JULY 19, 2004



JULY 19, 2004


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, July 19, 2004 , at 6:37 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Betty Bode, Dennis Doyle, Fred Ruby, Forrest Soth and Cathy Stanton. Also present were 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, Police Chief David Bishop, Principal Planner Hal Bergsma , Associate Planner Jeff Salvon , Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley and Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.


04155 - Presentation to Brief the Council on a Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Implement Tools and Strategies for Development of More Affordable Housing in Beaverton

Principal Planner Hal Bergsma n introduced Associate Planner Jeff Salvon .

Bergsma said the presentation was related to Agenda Bill 04165 (proposed Ordinance regarding Title 7/Affordable Housing) also brought before Council at this meeting. He said the dilemma concerning affordable housing was that housing costs were rising faster than wages for most of the population; low income, single-parent and senior populations were particularly affected. He said many affected households turned to public services for aid and to reduce their housing costs. He said cities with a high percentage of low-income households were often the least able to address the problem. In recognition of this, Metro engaged in an effort to develop ways to provide affordable housing; Title 7 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan was the plan to address this situation.

Bergsma said Title 7 estimated the regional need for affordable housing and assigned affordable housing targets to each city and county. He said the targets related to those who were at 30% and 50% of median household income. He said Title 7 required that each city and county consider adopting various tools and strategies to encourage the development of affordable housing. It also required that each city and county submit a series of three compliance reports on the progress they were making in considering the adoption of these tools and strategies.

Bergsma said the City submitted its first compliance report in November, 2002 and reported on the availability and use of Federal funds, waivers that were granted for development fees and regulatory changes made to the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. He said the second compliance report was completed at the end of last year and the City evaluated seven mandatory and ten optional affordable housing tools. He said each tool was ranked and recommendations for each tool were developed. He said the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings to review the recommendations and Council adopted the recommendations. He said in December, 2003, the Council approved submittal of the second report and authorized completion of the third compliance report, which included implementation of the higher-rated tools and strategies. He reviewed the list of tools and strategies that were considered (in the record).

Bergsma reviewed the key recommendations proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in detail (in the record). Major recommendations included reduction of barriers to development of housing for elderly and disabled populations, investigating regulatory constraints, land banking and assembly, and property tax abatements. He concluded that the next steps in the process would be to adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, to complete and submit the third compliance report to Metro, and to develop programs and practices that respond to the adopted policies.

Coun. Soth asked if ADA requirements would be met.

Bergsma replied they were not specifically recognized but for senior and disabled housing they had to comply with ADA requirements.

Coun. Soth asked if Metro contributed to subsidizing these projects.

Bergsma replied this was an unfunded mandate.

Coun. Soth asked where in the proposal the law that mobilehomes were allowed in any residential area was addressed.

Bergsma replied this law was still in effect. He noted certain design standards could be applied to mobilehomes.

Coun. Soth asked Bergsma to explain the term “inclusionary zoning.”

Bergsma explained inclusionary zoning required a certain percentage of a housing development be developed as low-income housing. He said in Oregon it was illegal to mandate inclusionary zoning. He stated Metro required that cities consider voluntary inclusionary housing, i.e., that cities provide incentives for developers to set aside a certain number of units in their project for low-income housing.

Coun. Soth stated Beaverton was 95% built out which presented problems in terms of developable area.

Bergsma agreed there was not a lot of vacant land in Beaverton ; however, there was a lot of redevelopment potential, especially in the center and downtown areas. He said the downtown might be a good area for redevelopment for affordable housing.

Coun. Stanton asked how the City could assist housing developers in determining market demand.

Bergsma explained in 2000 the City conducted an affordable housing survey and developed rough figures on how many people in Beaverton needed affordable housing. He said they also had census data available. He said the City might want to update this data to stay on top of the information.

Coun. Stanton asked if the City would be soliciting comments from developers of senior and disabled housing only and not from developers of low income or affordable housing.

Bergsma replied the City would solicit comments from those developers.

Coun. Stanton said she was pleased with this document and with the work done by the Planning Commission and staff. She said she was glad the City was moving forward.

Coun. Bode asked if mixed use housing was being considered.

Bergsma replied it might be possible to have a mixed use element in an affordable housing project.

