buses cannot be idled more than

two minutes or during loading. He said a call to the District office with regard to

drivers who were not complying would get quick results.  

Coun. Brzezinski said she used to live in that area and it was predicted that 158th

was going to be one of the busiest streets in the city because of surrounding

development.   She asked if this was still true and if the traffic engineer took this

into account when level of service drops.  

McCourt explained that several improvements were planned in the area that

would affect the 158th Avenue intersection, including the additional westbound

lane on Cornell Road and the additional northbound lane on Bethany Lane.  He

emphasized that the most important improvement involved the 173rd/174th

Avenue connection under Highway 26 which would allow crossing Highway 26

traffic without having to go through an interchange area.  He said it would allow

traffic to spread out instead of being concentrated on 158th Avenue.  He said that

there would be additional traffic but the Transportation Plan had some significant

improvements that would spread the traffic from 158th Avenue to other arterials.  

Mark Pilliod, City Attorney, asked McCourt how he responded to criticism of the

assumption that one bus equals two standard vehicles.

McCourt explained that the Beaverton Code required that the Highway Capacity

Manual be the basis of methodology when looking at level of service performance

standards.  He said that the Manual standards were based on extensive research

done by the Transportation Research Board over the last 30-40 years and the

“two for one” standard was from the Manual.  He said that Washington County

applied the same standards.   He noted that this standard was the average of all

bus operation.  

Maloney commented that about one third of the buses would be the smaller

Special Education buses.  

Coun. Stanton asked if the smaller buses would be going out during the morning

peak hours.  

Maloney responded that during any given set of movements of the buses from

this site, approximately one third of the buses would be the smaller ones that

currently go out of the 5th Street facility.  

Coun. Stanton asked the results of the Corvallis case on air quality and noise

impacts for a proposed recycling center.  

Carl Bloom, Environalysis, Seattle, Washington, an air quality specialist, said that

case involved the City of Tukwila, Washington, and because they did not have

adequate funding, the City decided not to fund the expansion of the recycling


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.


John Leeper, Portland, spoke in support of School District’s application.  He said

he had been involved in land use in Washington County since the early 1990’s, he

was Chair of CPO 1 and served on the Washington County Planning

Commission.  He said that he felt that the State’s 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 District’s 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.



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 District’s 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 District’s 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&R’s) that control

this subdivision, noting that the School District’s property involved two parcels and

was subject to two sets of CC&R’s.  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&R’s of the Doubletree Park Subdivision,

Section 6.2 that clearly stated that a simple majority (by acreage) could amend

the CC&R’s 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&R’s 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 District’s 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 City’s odor

regulations and requested that the application be denied.

Coun. Soth explained that it had never been the City’s policy to enforce CC&R’s

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 District’s 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.



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 contractor’s 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

contractor’s equipment.  

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 staff’s 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 applicant’s 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

Development Code.

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 Minor’s 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 applicant’s

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 everyone’s

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

other applicant.  

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 Calendar’s, 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

District’s 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 Lampkin’s 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 consultant’s 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 District’s 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 appellant’s 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 City’s 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 District’s 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 District’s Allen Boulevard facility.  She showed a

slide of the new bus barn’s garbage facility from Willow Creek Nature Park and

pointed out that the land falls off from the garbage area directly into Willow

Creek’s riparian and wetland area.  

Sem showed slides of the School District’s 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

everyone involved.

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-

½ miles.

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 District’s 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 District’s 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 NAC’s report, they used the same models but moved the

monitors closer to the property line and generated models that exceeded 160.0

micrograms—that is the 80,000% error referred to earlier.  He stated that the

DEQ’s 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 District’s model was utilized

with the correct parameters.  He confirmed it was a computer simulation test.

Jennifer Ann Hooson referred to the Council’s 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

the record.

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 Beaverton’s 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 don’t 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 school’s 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 Council’s 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

Council’s 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. Gregor’s passion.

Christy Gregor was no longer present to testify; it was noted that she opposed the

proposal on the speaker’s 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 City’s 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

been addressed.

Richard Pogue was no longer present to testify; it was noted that he opposed the

proposal on the speaker’s 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 wetland’s

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 (Land’s 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

his position.  

Rodger DeGeorge was no longer present to testify; it was noted that he opposed

the proposal.

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

the proposal.

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 Minor’s 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

body’s 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.

Heichelheim’s 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

cost savings.

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-Met’s 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 District’s 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 City’s 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).


Suspend Rules:

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.


First Reading:

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 City’s 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 General’s 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