BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES JUNE 10, 2002
CALL TO ORDER:
The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob
Drake in the Forrest C. Soth Council Chambers, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton,
Oregon, on Monday, June 10, 2002, at 6:48 p.m.
Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Fred Ruby, Evelyn Brzezinski, Dennis Doyle, Forrest
Soth, and Cathy Stanton. Also present were Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, City Attorney
Mark Pilliod, Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Engineering Director Tom
Ramisch, Development Services Manager Steve Sparks, Associate Planner Scott
Whyte, Traffic Engineer Randy Wooley, Project Engineer Jim Duggan, Deputy City
Recorder Cathy Jansen, and City Recorder Sue Nelson.
There were none.
There were none.
Chief of Staff Linda Adlard presented an update on the June 1, 2002, Neighborhood
cleanup. She reported approximately 500 vehicles came through the drop-off; and over
100 citizens volunteered to help with the cleanup. She expressed her appreciation to all.
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 clarified that because the hearing was continued from June 3, 2002, the
preliminary legal information would not be repeated, but there were certain ground rules
with regard to tonights hearing. He explained that the public had been provided with an
opportunity to testify last week and that the public testimony had been closed; but at this
time public agencies would be given the opportunity to testify, followed by final rebuttal by
the applicant. He pointed out that in the event that new information was presented, the
appellants would be provided with an opportunity to provide surrebuttal. Noting that some
written documentation had been submitted this week, he pointed out that this information
was accepted but not provided to the City Council, with the exception of a communication
from the Beaverton School District (BSD). He emphasized that the applicant was
entitled to submit this additional information.
Community Development Director Joe Grillo said a letter was submitted from Deputy Fire
Marshal John Dalby, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue. He noted that in the letter Dalby
explained what the fire lane was and how it could be used. He read from the letter on
Question 1 regarding the fire lane and the response to Question 2 on the impact to
emergency vehicles (in record).
Grillo noted that Ms. Corey Chang, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), was
present and might wish to testify.
Chang came forward to answer Council questions.
Mayor Drake asked what DEQ standards the Beaverton School District was required to
Chang explained that she reviewed the Environmental Impact Report to see if the District
would need an air quality operating permit for any of its activities. She said she looked for
spray booths, solvent degreasing units and that type of operational activities. She stated
that based on the information provided the District did not need a permit at that time. She
added that the DEQ permit would take place after the land use process and that they
would work with the District at that time to review the equipment to determine if a permit
would be needed.
Mayor Drake asked what PM & PM 10 Standards the District was required to meet.
Chang explained that the PM & PM 10 standards she reviewed were for operations at the
Districts facility. She noted this included emissions from combustion sources or a shot
blast booth; it was a general air quality standard that all facilities must meet.
Mayor Drake noted that there could be 200 vehicles at that site, the area was in a groove
and the air might settle. He asked if these requirements did or did not apply.
Chang explained that the District would be responsible for doing a worst-case sample
model of air quality. She noted this would mean meeting national air quality ambient
Mayor Drake asked how the Council would be assured there wasnt a black cloud that
would be harmful when the air quality was low.
Chang responded that at this time the rules and permitting requirements did not address
short-term localized impacts. She added that those issues would be addressed as
nuisance response issues.
Mayor Drake asked if the Council approved the facility, and next winter the air when the
air quality was stagnant 40-50 buses would create a cloud of fumes, would DEQ enforce
Federal or State standards.
Chang responded that the nuisance standards were State, not Federal. She said that
DEQ would work with the District and try to find solutions; and there might be ways to
mitigate the problem with vegetation or change of operating hours. She noted that there
were voluntary programs that the Beaverton School District could get involved for
example control equipment for the buses.
Mayor Drake asked Chang if there was any reason to believe that the School District
could not meet DEQ air standards.
Chang explained that most of the complaints they responded to were independently
owned semi-trailers in residential or construction sites. She said that the only way to
gauge if they exceeded the national ambient air quality was to do a worst-case model
Mayor Drake said he read there were new standards for buses.
Chang said that new standards would be implemented in 2006/2007 and it would be done
on a vehicle basis, not a parking facility basis.
Mayor Drake asked about middle-ground measures enforced on buses that reduced
Chang explained that there were alternatives, fuels and control devices that go into the
diesel engine that reduced soot.
Coun. Stanton noted that in the past the Metro area was under a close attention due to air
quality. She asked if the area was doing better.
