BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 2, 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, February 2, 2004 , at 6:33 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 , Finance Director Patrick O'Claire , Community Development Director Joe Grillo , Engineering Director Tom Ramisch , Operations/Maintenance Director Gary Brentano, Library Director Ed House, Human Resources Director Nancy Bates, Assistant City Attorney Bill Scheiderich and Assistant City Attorney Bill Kirby , Police Captain Chris Gibson, Emergency Manager Mike Mumaw , Traffic Engineer Randy Wooley , Senior Planner Margaret Middleton , City Engineer Terry Waldele , Utilities Engineer Dave Winship, Engineers Jim Duggan, Don Gustafson, Jabra Khasho, and Erica Rooney, and Deputy City Recorder Cathy Jansen .

CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS:

David James, Beaverton , Board Member, Five Oaks/Triple Creek Neighborhood Association Committee (NAC), distributed to the Council copies of a letter from the NAC dated January 25, 2004 , regarding the air quality study prepared by Michael Minor & Associates for the Beaverton School District 's proposed Transportation Center facility on Cornell Road . He thanked Council for defending its decision at LUBA. He noted LUBA's decision was made in December and the appeal period expired last week. He explained in preparation for the LUBA appeal hearing, the NAC submitted Minor's study to Oregon 's DEQ and asked for DEQ's comments. He said DEQ responded with a six-page letter that discredited Minor's study and listed the inadequacies of the study; he noted a copy of the DEQ letter was attached to the letter from the NAC. He said the study raised issues of concern to the NAC.

James said the Minor study was reviewed by the Board of Design Review, the Council and City staff, and it was not questioned. He noted this document made it far into the process although it was inaccurate. He suggested a safeguard could be put in place to ensure that such studies were reviewed for accuracy by those technically capable of doing such a review. He said the person who prepared the study was Carl Bloom, who claimed considerable experience in the preparation of over 100 air quality studies. He noted with that level of experience, one would not expect to find the high level of errors found in this study. He suggested that other air quality studies produced by Bloom be analyzed.

James said the Beaverton School District still owned this property and the Board would be discussing this at its next meeting. He asked if the Council could provide any assistance in preparing for another campaign when the next application was submitted by the District.

Mayor Drake said that DEQ's letter was received well after the hearing process. He said that Corey Ann Chang, from DEQ, testified at the hearing and neither she, nor DEQ, offered any resistance in their professional comments. He explained the City was not equipped to do the type of analysis that was performed by Minor or the DEQ. He said DEQ's comments were not provided in a timely manner; if DEQ was going to comment at this high level of detail, it should had been in time for the record. He said the City had not received this input and DEQ was involved very early in the process.

Mayor Drake said that the City was not going to go back and validate Bloom's previous reports. He explained the City had a review process and projects either met criteria or not. He said Council determined this project had not met certain transportation requirements and made its decision; the process continued (to LUBA) and the outcome was favorable to the neighborhood. He stressed the City was not sure what the District was going to do at this point; under the current zoning, the District had limited use of the facility. He said the District had not submitted anything to the City, nor had it indicated it was ready to go to the required neighborhood meeting.

James said he was raising this as an example of a document that should not have gone as far as it had in the planning process.

Mayor Drake said in the future the City would ask DEQ for definitive comments on documents submitted for review. He noted this response was very different from what the City received from DEQ during the hearing process.

Coun. Soth explained it was inappropriate for the City Council to provide input to the NAC because the decision was made by LUBA. Also, he added, if the District presented a similar application, the Council would have had prior contact and would have advised citizens, which it should not do as a Council and as a jurisdictional body.

Coun. Doyle referred to a sentence in the NAC letter "We are very concerned that an Air Quality Study appears to have been deliberately falsified to try and prove that this project will be safe." He asked if that was DEQ's conclusion.

James replied that was his conclusion.

Coun. Stanton thanked James and the NAC for going the extra mile to take the study to DEQ for analysis. She said that indicated good thinking and it became part of the record. She explained the City Code required that reports submitted be accepted at face value as being accurate. She noted that DEQ addressed air quality issues as they pertained to permitting; if the NAC had not submitted the study to DEQ, there wouldn't have been questions concerning the methodology.

Coun. Bode suggested to James in the future that they continue to work together; clarify the issues and wait for the next step in the process.

COUNCIL ITEMS:

There were none.

STAFF ITEMS:

There were none.

CONSENT AGENDA:

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

Minutes of the Regular Meetings of January 5 and 12, 2004.

