BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 9, 2004

CALL TO ORDER:

The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob Drake in the Forrest C. Soth City Council Chamber, 4755 SW Griffith Drive , Beaverton , Oregon , on Monday, August 9, 2004 , at 6:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Betty Bode, Dennis Doyle, Fred Ruby, Forrest Soth and Cathy Stanton. Also present were Chief of Staff Linda Adlard , City Attorney Alan Rappleyea , Community Development Director Joe Grillo , Engineering Director Tom Ramisch , Operations/Maintenance Director Gary Brentano , Police Chief David Bishop, Assistant Finance Director Shirley Baron Kelly and City Recorder Sue Nelson .

PRESENTATIONS:

04166 - Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Project Update

Mayor Drake said he and Coun. Stanton attended the July 26, 2004 , public hearing concerning Goal 5 and approximately 60 people testified. He said today the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee (elected officials) decided to delay the decision to send the Goal 5 Program forward. He said due to issues regarding noticing, the accuracy of theresource map and the timelines, next week the Committee would probably make a recommendation to allow thirty more days to refine the map.

 Principal Planner Hal Bergsma introduced Senior Planner Barbara Fryer .

Fryer explained the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Resources (Partners) was an alliance of ten cities, Washington County , Metro, Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District and Clean Water Services. She said they were working together to resolve natural resource issues in the Tualatin Basin . She said they were in Step 3 of a three-step process. She said Metro completed the resource inventory and there were issues with the inventory in terms of defining where the resources were located in the landscape. She said the ESEE Analysis was completed in April and now they were working on a Program to protect the resources.

Fryer said the ESEE (Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy) Analysis looked at balancing the needs of the human population and the environment. She said the ALP (allow, limit, prohibit) Map, which identified if conflicting uses would be allowed, limited or prohibited in resource areas, was approved in April. She said two open houses and a public hearing were held in July 2004 concerning the ALP Map. She said the goal of the Program was to improve the health of the Tualatin River Basin . She said there were twenty-seven sites in Metro’s inventory; eleven were in the Tualatin River Basin .

Fryer explained the Program goals would be accomplished using four components, which she reviewed in detail (in the record). The four components were:

1) Non-Regulatory Components: Education, stewardship recognition, restoration grants, tax incentives, technical assistance, volunteer activities, and acquisition.

2) Regulatory Components: A) Design Standards would be developed to avoid, minimize and mitigate an impact to a resource area. She described in detail the focus of the design standards (in record) and said these regulations would come into effect for habitat disturbances greater than 200 square feet. B) Design Tools that would be used included low impact development, clustering, density transfers and height/setback adjustments. She said they were looking at having an impervious area target that would be required in a streamshed and these tools would be used to meet that target. She said the tools were not required, but would be available to use in combinations of one or more. She showed examples of impervious areas, green roofs, rain gardens and tree preservation.

3) Revenue Component: She said the revenue sources being considered were: A) A fee (similar to the surface water management fee) of $2.03 per month to be used to fund $127 million in capital improvement projects over a 20-year period; B) A Natural Resource Bond Measure for property acquisition; C) Fee-in-Lieu-of-Mitigation to help enhance resources; and D) Federal, state, regional and local grants to look at improving the health and restoring the natural resources of the basin.

4) Administration and Monitoring (not discussed but shown in slide presentation)

Fryer explained public testimony received from the open houses and the public hearing ranged from “you’re not protecting enough” to “you’re protecting too much.” She said the testimony also covered inventory and mapping problems, interest in a county-wide tree ordinance and concern about the mitigation ratios being too high or too low. She reported the Steering Committee, which staffed the Coordinating Committee, identified additional issues which needed to be worked through. She explained these issues were: •The Resource Inventory has to be adjustable at the local level;

•Concern regarding what the approval criteria might be for the alternatives analysis;

•Concern regarding what the mitigation requirement was for the lightly-limit areas;

•Some lightly-limit areas might be difficult to mitigate through low-impact development or if it is a floodplain issue, the only mitigation that should be required was low-impact development;

•Lack of commitment in terms of incentives; and

•Additional adjustments are needed to the ALP Map.

Fryer reviewed the adjustments that would be needed to the ALP Map; the Tektronix Campus area surrounding the Strictly-Limit area (in the record) should be changed to Allow, as there were no resources there. She showed two downtown Beaverton areas and said, with the exception of the Tri-Met mitigation areas, the designations should be changed to Allow and Lightly-Limit. In the Merlo Station area, she said there was a grove of trees that should be changed to Allow. She said the Beaverton Creek Station Community was currently Moderately-Limit and it should be changed to Lightly-Limit. She said on the Mt. Williams site, staff proposed upgrading the Lightly-Limit area up to Moderately-Limit. Also, on Mt. Williams , the area to be acquired by Tualatin Valley Water District should be changed to Lightly-Limit, so the District would have the right to develop the property it acquired without being subject to any discretionary review process. The District would still have to mitigate any impacts.