Chang explained that in the past the pollution problems in the Metro area had been
carbon monoxide and ozone. She noted that the carbon monoxide levels had not
exceeded the standards for several years. She said in the summer the problem had
been the smog and ozone; but that had improved and there had been several years
where the levels had not been exceeded.
Coun. Stanton asked about the subject site and the air quality permit. She confirmed
with Chang that the permit had to do with the actual work on the site. She also confirmed
with Chang that the buses going to and from the site were not part of the permit process.
She asked if the Beaverton School District did a worst-case scenario model for the
Chang explained that the Beaverton School District did not need the permit based on the
information supplied to DEQ by the District. She said that for a typical fleet maintenance
facility she anticipated they would have a booth for touchup painting and parts washers.
She said the District responded it would not have any of those activities.
Coun. Stanton confirmed with Chang that DEQ had never regulated an applicant
because of its impact for congestion or the need for parking. She reiterated that when
DEQ said it believed that the school district could meet the standards, it was for work
being done on the site, not vehicle transit.
Chang explained that it was based on anything that would take place within the
boundaries of the facility.
Coun. Stanton asked if there were complaints would DEQ monitor the site.
Chang explained that DEQs response would be to go to the fence line of the property
and determine if there was an impact outside of the property line. She said that there
was always something that could be done to resolve the problem.
Coun. Soth asked about the particulates in diesel fuel; he asked approximately how far
from the tail pipe the particulates would drop out.
Chang said she did not know the answer to that question. She noted that DEQs
concern was not where the particulates would fall for a portion remained in the air and
Coun. Soth asked if there was a documented difference between school buses with
diesel engines and Class 7 or 8 heavy-duty trucks.
Chang said she did not have any direct evidence; the EPA kept the emissions data bases
for all the types of diesel engines.
Coun. Soth asked if the DEQ received a complaint would they work with local code
Chang said they had in the past.
Mayor Drake asked if the Council approved this, would DEQ automatically call the local
jurisdiction or contact the owner.
Chang said that typically they would contact the owner or operator of the facility. She
said they would then determine the cause of the nuisance. She noted that if they found
there was something unusual that day, they would also determine if the owner had a plan
in place to address divergence from their typical procedure.
Mayor Drake noted that unless you were directly behind the bus the particulates could not
be seen, but they could be smelled. He asked if a complaint was received would DEQ
do an analysis.
Chang explained that the DEQ could take air samples and perform an air quality analysis.
Mayor Drake noted that one of the requirements of the Board of Design Review was to
set up monitoring for a period of time after completion. He asked how DEQ would
monitor the process. He asked if stationary or remote monitoring would work better and
if the information would be reviewed.
Chang explained that it would be a voluntary process; the DEQ would work with the
parties involved to review the methodology used to collect sampling. She said there
would not be a preference between a stationary and mobile monitor; the results would
have the same level of accuracy.
Coun. Soth referenced the soot screen in the record; he asked if this acted the same
way as a catalytic converter.
Chang explained that was the general concept.
Coun. Brzezinski noted that the duration of the emission/odor problem would be small
but the frequency would be often. She asked how frequency was factored into the
Chang explained that frequency, severity and duration would be monitored; they would go
back on multiple occasions to monitor.
Coun. Stanton asked how many inspectors DEQ had in this region.
Chang explained that there was one complaints response agent dedicated to responding
to air quality complaints, there were twelve other field staff that wrote permits and
responded to all complaints. She noted that in this case any of the field staff could
follow-up on complaints.
Coun. Stanton asked if DEQ had a 48-hour response time.
Chang said it would depend on the nature of the complaint.
Coun. Stanton asked how many times someone would have to call before DEQ would
send someone out.
Chang stated that DEQ had no written guidance for response to a complaint.
There was no other public agency testimony or response.
Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
Mayor Drake noted there had been a week between hearings and asked if anyone wished
to declare any additional ex parte contacts.
No one declared any contacts.
Mayor Drake asked Chang if there was a complaint, and if exhaust was not visible could
there still be a smell from it.
Chang replied there could be an odor even when emissions were invisible.
Coun. Brzezinski asked if a City Councilor asked a question that would result in new
evidence, could the City Attorney let the Council know before they answered.
Mayor Drake noted that he and the City Attorney would advise Council it that occurred.
Pilliod said that he and the Planning staff would alert Council if there was new material.