04015 - A Resolution Adopting the Business Continuity Plan Developed by City Staff, as the City's Business Continuity Plan (Resolution No. 3748)

04016 - Retain Outside Counsel to Review Water Rights

Contract Review Board:

04017 - Contract Award - Engineering Services for the Camille Creek Improvements Project

Coun. Stanton stated she was abstaining from voting on both sets of minutes as she was not at either of the January meetings.

Coun. Doyle commended the City Recorder's staff for an excellent job transcribing the January 5, 2004 , minutes.

Coun. Ruby asked that a sentence in the January 5 minutes be clarified (top of page 8) ".the City was saying that the designation of the contact person can be accomplished through all paperwork involved...". The Councilors agreed to the revision.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0) Coun. Stanton abstained from voting on the January 5 and 12, 2004, minutes as she was not in attendance at either meeting.

WORK SESSION:

04018 - CPA 2003-0015, TA 2003-0008, and Updated Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings

Engineering Director Tom Ramisch explained this work session was to focus on the Engineering Design Manual and the transportation-related elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. He introduced the staff who worked on this project for two years from the Community Development, Engineering and City Attorney's Departments: Senior Planner Margaret Middleton ; City Engineer Terry Waldele ; Traffic Engineer Randy Wooley ; Utilities Engineer David Winship ; Engineers Jim Duggan , Don Gustafson, Jabra Khasho and Erica Rooney; Assistant City Attorneys Bill Scheiderich , Bill Kirby and Ted Naemura .

Ramisch explained the work was still in progress and staff was waiting for input from the private utilities. He said on March 17, 2004 , this would go back to the Planning Commission and it was expected that the ordinance would come to Council for First Reading at the end of April.

Mayor Drake asked if the utilities' responses would be received in time to be incorporated into the report for the March 17 meeting with the Planning Commission.

Ramisch replied it was expected to be on time; they had discussed this with the appropriate staff at the utility companies.

Coun. Soth noted page 11, lines 23-25, "parking areas shall be effectively screened from public right of way. ", needed clarification to ensure the screening (fences, etc.) would not obscure visual sight angles. He commended staff for doing a good job in separating the engineering sections from the overall policy language.

Mayor Drake opened the session for Council questions.

Senior Planner Margaret Middleton and City Engineer Terry Waldele answered Council questions.

Mayor Drake asked if this was reviewed by the Development Liaison Committee.

Middleton responded they had met with the committee.

Coun. Stanton asked if page 6, Section B (s creening of parking areas for more than five vehicles), was for residential areas only or did it include commercial areas.

Middleton explained it was under the general parking requirements, so no specific zoning was attached to that section.

Coun. Stanton asked why this was being done and if "screening" meant full-site screening, so the parking lot would not be visible.

Middleton responded that, as Coun. Soth noted, the language needed to be clarified; they needed to ensure the visibility s tand ards were followed.

Coun. Stanton asked what was the rational for moving these sections out of the Development Code and into the Design Manual.

Middleton explained it was done for appropriateness. She said over the years staff worked hard to clarify what was required of new development and to locate the right text in the right place. She said the update of the Engineering Design Manual was so comprehensive; it became very clear that there were s tand ards in the Development Code that really belonged in the Engineering Design Manual. She noted they were more appropriately located in the Design Manual and this was where people would think to look for them.

Coun. Stanton asked what this would do for citizens who wanted to understand the process.

Middleton explained the Comprehensive Plan, the Development Code and the Design Manual would be easier to read. She added all the manuals would be on the City's Web and would be easily accessible for citizens and staff; it would make it easier for staff to guide citizens to the right resources.

Coun. Stanton noted on the Transportation Plan Element, the first item on Exhibit 1 said "and include a Transportation Impact Analysis when necessary." She asked who determined when that would be necessary.

Middleton explained the City Engineer would make that determination based on Traffic Impact Analysis requirements in the Development Code. She noted those requirements provided some discretion for the City Transportation Engineer to analyze a proposal and determine to what extent the Traffic Impact Analysis requirements should be met.

Coun. Stanton asked if the City Transportation Engineer determined that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not needed, would it supercede the Planning Commission's current authority to require one.

Community Development Director Joe Grillo explained the Planning Commission had the right to ask for more evidence, but the dilemma would be what was under debate and what was a reasonable amount of information. He said every case would be different; the Planning Commission would have to hear testimony that was contrary to whatever information the Engineering Department had given the Commission, to justify asking an applicant to prepare a transportation analysis. He said that simply having someone say they did not believe the City Engineer, so they wanted a Traffic Impact Analysis done, would not be enough to justify requiring the analysis. He cautioned that the City needed to be careful that it was not asking applicants for something, simply because it was wanted. He said that would mean the City was treating applications differently, for applicants would need to be treated the same.