Coun. Bode suggested for the redevelopment of the downtown Beaverton area, there was a need to consider family residential development, to give families access to the resources in that area (schools, park, library). She said she hoped to see that type of development.

Coun. Soth stated that all housing was affordable to someone. He asked why the euphemism “affordable housing” was used instead of privately or publicly subsidized housing, such as the Section 8 Federal Program which would soon be phased out. He said it appeared to him that this was an attempt to make local jurisdictions pickup what has been the Federal government’s role.

Bergsma replied the Federal government still had a major role and Federal funds would be utilized for some of these programs. He said affordable housing was determined when Metro established targets for households at certain income levels and the biggest demand was for those at 30% of income. He said sometimes the market could meet the need of affordable housing, depending on the community and cost of housing; in communities where housing was higher, there usually had to be some subsidy.

Coun. Soth asked what the difference was between subsidizing the developer and subsidizing an applicant by giving them a cash voucher to provide their own living quarters wherever they chose, if they could makeup the difference.

Bergsma replied that was another program to be considered and that described the Section 8 Program. He said the City had not considered a program to subsidize the applicant because of the administrative complexity. He said this was better handled at the State or Federal level.

Mayor Drake stated a City program to subsidize an applicant would require creating a new bureaucracy which would be costly. He said there already were efficient bureaucracies at the State, Federal and private levels to handle such programs.

Coun. Soth said he agreed such a program should be subsidized at the Federal or State levels.

Mayor Drake thanked staff for the presentation.


Mayor Drake introduced Eric Knutsen, a scout in Boy Scout Troop 870 and a student at Aloha High School , who was working on his Communications Merit Badge.

Rev. Ja West spoke on various aspects of her personal life.

Henry Kane, Beaverton , commended Coun. Soth for his earlier comments regarding subsidized housing. He said the City was not considering affordable housing; this was taxpayer subsidized housing. He said over the years subsidized housing was associated with waste, political corruption and voter disdain. He questioned whether Metro had any authority to tell a home-rule city how to spend its taxpayers’ funds. He said he submitted a letter to Council and asked that before the second reading of the affordable housing ordinance, the City prepare a supplemental report answering the questions in his letter. He stated subsidized housing was a county, State or Federal function, not a City function.

Coun. Stanton explained to Kane that nothing being considered at this meeting required the City to subsidize anything. She stressed Council Goals No. 1, 5 and 6, compelled the City to do its utmost to provide affordable housing


Coun. Soth expressed appreciation to the Chamber of Commerce for choosing him to be Grand Marshal of the SummerFEST parade. He said as he rode along in the parade, he was struck once again by the diversity of the people all along the parade route. He said it was very gratifying because it showed Beaverton was a cosmopolitan City, as represented by those who lived here. He thanked the Chamber for this opportunity.

Coun. Stanton announced the City Council ’s Picnic in Park would be on Thursday, July 22, 2004 , at 6:00 p.m. , at Schiffler Park for the Central Beaverton , Highland and Vose Neighborhood Associations. She also stated on Friday at 4:00 p.m. , The Bridge at 141 st and Allen, an affordable disabled housing project developed in cooperation with the Tualatin Valley Housing Partners, would hold a groundbreaking ceremony.


There were none.


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

Minutes for the Regular Meeting of July 12, 2004

04148 - Final Order for Traffic Commission Issue No. TC 500 Regarding Left Turn Restrictions on SW Greenway at the Driveway Near Hall Boulevard (Carried over from meeting of 7/12/04 )

04156 - Establish a Special Assignment Pay Rate for Deputy Police Chief Duties

04157 - Approve Application for ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant and Adopt Resolution of Support (Resolution No. 3767)

04158 - Traffic Commission Issues No. TC 557-661

04159 - Special Purpose Grant Budget Adjustment Resolution for 2003 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) (Resolution No. 3768)

04160 - Special Purpose Grant Budget Adjustment Resolution for FY 2004 State Homeland Security Program/Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (Resolution No. 3769)

04161 - A Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Sign an Interagency Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to Receive Grant Funds to Enforce Traffic Laws Related to the 2003-05 Work Zone Enforcement Project (Resolution No. 3770)

04162 - A Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for the 2004 Fiscal Year (Resolution No.3771)

Contract Review Board:

04163 - Exemption from Competitive Bids and Authorize a Sole Seller/Brand Name Purchase of I/TX SI 2000 Mugshot System

Coun. Ruby thanked the City for finding the funds to improve the intersection of the bikepath on Fifth Street with the railroad tracks. He said he was glad to see the improvement and thanked the Bike Task Force for their input.