Jack Orchard, attorney, Beaverton School District, reviewed where they were in this
process. He noted this was a design review and limited land use matter. He stated that
the School District had not ignored the comments made by appellants, but noted that
many of the comments made were not related to the issues of a design review
application. He stressed that this was an allowed use within LI Zone; the principal use of
the site was the storage of buses. He noted that the buses would spend most of their
time at the site being stored, not running or idling. He noted that the District operated
about 180 days out of the year and there were many days (summer and holidays) when
the District did not operate and the buses would not run. He said it was identical to Tri-
Mets facility on Merlo Road which is also in an LI Zone. He noted that the Code Sections,
the permitted uses for LI Zones included activities that had a fleet of vehicles at a home
base. He noted Council had received testimony on air quality and traffic. He stated that
the transportation system in this area was regulated by Washington County, ODOT, and
the City and that these agencies reviewed the materials submitted and proposed
mitigation measures. He noted that none of the information submitted by the appellants
had been submitted or reviewed by these agencies. He said that the information from
citizens concerning air quality had also not been subjected to DEQ review.
Orchard said that the odor issue was a performance standard and not an approved
standard for this application. He said that the BDR process was not about second-
guessing agencies; all parties had the chance to submit technical information to these
independent agencies for review. He said the regulatory agencies looked at this
information and provided their recommendation.
Carl Bloom, Environalysis, Seattle, Washington, air quality analyst for Beaverton School
District noted that the opponents said that the air quality analysis was inadequate. He
stated that the information on the layout came from the School District and the ultimate
results were compared to the EPAs national ambient air quality standards and odor
thresholds that came from a variety of reputable sources. He said that the types of
emissions and vehicles involved would have low rates of emission, that there were
mitigating effects from the winds in that area and that there were opportunities for
mitigation measures. He stressed that they used worst-case assumptions (176 buses
idling for an hour) and that was unlikely to occur. He said that because of these worst-
case assumptions, the estimates of pollution levels were low per EPA standards and
odor impacts were far below published thresholds for the different types of pollutants. He
concluded that because of a number of factors, the overall emissions were low and they
saw no air quality problems. He stated they looked at emissions in a one-hour period; the
EPA and State regulate emissions for one-hour and eight-hour blocks of time the
emissions for a 24-hour period would be very low.
Randy McCourt, DKS Associates, traffic engineer, BSD, noted that Coun. Soth
mentioned another traffic report. He said there wasnt any other report; the study also
went through an independent peer review that found the same conclusion. He noted that
Coun. Stanton had asked if the buses had looped during the test. He said the buses
were traveling in two directions with buses on all four approaches to the intersections.
He explained that was not how the operation would work at the bus center. He stated
that they would travel one-way only. He said that the traffic report detailed how the buses
would operate. He noted that the report identified traffic problems and the
recommendations and mitigation measures that were adopted by the City.
Mayor Drake asked if staff or the City Attorney had heard any new information.
Joe Grillo, Community Development Director, replied that the only issue raised would be
if someone wanted to comment on State standards raised by Bloom.
Pilliod noted that there was no reference to a particular regulation.
Grillo clarified his comments and referred to page 453 of the staff report noting that the
State air quality standards were within the technical memorandum.
Mayor Drake agreed and said they had not heard anything new or that was specifically
Coun. Soth asked about the situation at the Allen Boulevard bus facility regarding
hazardous waste. He noted that one photograph showed drums of anti-freeze stored
outside. He asked about the storage plans for these types of materials at the new site.
Michael Maloney, Facilities Manager, Beaverton School District, said that the drums in the
photograph were empty and DEQ said that they did not need any special storage for
outdoors. He said that in the new facility there would be storage areas that would meet
all storage requirements for each type of material.
Coun. Soth asked Bloom if it was correct that the worst-case scenario was used in the
computer analysis of odor and emissions, and that the School District was in
Bloom confirmed that was correct.
Coun. Soth asked if it was the Districts dispatch practice to schedule a number of
vehicles departing at same time or within 30-second intervals, or were departures
Maloney stated that the typical departure schedule was staggered; currently, the
scheduled departure times at Allen Boulevard had a maximum number of buses
departing during any one-minute segment of six.
Coun. Soth noted reference was made earlier regarding the CC&Rs and how they
affected the fire lane. He noted that Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue had indicated that they
were required to have access at all times to fire lanes. He asked how that affected the
School Districts operation.