Coun. Soth stated this raised more questions than it answered. He asked how much more it would cost a property owner to develop his property, taking these regulations into consideration. He asked how much more a structure with a green roof would cost to develop.

Principal Planner Hal Bergsma said the green roof was one tool for low impact development; it was an alternative to a detention facility which would take valuable land. He said in some ways it could be a wash but in other places it might not work out that way. He said each site needed to be looked at individually to determine cost of the land and development.

Fryer explained at one of the conferences she attended last year, they learned that when Ford Motor Company built its most recent plant in Detroit, Michigan, they built a green roof on the manufacturing plant that was one-acre in size. She said they chose to build the green roof because it was cheaper than a non-green roof because it would retain the membrane on the roof longer.

Coun. Soth asked if the roof failed what would be the cost of replacement; was that considered.

Fryer replied it was considered and the life of the green roof was 60 years, instead of the usual five years for a regular membrane roof. She said Ford felt this was a better business decision than the reapplication of the roof every five years.

Bergsma said another factor developers might consider was the monthly cost of paying the surface water management fee to Clean Water Services, which was based on equivalent dwelling units (EDU). He suggested a program could be structured so that if a developer applied a low-impact development tool, or a combination of the tools, he could get a fee reduction since the amount of runoff on the site was reduced. He said that would encourage the use of these development techniques.

Coun. Soth asked what sort of mitigation was proposed to eliminate some of the outfalls located throughout the area.

Bergsma said this Program addressed the requirements that Metro set under State-wide Planning Goal 5. He said another program was coming forward, on a slower schedule, which was the Clean Water Services Healthy Stream Planning Process. He said that program was focused on addressing the Endangered Species Act and Federal Clean Water Act requirements. He said that program would probably include the issue of the outfalls. He said that program would probably come forward next year.

Coun. Soth said there were two questions the individual property owners would have. First, how would this affect their property ownership and prohibitions of use on their own property; and, second, were they supposed to pay for the use of their own property. He said he thought the overall objective was probably good, but more analysis was needed on the affect this would have on the individual property owner. He said it would be hard to get the proposed fee and bond issue approved until these questions were answered. He stressed a lot more detail was needed.

Coun. Doyle asked if the business community was involved in touring and designating the areas in the ALP Map.

Bergsma said different interest groups and corporations were involved to various degrees throughout the process. He said the Homebuilders Association was very involved and the West Side Economic Alliance was somewhat involved. He said as they moved closer to the end of the Program, more people were becoming involved.

Mayor Drake explained that staff met with key business and property owners to discuss the impact on them. He said the difficulties were that there was not a lot of definition or clear identification for people to see, and Metro did the original mapping and trying to get errors changed was difficult.

Coun. Doyle said he felt since more people would be involved, this needed to be slowed down and he thought thirty days was too quick. He said his real concern for the entire region was if they wanted to stop the area’s ability to grow in terms of business capabilities. He said the economic survivability of the region was at stake and this raised very serious issues. He said he was uncomfortable with the possibility of stifling the growth in this region and that was crucial to him. He noted, as an example, he did not consider the Nike property pristine, old-growth forest, as he had the south side of the Park District property which was worth preserving. He said this was raising his concern.

Mayor Drake said concerning the Nike property, the value given to the mitigation was estimated between $3.7 and $5-6 million. He said that would allow them to do whatever they wanted on the property and the in-lieu-of fee would go toward improving habitat somewhere else. He said one could argue that preserving that property kept the quality of life high in the region. He said that was prime industrial land. He noted there was huge effort in the last couple of years to expand the industrial land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and it was not expanded to the degree that was needed. He said if this land was taken, when it was added back to the UGB there was no requirement that it come back to Washington County or this portion of Washington County . He said it could all go to Damascus or somewhere else. He said Washington County had been identified as an economic engine for the State of Oregon and this action could retard or inhibit that.

Coun. Doyle noted as an example, Intel has its expansion and growth plans plotted out, which could be affected by this action. He asked how businesses in this area could plan to succeed and grow with this coming up. He said he was glad to see the businesses responding because he felt there were valid concerns and questions that needed to be addressed.