Coun. Bode stated she would abstain from voting on the July 12, 2004 Council Minutes as she was not at the meeting.

Coun. Stanton stated she had a few changes to the minutes that she would give to the City Recorder.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously (5:0). Coun. Bode abstained from voting on the July 12, 2004 Council Minutes as she was not at that meeting.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:28 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:38 p.m.


04164 - Appeal Hearing on Traffic Commission Issue TC 556 Regarding Parking Restrictions on SW 158 th Place, South of Rigert Road

Mayor Drake explained this was an appeal of Traffic Commission Issue TC 556 regarding parking restrictions on SW 158 th Place .

Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley reviewed the location of 158 th Place , off of Rigert Road . He explained 158 th Place was currently a dead end road, with the south end barricaded. He said long-term plans called for the road to be improved and connected to Sexton Mountain Drive , so it would become a through street. He pointed out the pathway to Sexton Mountain School and said the issue was that people were dropping off their children on 158 th Place to use the pathway to access Sexton Mountain School . He explained the residents asked the City to do something about the drop-off traffic.

Wooley said at the Traffic Commission hearing, the residents asked for signage to limit parking on 158 th Place to residents only, or to prohibit school traffic parking. He explained on public streets the City could not legally prohibit parking to everyone but residents; and prohibiting parking would not prevent drop-off traffic which only stops briefly to drop-off or pickup passengers. He explained 158 th Place did not qualify for the City’s permit parking process. He said at the hearing, safety was a big issue with children leaving school and crossing the street without watching for traffic, and with driveways being used as turn arounds.

Wooley reported the Traffic Commission recommended creation of a No Stopping zone on 158 th Place , within 60 feet of the school path for two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. He said the goal was to encourage people to use the school’s designated loading zone, at the front of the school. He said Ms. Mackey had appealed the No Stopping zone. He explained the staff report did recommend modifying the Traffic Commission decision slightly by using shorter time periods. He said the Commission also asked that once this was implemented, it be monitored with the start of school and that staff report back to the Commission in November. He said that could be documented in the final order to reassure the neighborhood.

Coun. Soth asked what was the distance was between the intersection of Rigert Road and the end of 158 th Place .

Wooley replied it was about 900 feet.

Coun. Bode asked if the school administration was obligated to ensure drop-off and pickup was done at the school, and if this issue was taken to the school administration.

Wooley replied school administration was included and the Superintendent and Safety Director testified at the hearing. He said the Safety Director stated they could regulate traffic on their property but not on the street, and they could encourage parents to use the loading zone but they could not regulate it.

Coun. Bode asked if the School District was obligated to have an adequate drop-off site for the school.

Wooley said he was not aware of any obligations except what was required of new schools through the land use process. He said the School administrators indicated they had a good setup and it worked well. Wooley said he suspected part of the problem was the intersection of 155 th and Sexton Mountain , which was the only access and was congested with school traffic in the morning and afternoon.

Coun. Ruby said he was concerned if the restriction was only between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. , it suggested to the public that it was not a serious restriction. He asked if constricting the hours that much would make it difficult to enforce.

Wooley explained that was the reason for the longer hours initially. He said with shorter hours there was the possibility of enforcement problems. He said the idea was that once people saw police enforcing the restriction, they would start going to the school to drop the children off. He offered to check the school hours and report back to Council after the testimony.

Coun. Doyle asked if there was anything in the Code, or would there be a way to change the Code, to prohibit the behavior rather than putting up these restrictions.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea explained there were legal problems to crafting such specific language because it has to be written from a broad base approach, so as not to target a specific group, i.e. school children in residential areas at certain times. He said the most narrowly tailored restriction possible was a no-stopping prohibition.

Coun. Stanton asked if there was a crossing guard at that location.