Maloney said that the District expected that the fire lane could continue to be used by all
parties without interfering with the operation of that lane.
Coun. Ruby noted that there were photographs of Bethany Court showing that there was
on-street parking on both sides. He noted another picture showed the difficulty of two
buses passing. He asked if there was any discussion for reconfiguring parking by
providing substitute parking areas and moving the on street parking off the road to widen
the driving channels for buses.
Maloney responded that the District had not anticipated changing the on-street parking.
McCourt said that the cul-de-sac was 36 feet, which was the standard width. He said in
the morning there was little conflict and in the afternoon the buses were returning and it
was not felt that on-street parking would need to be removed.
Mayor Drake asked the Citys Traffic Engineer to draw what currently existed in terms of
width and how that compared with the street design.
Traffic Engineer Randy Wooley explained that Bethany Court was 36 feet curb-to-curb
(as indicated on the as-built drawings) and there were no marked lanes. He noted that
parked cars took 14 feet (minimum for a parking lane), which left 22 feet for travel lanes
Mayor Drake asked Wooley to explain the standard street widths.
Wooley explained that typically the City used 12-foot lanes, but the standards did allow 11
feet and there were some streets with 10-foot lanes. He noted that in the standards an
11-foot lane would not be next to parking.
Mayor Drake asked if that road was designed for parking and traffic typical of an industrial
zone; if the road was only 22 feet wide and had buses that had to pass, would a person
be safe standing on the curb.
Wooley replied he would stand back a few inches from the curb. He said that typical
buses were 8 feet wide not counting the width of the side mirrors. He noted twenty-two
feet would be tight but passable.
Coun. Soth asked how much effect the curvature of Bethany Road would have for a bus
or truck to stay within the driving lanes.
Wooley explained that the curvature was up near Cornell Road and there was no parking
there. He noted that if there was a tight curve, it would be harder for a bus to stay in a
Coun. Brzezinski asked theoretically if the transportation center was the first
development built in that area, what width would have been recommended.
Wooley replied that Bethany was a local street, so staff would have applied the local
Coun. Stanton asked if the local standard would have been used if Safeway had put a
distribution center there.
Wooley explained that if an application for a large distribution facility had come in, a traffic
study would have been required and it would have been evaluated during the
Coun. Stanton asked who owned the fire lane.
Coun. Brzezinski said that in the Board of Design Review minutes of February14, 2002,
there was a comment by Maloney that the fire lane was a private easement belonging to
the School District for the benefit of surrounding properties. She asked if that was
Maloney replied it was a private easement over the real property and the adjacent
property owners shared the right to the easement. He noted that a portion of the actual
easement was on the parcel owned by the District. He noted it was not for the Districts
Coun. Stanton asked about previous testimony that PGE would not allow fueling under
Maloney confirmed that PGE would not allow fueling under power line; the fueling would
be a mobile operation.
Coun. Stanton asked Bloom if his office ever gave David James the data that he
Bloom explained that he gave the data to Michael Minor and presumed he gave it out.
Coun. Doyle asked Bloom what he was referring to when he said time of day the fewest
people were affected.
Bloom explained he was referring to the early morning time when buses would leave the
facility before there was a substantial population of school children at the adjacent
Mayor Drake asked Sullivan if there were any issues they needed to discuss under
Ed Sullivan, appellants attorney, noted that James was available and could respond to
whether or not he received the data.
Coun. Stanton noted that her question was whether Bloom had forwarded the data,
which he said he did.
Hal Oien, appellant, noted that Orchard had raised the question that they had not
submitted all their data to the DEQ. He said he would request to rebut that issue.
Pilliod noted that he and staff were not aware of whether or not air quality data was
submitted to DEQ by the opponents.
Sullivan noted that the only air quality information came from the School District and not
Mayor Drake asked if it was relevant that it was sent to DEQ or the City.
Pilliod responded that the question was if it represented facts not in record. He said that
one could argue that the absence of such documents in the record were what the School
Districts attorney commented on.
Mayor Drake asked Grillo and Development Services Manager Steve Sparks if the
appellant submitted any of the information to DEQ.
Grillo explained that there was no way for staff to know. He noted that testimony
indicated it was disbursed but there was a disagreement as to what was distributed to
whom. He thought the question was if the Council felt it was relevant to the decision.