Coun. Bode pointed out there were no established definitions for key terminology, to which the stakeholders had agreed. She noted, as an example, there was no definition of stream and riparian area. She said she felt it was Metro’s responsibility to set these definitions. She said they ought to have the industry standards already flushed out. She noted setback was an odd term and said she thought the terminology was vague. She said she was concerned about the longer-term property owner who suddenly learned his backyard was a protected space. She said there had to be public notice stating in which season a person’s property would be a protected area. She said she did not think the property owners were being given enough information so they could be equal players in this matter. She said she felt the worst thing that could be done would be to move this project forward because without firm definitions, the Commission and Council could be caught up in discussion forever.

Fryer stated that was a good point. She said the City was working with Metro on the definition of the term “resource.” She said as a group, there were key terms that needed to be defined before they could begin implementation and working with property owners. She said right now it was still difficult to define, but they were working with Metro to make the resources on the property visible.

Bergsma explained one of the difficulties with Metro’s approach to Goal 5 was that Metro defined resources in an atypical way. He said Metro defined resources based on functional values, such as where the floodplain ended. He noted that was difficult because that changed with the season and it was not always apparent, when looking at a site, to find where a resource began or ended. He said they were trying to get better definitions on where the boundary of a resource might be, but that would be difficult given the way Metro defined significant resources.

Coun. Bode stated she agreed and said the biologist at Metro could not give her a definition of “riparian area.” She encouraged staff to move slowly and smoothly and come back with tools the average person can understand.

Coun. Stanton asked about process; she knew the Coordinating Committee needed to come up with a recommendation to give to Metro by August 16, 2004 . She asked if Metro was given a time frame when it received an exception from the National Marine Fisheries Services for the local cities to develop plans to protect salmon and steelhead smolt.

Bergsma said Clean Water Services (CWS) had that responsibility and CWS discussed that with the National Marine Fisheries Services. He said Metro was not involved with that. He said he was not aware of any time limit placed on CWS regarding that issue.

Coun. Stanton said she agreed that going slower was better than going faster, unless they were under a Federal mandate.

Bergsma said in terms of the deadline set with Metro, that was set through an agreement that local governments entered into with Metro and it was an arbitrary deadline. He said there would be no problem with getting an extension, as Metro would not meet its deadline for reviewing the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation once it was submitted. He said he did not think there would be an objection to taking more time.

Coun. Stanton said she supported getting an extension from Metro so these issues could be addressed. She said at the public hearing there were people who were very passionate about what they wanted to see on other people’s property and there were equally passionate comments from property owners about their own property. She referenced a comment from one gentleman who said he would only be able to use 50% of his property in the future based on this program. She said these issues needed to be addressed. She noted the map inconsistencies also need to be addressed and asked if this could be done by Monday, August 16, 2004 .

Fryer replied the map inconsistencies would not be addressed by that date.

Bergsma explained there were different maps. He said the City could decide that, though Metro showed it on the Inventory Map as a significant resource, because of economic impact development should be allowed to occur subject to existing standards.

Coun. Stanton said one of her concerns was that Beaverton had specific areas the City needed to protect based on requirements from the County, Metro, State and Federal governments. She asked how the City could do that and still protect the economic interests of property owners, the economic viability of those areas, and the resources.

Mayor Drake said there were resources that were extremely valuable and the environmental community was correct in wanting to preserve those resources. He said the value in what was being done was in clearly identifying and delineating where those resources were, once the map corrections were completed. He said the funding component was important because everyone would participate in keeping the water clean and healthy in the whole Basin. He noted Ballot Measure 37, on the November ballot, was a concern because of the takings issue. He said if they were not rational, calm, calculated and well thought out on what was ultimately adopted, it would fall into the hands of those who believed government goes too far. He said this Program, if it went too far, might be takings. He said it was important to balance good environmental practice with respecting people’s property rights and wanting this region to be financially healthy.

Coun. Stanton said she was concerned with the issues raised of poor notice and faulty maps; they would be starting with faulty data which would spiral down. She said one of her concerns was how the City would be impacted as a corporation if it had to meet these requirements.

Coun. Ruby said he appreciated the presentation and comments made. He noted the feedback from the businesses and environmental groups was equally vigorous which probably meant they were doing something right. He said everyone appreciated the overall goal of the Tualatin River as a life line in Washington County . He said he would be interested to see how the Program develops.

Mayor Drake noted that the maps in Portland indicated very little habitat of any kind. He said he often wondered if Washington County wasn’t paying for the ills of earlier settlement of the Portland area. He said Clackamas County would suffer some of these same challenges.

Coun. Soth asked how the pollutants were measured to determine if a lot of the degradation occurred because of things outside the area.