Wooley explained the School District had crossing guards on 155 th and on Rigert Road . He said the correct walking route was for the children to be on the east side of the street and walk down the street to the path.

Coun. Stanton asked how far it was from 158 th Place to the school.

Wooley replied it was about 100 feet to the school grounds and then another 100 feet across the grounds to the school.

Coun. Stanton confirmed with Wooley that the pathway was fenced on both sides and then opened up onto the school grounds.

Mayor Drake noted the report indicated there was usually between ten and twenty-five cars that stopped to drop students off at the school. He asked if that number varied depending upon the weather.

Wooley said from the number of observations it did not appear to be weather related.

Coun. Doyle asked if staff believed restricting the activity for sixty feet would be sufficient to discourage the behavior.

Wooley replied they hoped it would and the monitoring was recommended to observe the results and report back to the Traffic Commission. He said if the parents had to stop further away and they could not see the children entering the path, it would be more of an incentive for them to go to the front of the school.

Coun. Soth asked if the area was posted as a school zone.

Wooley said 158 th Place was not, but the other streets were.

Coun. Stanton confirmed the street was thirty-two feet wide.

Mayor Drake opened the hearing to public testimony.

Mrs. Macie Mackey, Beaverton, appellant, said she was appealing the Traffic Commission’s decision to place No Parking or Standing signs on 158 th Place. She said posting these signs would not prevent the drop-off traffic and would be an unnecessary inconvenience for residents and their guests. She said with the exception of a few school functions, the street was not used for event parking. She said in the morning it was rare for cars to be parked to drop-off students and in the afternoon there were a few cars parked waiting to pickup students. She stressed the only approved pickup and drop-off site was in front of the school. She said parking permits were not an option because of the criteria in the City Code. She said if these signs were posted, homeowners and their guests would no longer have the freedom to park in front of their homes.

Mackey said she owned two commercial properties in downtown Beaverton , including the Dairy Queen, and she was a corporate officer for Dairy Queen of the Pacific Northwest . She said as the elected Treasurer, she often met with the Office Manager, who frequently came to Mrs. Mackey’s home to have checks signed. She said the proposed signage would not allow the manager to park in front of her home. She said this made them uncomfortable and was a safety concern. She added the proposed signage would affect Federal Express and postal deliveries, garbage pickup, landscapers, and utility trucks.

Mackey explained the residents on SW 158 th Place were predominantly families and with the number of children riding bikes on the sidewalk, she felt the signage was a safety hazard. She read from a letter written by real estate agent Robert Law, that stated this No Parking proposal would negatively impact property values for the affected homes and buyers had a negative response when parking was limited.

Mackey continued by stating her neighbors expressed concern about the signature list originally submitted to the Traffic Commission. She said the signatures were dated April 22 or 23, 2004, and the accompanying letter was dated May 6, 2004 . She said she was sure the document was submitted with good intentions, but the residents did not agree with the resolution. She noted parking was already prohibited on the east side of the restricted area because of a mailbox, driveways and a fire hydrant. She suggested the Police Department enforce this restriction. She said many people she talked with agreed the signage would not prevent the school drop-offs. She urged that the parking restriction signs not be posted on 158 th Place .

Mr. Joe Mackey stated he was glad Coun. Bode brought up the point of enhancing the school’s drop-off site. He said he felt they were beating this issue to death and there were other alternatives available. He said he was aware of turn-off parking that was available on 155 th for parents to drop-off students. He said he commuted on his bike and through his own observation, he felt the turn-offs were utilized at one-third of what they could be. He noted his points were on record from the Commission hearing and he would like to have peace under his roof on this issue.

Coun. Soth confirmed the Mackeys lived on 158 th Place directly across from the path. He asked the Mackeys how they were directly affected by the parking restriction for those hours.

Mrs. Mackey responded it would be an inconvenience for business purposes and when she had family visiting in town, since they could not park in front of their home. She said when they came home from work they could not park in front of their house because she did not want to have to get up the next morning to move the car. She noted if visitors were parking on the street, they would have to move their vehicles during those hours.

Coun. Stanton noted the petition that was signed and stamped in April, said the residents wanted some type of relief on the school drop-offs. She noted Mrs. Mackey was now saying they would prefer to have nothing as opposed to having the restriction in front of their home.