Mayor Drake confirmed that the City did not control that information and it was not
submitted to record. He asked who at DEQ would have received the information.
Sullivan replied that it probably would have gone to Chang, but the point of his question
was that Orchard used this in a rhetorical way to say the Districts evidence was the only
information that should be considered as it was submitted to DEQ. Sullivan said he
wanted to respond to that.
Mayor Drake asked if the information was not submitted, how would that be relevant.
Sullivan said that the inference was that DEQ said it was okay and they wanted to say
why DEQ didnt look at what they had.
Pilliod noted that the scope of surrebuttal was to address new evidence submitted in
rebuttal. He noted that the question was whether or not Orchards comment, about the
Districts information being the only information submitted to DEQ, was limited to that fact
and not to the rationale or what DEQ ultimately did with that information.
Oien noted that this information was withheld; that the City did not receive it from the
Mayor Drake said he could not control that and he could not have something brought in
after the fact.
Oien stated that Bloom raised additional credentials that they could not confirm and that
his resume did not indicate that he had performed hundreds of tests on air pollution
Pilliod stressed that this had to relate to new evidence.
Oien stated that his point was that Bloom was overstating his expertise in that area.
Sullivan noted that the Council had a letter from the School District and a determination
would be required if it was part of the record.
Mayor Drake explained he considered it part of the rebuttal testimony.
Grillo said that in staff judgment there were two fine lines. He noted that Bloom
introduced new comments concerning his training and if someone disagreed then
Council could hear that testimony.
Mayor Drake ruled it was new information; and asked Oien to continue.
Oien noted that Bloom had not listed that he had performed hundreds of air pollution tests
in his resume. He also noted that Bloom stated that he taught most of the traffic
engineers in State of Washington, which was not in the resume. He noted that in the
letter from Chuck Meyer, President, BSD Board, he said that he would put the cleaner
buses closer to the school and neighborhood to the south; this was new information.
Grillo explained that Council could not put value on the operational issue but could allow
Mayor Drake said he thought it was appropriate to note the letter.
Grillo noted that the surrebuttal had to stay within that range.
Oien read a portion of the June 7, 2002, letter from Chuck Meyers President BSD Board,
which spoke of minimizing the environmental impact by parking the new buses with the
most advanced pollution equipment nearest to the school and residential neighborhood.
He stressed that there was no study submitted that showed this was a good idea and it
was very representative of the type of information they had gotten from the District on
Coun. Brzezinski noted that last week Council received a memo about a revised
Transportation Condition No. 10 that limited the buses at certain times of the day; she
asked why there was no mention of the employees who would be coming and going in
their own vehicles.
Wooley explained that there was some concern about whether the City could regulate the
operation, so staff concentrated on those issues the District could control, which was the
bus operation and not employees operating their own cars. He said the bus trip operation
was something that could be observed; for employees it would be more difficult to
determine. He noted that the trigger was the school bus operations; if the District hits
that trigger, a new traffic study would be required which would include buses and
Coun. Brzezinski asked about the proposed fencing plan; she thought the fence would go
Development Services Manager Steven Sparks explained that the plan before Council
was the one proposed by the School District to clarify the BDR condition, which was the
subject of the Districts appeal. He showed a graphic of the BDR fencing plan, which did
not show the fence along the entire southern boundary of the parking lot. He noted that
the BDR did add a condition to plant 30 trees along the southern and western boundaries
of the project site.
Coun. Brzezinski read the condition that said, The applicant shall provide fencing or a
wall along all areas of the site boundary. She noted that this proposed plan was not all
areas of the site boundary.
Sparks explained that was part of the reason staff agreed with the School District to
reword the condition all areas of the site boundary because that would extend into the
wetlands. He said what staff agreed to was reflected in the Districts graphic The
Proposed Fencing Plan.
Coun. Brzezinski read the statement fencing abutting public roadways would be chain
link without slats. She asked how the area along the fire lane could be qualified for chain
link fencing when it was private property.
Sparks explained that the fire lane was open to the public for access.
Coun. Brzezinski asked if the general public would know that they could turn left onto the
fire lane to access Bethany.
Sparks stated he was not sure if the public knew that, but it did have public access.
Coun. Brzezinski said that one of the neighbors appeal related to the technical standards
and that public services were adequate, which was part of the criteria as noted on page
11. She also noted that the technical standards and the technical review was on page
310 and that the design review spelled out the criteria public and private services. She
asked if they were prohibited from including roads in those public facilities.