Bergsma said the entire Tualatin River Basin was not covered by this Program because Fanno Creek flowed into Washington County from Portland and Portland was not participating, though they were invited. He said the fourth component to the Program was Administration and Monitoring, and they would rely heavily on Clean Water Services for monitoring that part of the program. He said that monitoring would show what direction they were headed, in terms of improving the health of the Basin.

Coun. Soth said in the past most of the Basin was used for farm purposes including irrigation and receiving the runoff from pesticides and fertilizers. He said they were now reaping 120 years of farming and logging activities. He said that needed to be recognized and taken into consideration in the ESEE.

Bergsma said the assumption was they would never return to the point of a pristine environment. He said they were trying to improve the health of the Basin and if they were able to get to a Fair health rating, they would be doing well.

Fryer referred to Page 23 of the presentation, which showed the Goal 5 improvements (in the record). She said some of those projects were to get the rural property owners to preserve and enhance the stream sites, using the tax credit incentives available through the State. She said the State’s program allowed the property owner to reap a benefit in terms of income tax reduction based on the loss of revenue and there was another program that allowed a property tax reduction.

Coun. Soth said that would have to be done with a lot of the property being considered in this Program.

CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS:

Rev. Ja West said she was glad the City Council met weekly and the meetings were televised. She spoke about the birth of her children and her religious beliefs.

Henry Kane, Beaverton , asked that the Council consider adopting a resolution asking the Washington County Board of Commissioners to place a serial levy for the libraries on the November ballot or to allow the co-op libraries to impose a membership fee to offset the lost revenue from the failed serial levy. He noted many libraries were less able to cope with the lost revenue than the Beaverton Library. He said putting the levy on the ballot would not have a harmful effect on other levies as the voters exercised judgment. He said if the County waited until 2006, much damage would occur, some of which could not be easily repaired.

Kane stated his second item dealt with a landmark Michigan Supreme Court decision which said that under urban renewal, a public body could not take someone’s private property and give it to another. He said if the matter came before the Oregon Appellate Court, the Oregon Court would follow that rule. He added that might or might not affect the 114 th Avenue project.

Kane said his third item was in regard to a column in the July 29, 2004 Oregonian “Get Water Back In Fish & Wildlife Protection Plan” by Brian Wagner, Watershed Watch Coordinator for Tualatin Riverkeepers. He said Wagner made the point that $120 million was going to be spent to protect habitat; yet it did not include sufficient funding to keep pollutants from stormwater runoff out of Beaver Creek and the Tualatin River . Kane suggested the Council ask staff to consult with Clean Water Services and DEQ to see what they might suggest. Kane noted the City required filtering systems on some projects and he thought it should be made part of the City’s Development Code. He said it was not good to save the salmon, if they were going to die from pollution from stormwater runoff.

Mayor Drake asked staff to explain what the City currently required for the filtering systems Kane referenced.

Operations Director Gary Brentano explained on private development, the City required a device that trapped the solids and drainage from the parking lots for cleaning. He said the City had replaced catch basins on a regular basis and the City used filtered catch basins that filtered the materials before they reached the outfalls for the streams. He said in other cases, such as the Downey Street Project, the storm water system was connected to a device that filtered the solids and contaminants from the street. He said they spoke with Clean Water Services (CWS) about cleaning up Beaverton Creek and CWS pledged assistance and plant materials for this cleanup. He said they were prepared to make considerable progress on this and they looked for opportunities to provide adequate filtration to the outfalls.

Mayor Drake confirmed with Brentano this was normally required for new development.

Coun. Soth stated if this was to be a comprehensive attempt, there were a number of outfalls from previous developments and drainage projects that needed to be identified. He said it would be costly to try to remedy the situation now. He said this was one of those cases where the more one looked into it, the worse it would get.

Mayor Drake explained the library levy failed twice now; the second time it failed was because it did not get a double majority vote. He said Library Director Ed House, who represented the City on the County Library Advisory Board (CLAB), asked that CLAB submit a request to the County Commission to put the levy on the ballot. He said the CLAB had a split vote on the request. He said the County Commissioners opined that with a split vote on the CLAB, and with the County having a law enforcement levy on the November ballot and Hillsboro having a capitol bond for a new library on the ballot, there was a lukewarm reception to the library levy. He said Kane was correct in that it probably would be two years before the County would put the library levy on the ballot. He said it was unfortunate the levy had failed twice.

RECESS:

Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:50 p.m.

RECONVENE:

Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m.