The Mackey’s replied that was correct.

Mayor Drake asked if the Mackey’s were asking for no restrictions on the west side, and if they did not care about the east side.

Mrs. Mackey replied that was correct.

Coun. Doyle confirmed it was the Mackey’s position that parking was already restricted on the east side; it was just a matter of enforcement.

Coun. Soth noted the Mackey’s lived on the west side and across from the path. He asked when cars were parked on the west side of the street, did the children jump out between the cars on the west side.

Mrs. Mackey replied that cars rarely parked on her side of the street; they would drive down the road turn around, stop/drop-off and then leave.

Coun. Soth asked if she had observed students leaving the school running out between the parked cars and creating a hazard.

Mrs. Mackey said she had not observed this as she was usually at work at that time.

Coun. Doyle asked if this problem had been getting worse over years or was it steady.

Mrs. Mackey replied over the years there had been increased traffic.

[Portions and names redacted at the request of this citizen.]

Coun. Stanton confirmed with Mrs. Mackey that there was no crosswalk from the pathway west, to her side of the street.

[Redacted], Beaverton , stated she strongly opposed having No Parking signs in front of her home because she runs a daycare business and the parents drop-off and pickup their children during the restricted hours. She said facility inspectors come to inspect her daycare and park in front of the house; if this was restricted, they could not park on the street. She explained she had grown children who brought their kids to her for daycare. She said her children, visitors and landscapers park in front of her house and no parking would be inconvenient. She stressed she did not want the parking restriction in front of her home and she supported the Mackey’s appeal. She said she did not think having parents park in her driveway or on the street to pickup their children was a problem.

Coun. Stanton asked [redacted] if she signed the original petition.

[Redacted] said when it was brought it to her door she told the person she did not care but she went ahead and signed it. She said she had not realized they wanted to prohibit parking in front of her house and prevent parents from dropping off their children. She said she would prefer to keep things the way they were.

Coun. Soth asked [redacted] when her clients arrived in the morning.

[Redacted] replied her hours for drop-off were identical to the schools and pickup was before and after school. She said she was licensed to care for ten children.

Coun. Ruby asked if even with the restrictions in place, people could use her driveway to drop off their children.

[Redacted] explained she and her daughter both had cars in the driveway and people were also using the driveway to turn around.

[Redacted], Beaverton , stated he had [redacted] and was the son of [redacted]. He said he dropped off his children daily at his mother’s and they visited her often throughout the week. He said it would be an absolute inconvenience if he had to deal with no parking/no stopping on that street. He said he believed the property value would drop if there was a parking restriction. He said the convenience that they have would go away. He said they hold many family parties at his mother’s house and have guests from out of town quite often. This restriction would hinder the parking for those cars.

Coun. Soth asked if he was saying that any restriction concerning parking would impose a burden on them as an inconvenience. He asked if having to walk that 60 feet would be an inconvenience.

[Redacted] said having to walk [redacted] especially during bad weather, was an inconvenience.

Coun. Stanton asked what school his children attended.

[Redacted] explained they were in preschool. He said they were considering sending [redacted] when she starts school since it was close to his mother’s house.

Patrick Freeman, Beaverton , stated he lived next to the path, on the north side. He said he was the person who originated the petition. He said he was disturbed about the testimony; there seemed to be a tone about dishonesty on his part about the petition. He said that was not the case. He said he was very frank with the neighbors about what was going on with the traffic situation and the petition was to bring it before the Traffic Commission. He said he could unders tand why some neighbors didn’t want the restriction. He said he and his neighbor to the south caught the brunt of all the traffic; he said there was a mailbox and fire hydrant that were constantly being blocked which was illegal. He said there was a lot of traffic and they had a neighbor say that a potential buyer for her home did not like the street because of traffic. He said he wanted the restriction because a buffer is needed on both sides of the path so cars are not stopped there when children are leaving school, or someday a child could be injured by a car. He said he was tired of the garbage being thrown into his yard and the vandalism, and he was tired of people parking in his driveway. He stressed the children were not the problem; the traffic was the problem. He said he wanted the traffic restrictions on his side of the street in front of his house. He said he felt the school was responsible for how the children get there and how they leave and he wanted the school to take a more assertive role to discourage this from happening. He asked if they could have a sign that said “No School Drop-off” in front of the path.