Coun. Stanton stated she thought all applications should have a Traffic Impact Analysis, because of the impact to the City's streets. She said she did not want to do anything that restricted the Planning Commission from getting the information it needed to do its job. She said she was concerned that this would hamstring the Commission. She said the issue was not the size of the development; the issue was that this was taking away some of the Commission's ability to make informed decisions.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea gave as an example a situation with a Comprehensive Plan amendment where the applicant submitted substantial evidence that showed he did not violate the s tand ards and the City Engineer agreed. The Planning Commission then required an analysis and the applicant refused to provide it because of the expense and because sufficient evidence was submitted to show the s tand ards were not violated. He said if the Planning Commission denied the application, it would go to LUBA; LUBA would find there was substantial evidence to show it met the s tand ards and send it back to the City. He said the discretion within the Code language would not be difficult for the Commission to interpret.

Coun. Stanton said as long as the Commission's ability to request the analysis was not hindered by this text, she was satisfied.

Coun. Stanton asked how these amendments would affect the Type 1 and Director Interpretations.

Grillo explained Type 1's were ministerial and without discretion, and would not be impacted. He said the Director's Interpretation would stay the same; any appeal of the Director's Interpretation would go to the Council.

Coun. Doyle asked why the manuals required specific parts for such items as lights.

City Engineer Terry Waldele explained the s tand ards were specific to establish minimum requirements. He noted there was flexibility in the "or" and "equal" clauses that go with the s tand ards.

Coun. Soth noted that in reading the Planning Commission minutes, there was a great deal of discussion about the provisions for bicycle racks in various places. He asked if the City was paying too much attention to security for bicycle riders, when that was not done for automobile drivers. He asked if this was going overboard rather than treating everyone the same. He said as a private property owner of an automobile, he thought it was the responsibility of the bicyclists to make sure their bikes were secure.

Middleton explained the Planning Commission requested that the bike parking s tand ards be very specific. She explained these s tand ards were common to the majority of cities in Oregon , as well as being in ODOT's Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan. She added that this all led back to the Transportation Planning Rule requirements fo r b icycle parking. She noted the TPR requirements were a component of a larger set of Federal requirements for air quality; this was to work on congestion and to encourage people to use transit, walk and bicycle. She noted this has been a big issue with the Bicycle Advisory Committees for several years. She said bicyclists were requesting the same things that drivers have; convenient location, security and safety were considered to be minimal s tand ards.

Coun. Soth said he felt that fell into the area of personal responsibility for drivers and bicyclists.

Mayor Drake explained the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Development Liaison Committee were involved in developing this proposed ordinance. He said this was the middle ground from what would be an ideal ordinance that strong bicycle advocates promoted. He agreed it was an evolution from where the City was five to ten years ago. He noted Coun. Soth strongly supported grant applications for expansion of the bicycle lanes around the City. Also, through Coun. Soth's and staff's efforts, the City was recognized by the League of American Bicyclists for its collective effort to expand the City's bike paths and facilities. He said based on the ideal, this was a middle ground.

Coun. Stanton noted with bicyclists in her family and as a transit user, she hoped these s tand ards were adopted and that the City would eventually have enclosed bus stops everywhere.

 Mayor Drake asked when this would come back for consideration.

Middleton explained the Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments would be March 17 before the Planning Commission. She said the First Reading for all the ordinances was tentatively scheduled for late April .

ORDINANCES:

First and Second Reading and Adoption:

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton , that the rules be suspended and the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04019 be read for the first time in full at this meeting and for the second by title only at this same meeting. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Stanton and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea read the following ordinance for the first time in full and for the second time by title only at this same meeting.

04019 - An Ordinance Adding a New Beaverton City Code Section Regarding the Suspension and Revocation of Permits and Declaring an Emergency (Ordinance No. 4286)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04019 now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Stanton and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

First Reading :

Suspend Rules:

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04020 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)

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

04020 - An Ordinance Annexing Property Generally Located at 8200 SW Scholls Ferry Road and Commonly Referred to as Redtail Golf Course Plus Portions of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Oleson Road Rights-of-Way to the City of Beaverton: Expedited Annexation 2003-0008 (Ordinance No. 4287)

Second Reading :

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

04014 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, The Zoning Map, From Urban Standard Density (R7) to Urban Standard Density (R5); ZMA 2003-0017 Holland Park PUD Zoning Map Amendment (Ordinance No. 4285)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04014 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 7:34 p.m.

APPROVAL:

Approved this 9th day of February, 2004.

__________________________________
Rob Drake, Mayor