COUNCIL ITEMS:

Coun. Soth said yesterday he and Coun. Doyle attended the Vietnam Freedom Flag presentation and the Vietnamese-American Freedom plaque was presented to them. He explained the Vietnamese community was very grateful to the United States and the City of Beaverton for being able to establish their community in this country as they escaped the war. He gave the Mayor the plaque and explained this was a thank you to the City for recognizing the Vietnamese community.

Mayor Drake thanked them for attending and he showed the audience a plaque with the Vietnamese and American flag.

Coun. Doyle said it was an excellent event and he thanked the Vietnamese community.

Coun. Bode thanked Coun. Soth for representing the Council at the opening of the Virginia Garcia Memorial Clinic on Friday, August 6, 2004 . She explained the Clinic was the first federally-funded clinic in Beaverton that served the needs of low-income, uninsured and marginalized individuals in the community. She said it was also the first day in 54 days that it rained. She invited the community to visit the Clinic and explained it was located next to the Winco Grocery Store on Cedar Hills Boulevard and Jenkins Road .

Mayor Drake thanked Coun. Bode for attending. He noted earlier in the week Coun. Bode gave Senator Smith a tour of the facility and he was impressed with the cultural diversity of the Clinic and the work being done at the Clinic. He noted that Providence Hospital also appreciated the service provided by the Clinic as it was a much more affordable service. He said as a result of the tour Senator Smith had a renewed interest in the Clinic. He said he hoped the Federal government would continue providing assistance, so that the City could assist the citizens in the community.

Coun. Bode explained the Clinic opened on March 1, 2004 . She said 40% percent of the patients were of Hispanic descent, 40% were Caucasian, and 20% were from the Pacific Rim countries. She noted on an average, 750 patients were seen monthly, which was a large number for a clinic that just opened. She said the Clinic was also working with the Beaverton schools, the Resource Center and the Asian Health Center to make this Clinic an integral part of the City. She explained how the Clinic was helping citizens to be full members of the community by providing much needed assistance. She thanked City staff who attended the opening.

Coun. Stanton announced the Picnic in the Park would be held this Thursday, August 12, 2004 , at Hiteon Park at 6:00 p.m. for the Sexton Mountain , South Beaverton , Greenway and Neighbors Southwest NACs.

STAFF ITEMS:

There were none.

CONSENT AGENDA:

Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth, that the Consent Agenda be approved as follows:

Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 19, 2004

04167 - Liquor License – New Outlet: Diamond Head Grill, Alina’s Wine, Co-Ho Imports Oregon

04168 - A Resolution Concurring with the Vacation of a Portion of West Baseline Road by Washington County (Resolution No. 3772)

04169 - Intergovernmental Agreement for Mutual Aid, Mutual Assistance and Interagency Cooperation Among Law Enforcement Agencies Located in Washington County , Oregon

Contract Review Board:

04170 - Retainer Agreements for Professional Services in Support of the FY 2004-05 and 2005-06 Capital Improvements Plan

Coun. Stanton said on Page 3 of the July 19, 2004 Minutes, the question she asked was “If the City would be soliciting comments from the developers of senior and disabled housing only, and not also from developers of low income and affordable housing.” She requested that section be changed.

Coun. Stanton said she also made a comment about looking at refurbishing existing apartments and not just looking at empty land for development of affordable housing and she did not see that in the minutes. She asked if she made that during the presentation or after the presentation.

Coun. Soth said he did not recall if that comment was during or after the presentation.

Coun. Stanton said she wanted to make that comment for the record. She said the idea of building affordable housing on empty land was fine but she thought there were plenty of older apartment buildings, already on the transportation corridor, that could be purchased and refurbished.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

ORDINANCES:
Suspend Rules:

Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04171 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. Bode, Doyle, Soth, Ruby and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

First Reading :

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea read the following ordinance for the first time by title only:

04171 - An Ordinance Annexing Property Generally Known as a Portion of SW Barrows Road to the City of Beaverton : Expedited Annexation 2004-0006 (Ordinance No. 4320)

Second Reading :

Rappleyea read the following ordinance for the second time by title only:

04165 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4187, the Comprehensive Plan, to Adopt Various Affordable Housing Policies and Action Statements in order to Comply with Title 7 of Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Advance the City Toward Meeting its Affordable Housing Target (Ordinance No. 4319)

Rappleyea explained on Ordinance 4319, Exhibit 1, a comma was added to Action 5, Section 4.2.3.2(a), to read “…developers of affordable, senior and disabled housing…” as directed by Council at the last meeting.

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton , that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04165 now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

APPROVAL:

Approved this 23rd day of August, 2004.

__________________________________
Rob Drake, Mayor