Mayor Drake explained years ago the bikepath between Highland Middle School and Fir Grove School was being vandalized. He said Superintendent Katz agreed the school had some responsibility for children within reasonable proximity of the school. He said he thought the new Superintendent carried some of the same attitudes as Dr. Katz and the City could discuss this with the Superintendent. He asked Freeman what his bottom line was if the Council granted the Mackey appeal.

Freeman said if the decision was to not restrict parking, then he wanted to see the school take a more active role in policing the situation. He said he wanted it addressed from the safety and homeowners’ point of view because it was their livability.

Coun. Stanton asked if he still preferred to have the parking restriction in front of his home.

Freeman replied he would.

Coun. Stanton explained the Traffic Commission often dealt with neighborhoods that wanted something done about traffic volume and speeding. She said volume was very difficult to deal with because the streets are public and State law controls what restrictions are allowed. She said she appreciated his realizing the value of the path and the need for parking restrictions to ensure adequate sight distance on either side of the path. She said whether or not people complied would depend on enforcement by the Police Department and the school taking a more active role by providing a crossing guard to prevent the drop-offs.

Coun. Doyle said he understood the situation and annoyance. He asked Freeman if he thought the restrictions would solve the problem.

Freeman said that would not be known until it was tried and he did not know why it could not be tried.

Coun. Soth asked Freeman if he spoke with the school principal.

Freeman said he had and he was told there was nothing the administration could do about it once the kids left the school property.

Coun. Soth asked if he talked with the Local School Committee.

Freeman said he wrote a letter to the School District Superintendent and received no response. He added that as of the last meeting, the school administration had agreed to take a more active role.

Coun. Stanton suggested he work with the Local School Committee.

Scott Knees, Traffic Commission Chair, offered to answer questions from the Traffic Commission’s meeting. He said the Commission tried to come up with a solution to the child safety issue, and this was the solution being appealed. He explained the Commission could not tell the public it could not use a public street. He said he personally believed parking restrictions were publicly not a good idea unless it was for safety. He said that was why the Commission went with the recommendation on the safety issue. He pointed out that one of the alternatives on the staff recommendation was to “do nothing” and he wanted to add that to the list of alternatives as well.

Coun. Soth confirmed with Knees that in the Commission’s discussion, the main issue was the children’s safety when utilizing the pathway to and from school. He also confirmed with Knees that the traffic on 158 th Place contributed to the safety issue because the street was not a through street and traffic had to turn around and double back. He said it was clear in the Commission minutes that this was seen as a safety issue and the Commission recognized the inconvenience this would pose on some of the residents.

Knees said the Commission was not aware they were impacting a small business and a daycare facility. He said these issues were not raised at the Commission’s hearing.

William Folck, Beaverton , he said he lived one house to north of Mr. Freeman. He said he and his wife supported the Traffic Commission’s recommendation to establish a safety corridor on both sides of 158 th Place at the pathway leading to and from Sexton Mountain Elementary School . He asked that the hours and the signs be changed to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. , and 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. He said one hour in the morning and one in the afternoon was what was needed; not four hours a day. He asked that the days on the sign to be changed to “On School Days” rather than “Monday through Friday” since school may be out for holidays or summer. He noted Mrs. Mackey had said that posting signage would negatively affect her property value. He said he felt this action showed this was an involved neighborhood that cared about the safety of the children and adults in the area. He said they lived across the street from the Mackeys for twelve years and the volume of traffic associated with her home was lower than was stated and there would continue to be sufficient parking on the street after the safety corridor was established. He said neighbors also offered to let Mrs. Mackey use their driveways when she needed additional parking space. He said people walked and biked down sidewalks everyday without running into signs. He stated no one that lived on 158 th Place would be unjustly affected by the safety corridor. He said he felt the appeal was groundless and he asked that the Council support the establishment of the safety corridor on both sides of 158 th Place to protect the children and adults who use the pathway when school opens in the morning and dismisses in the afternoon.