Pilliod said that the Council was authorized to interpret ambiguities in a particular
standard. He suggested considering the adequacy of streets and rights-of-way serving
the site encompassed in the Subsection B (Page 311) that discussed anticipated
vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the adequacy of rights-of-way and improvements to
streets. He said it would seem inconsistent to apply it under A if you apply the same
analysis under B.
Coun. Brzezinski referred to the issue of potential health effects. She asked if there was
anything about this application that was comparable to the Haggen methane gas
Grillo recalled that in the Haggen case methane was an issue that was raised and DEQ
was involved as the regulatory agency after the fact. He said DEQ adopted a
promulgation rule that was applied to Haggen in the midst of the site development
process. He said that a State agency could come in after the land use process and
enforce existing rules after the fact.
Coun. Brzezinski said she recalled that with Haggen there were two different opinions
about the impact of the methane gas. She noted that Council required a condition to
bring in a third party review and if anything came out of that review it would have to be
mitigated. She asked if there was anything comparable in this situation.
Mayor Drake said that the difference with Haggen was that DEQ did not have the
authority to regulate methane when this came forward. He said DEQ promulgated rules
that took about a year to finish. He said Haggen and Polygon paid for a third party review
and the City oversaw the contract.
Coun. Brzezinski said she heard Chang say DEQ only regulated the site perimeter.
Mayor Drake explained that DEQ would regulate the vehicles and would come out and
monitor if there was a problem.
Coun. Stanton said she was looking for a letter from Washington County stating that they
received the additional traffic analysis data.
Grillo advised that the County would not send such a letter. He explained that the County
would only submit comments on developments and the recommendations (conditions)
they would want to have included. He noted that if the Countys recommendations were
not included, the County would have the right to appeal to the next body.
Coun. Stanton noted that there were two memorandums dated March 11, 2002, and
March 13, 2002, which noted conditions that the County wanted to include. She said she
assumed that they were included in the conditions of approval.
Grillo said he was not aware of whether the County made recommendations. He
deferred to Wooley or the applicants consultant.
Coun. Stanton noted that one of the Countys conditions read will be required.
Grillo repeated that the County could make recommendations, but it was still the local
jurisdictions decision whether or not to include the conditions.
Wooley explained that County Conditions 2 and 3 were added. He noted that Condition 1
was the access permit from Washington County and it would have to come from the
Coun. Stanton asked about the condition regarding the driveway.
Wooley said that was covered by the Facilities Review condition that required the County
Coun. Soth clarified that there was no construction or activity permitted in the wetlands
area. He asked if the additional plantings in that area would take the place of the fence
for the wetlands.
Sparks noted that if the property line was the reference point, native vegetation would be
used for screening. He explained that if it was in the buffer area, Clean Water Services
could grant an exception to the rule.
Coun. Soth confirmed that Clean Water Services was the agency of authority on this
There being no further questions, Mayor Drake closed the hearing.
Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 9:10 p.m.
Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Mayor Drake thanked the audience for their participation and noted that this system was
designed to protect both sides. He encouraged people to learn and applauded them for
getting involved in the local process.
Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that the consolidated appeals of
the Concerned Citizens of Beaverton and the Five Oaks/Triple Creek NAC be granted,
thus reversing Board of Design Review Order No. 1483 and denying the Beaverton
School Districts application for the proposed Transportation and Support Center at NW
Coun. Ruby said that his viewpoint was based exclusively on traffic impacts to the site.
He said that in this hearing process the opponents provided substantial evidence that the
project did not comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in the Design Review
Technical Standards, Chapter 40, Section 10.15.3.C1 of the Development Code (Page
310 of the staff report). He said he was looking at Criterion (b) related to adequate right
of way and street improvements based on anticipated traffic and Criterion (d) relating to
safe and efficient traffic circulation on site, adequate off-site parking, and loading and
unloading facilities. He said he believed that the proposed facility would cause serious
conflict with vehicle traffic in the businesses located on 167th Place, Bethany Court, Twin
Oaks Drive and the fire lane easement. He noted that the Facilities Review Committee
report noted the tight turn lane from the fire lane into Bethany Court. He said he
appreciated the effort to stagger the buses, but he was convinced that stacking of buses
would inevitably occur with conflicts to traffic and pedestrian safety. He said this would
especially be a problem in the afternoon with youth activities and classes that require
dropping off and picking up children. Second, he said there would be impacts on major
arterials and that the Districts study may underestimate the traffic impact on Cornell
Road. He believed that the bus test demonstrated the practical reality of the traffic
conflicts in that area. He said he was not convinced that the mitigation measures of
restriping and modifying signals would adequately resolve these issues.
Coun. Stanton said she seconded the motion for the reasons stated by Coun. Ruby and
because she found that the impact off-site, as well as the traffic circulation in and out of
the facility, was an issue and had the potential to be devastating to an already seriously
impacted system. She said she was not sure Cornell would be widened in her lifetime
and she did not want to put all the residents and businesses in that situation. She said
they had to look at the entire use and for that reason would support the motion.
Coun. Soth said he would not support the motion. He said the testimony was highly
emotional. He said he was concerned about emergency access and safety. He noted
that fire personnel were the first people at an emergency and they would assume control
at the scene until it was determined that transport would be required. He explained that if
the site were used for something else, like a UPS messenger delivery site, there would
be no restrictions on that. He said the District could be a good neighbor with the
conditions for the traffic impacts and that air quality would not be a concern. He said he
believed the District had provided answers to all the concerns, it had provided all the
necessary information and that the traffic issues had been addressed.
Coun. Doyle stated his overriding concern was the impact on the businesses in that area
and the traffic. He said he thought there was a compromise out there to make this work
for everyone. He said it was an extremely difficult decision and with difficulty, he would
support the motion.
Coun. Brzezinski said she would vote in favor of the motion although this was a legal use
of the property. She said the thought of having six buses going out every minute, and
those buses coming back took her breath away. She said with the thought of the traffic,
and what Cornell Road was like now, she could not see how this could be approved.
She said it was a close call for her. She said she could not support most of the
concerns the appellants raised, but she agreed with the traffic issues.
Coun. Stanton noted that the Code was specific and the conditions would need to meet
the Code and the standards of existing businesses and neighborhoods. She noted there
was no section in the Development Code that addressed health and welfare.
Coun. Doyle reiterated his comment that he felt there was room to address the concerns
of the Council and he hoped everyone would work on this; he felt everyone needed to
face reality in terms of the needs of the District and the community. He said it was
essential to work together because this was a problem for the School District.
Coun. Ruby said that though he made the motion, he greatly valued the school bus
transportation service that the District provided. He said he knew the District was
working in good faith and he did not agree with some of the criticism of the District that he
heard this evening. He said he valued the excellent service provided by the District and
he hoped there were some other areas that could be developed to solve this problem.
Coun. Soth added that the problem with using Tri Met as alternate school transportation
was that you could not get from here to there. He noted the Tri Met buses did not run
on a school type schedule. He added given the safety issue he would be hesitant to
entrust his children with that type of transportation to school.
Mayor Drake repeated the motion to reverse the decision of the Board of Design Review
and grant the opponents appeal.
Question called on the motion. Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Stanton voting AYE;
Coun. Soth voting NO, MOTION CARRIED (4:1)
Pilliod pointed out that the City had consolidated the appeals of the appellant and the
School District. He noted the motion did not direct itself to the Districts appeal and he
requested a separate motion for the Districts appeal.
Coun. Soth moved that Appeal 2002-0005 be denied as to Condition 18, and Condition 5A
be replaced with language similar to Condition 23 of the Miller decision of 1998. There
was no second.
Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that Council deny Appeal 2002-
0005 without prejudice (Beaverton School District).
Coun. Stanton said she made this motion to start with a new slate.
Coun. Soth said he would oppose the motion because the conditions that the School
District had appealed were separate from the conditions of the other areas that were
Question called on the motion. Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Stanton voting AYE;
Coun. Soth voting NO, MOTION CARRIED. (4:1)
Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 9:50 p.m.
Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Brzezinski, that Council move into
executive session in accordance with ORS 192.660 (1) (h) to discuss the legal
rights and duties of the governing body with regard to litigation or litigation likely to
be filed. Question called on the motion. Couns. Doyle, Brzezinski, Soth, Stanton,
and Ruby voting AYE, MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)
The executive session convened at 10:01 p.m.
The executive session adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
The regular meeting reconvened at 10:20 p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Sue Nelson, City Recorder
Approved this 14th day of October, 2002.
Rob Drake, Mayor