Folck explained Emamzadeh should have received a letter advising her of the Commission’s meeting on this matter and there were signs on the corner of Rigert Road and 158 th Place , and at the mailboxes that announced the meeting. He said if Emamzadeh had concerns she knew who to call, yet she did not attend the Commission hearing. He asked that Emamzadeh’s comments not be included in the appeal. He added that the traffic volume was not affected by the weather.

Coun. Soth asked if Folck’s recommendation was a compromise between the No Parking and the hours the Commission proposed.

Folck replied that was correct.

Coun. Doyle asked Folck if the parking restriction was in front of his house.

Folck said he was one house over from where the sign would be posted. He offered to let people park in front of his home.

Coun. Stanton asked Folck if he felt as strongly about the parking restrictions on the west side of 158 th Place as he did on the east side.

Folck said he wanted to see the restriction on both sides of the street to diminish traffic volume. He said to place it on one side only limited the value of the restriction. He said they needed to be proactive on this because when the street finally goes through, the amount of traffic will increase.

Coun. Doyle asked Folck if he thought the signage would change anything without enforcement.

Folck said he thought the neighbors could be involved and people would see the signage and think twice before stopping. He said it would make it less attractive for a drop-off and pickup point. He said he believed it was worth a try and it could be reviewed again in November to determine its effectiveness.

Ann Bush, Beaverton , said she lived toward the end of 158 th Place . She said though this was a safety issue, she felt they had gone from one extreme to the other. She said she felt signage could be placed asking people to drop students off at 155 th and the Police could enforce the No Parking that already existed at the mailbox and fire hydrant locations. She suggested asking the school to provide a safety guard in the area to ask people not to drop-off students on 158 th Place . She thought this was more reasonable and would not interfere with parking. She said she had lived on 158 th Place for 15 years.

Coun. Doyle asked Bush if she had a problem with people using her driveway to turn around.

Bush said that did happen at her home but she felt the more reasonable solutions should be tried first before looking at restricting parking.


Mrs. Mackey explained, regarding property values, when she questioned Mr. Law she asked him to give a ballpark figure of how much the property value would be affected. She said he responded it would be anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000. She said she felt that was a considerable amount which was why she included it in the testimony. She said that as a business owner, she took it as a compliment that it had not been noticed that the Office Manager stopped by her home between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. , and for about five minutes only.

Mr. Mackey stated he was disappointed in Folck’s opinions on the amount of traffic by their home. He said they recently had a birthday party and 25 children attended, which might give a perspective on the amount of parking in front of their home. He said he did not see why Folck’s testimony was seen as a compromise, as he thought it was Folck’s own agenda. He stated this was a democracy and the majority at the meeting was against the Commission’s decision.

Mayor Drake asked if staff had any further comments.

Wooley responded to Coun. Ruby’s questions concerning the hours. He said on the days when they recorded the traffic volume, cars started showing up about ten minutes after the restriction times started. He stressed that the Traffic Commission’s recommendation was for a No Stopping zone, not a No Parking zone. He said this was a stronger recommendation, because in most cases it was legal to stop in a No Parking zone to unload passengers. He said much of the testimony referred to No Parking zones and he wanted to be sure everyone understood it was a No Stopping zone.

Coun. Stanton asked Wooley about 130 th Avenue for Southridge High School and how they handled the school parking and traffic.

Wooley explained for Southridge the solution was to create a fifteen-minute parking zone on the east side of 130 th Avenue; on the west side there were no restrictions. He said that issue involved keeping the students from parking too close to the drop-off zone.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the Council grant the Mackey Appeal and overturn the Traffic Commission’s final written order concerning parking restrictions on SW 158 th Place, south of Rigert Road, and remove the proposed parking restrictions.

Coun. Bode requested an amendment to the motion to add a requirement that the School Board and Community Development Department work together to come up with a role that the school can play in providing a crossing guard as a safety element.

Coun. Ruby said he approved the initiative behind the suggestion. He deferred to the Mayor and City Attorney as to whether that should be part of the motion or a separate direction to staff to pursue those discussions with the School District .

Mayor Drake suggested they instruct staff, through the Mayor’s Office and Transportation Office, to approach the School District about more focused efforts in the area. He suggested reporting back the findings to the Traffic Commission in November.

Coun. Stanton asked if the motion could be amended to restrict granting the appeal to the west side of 158 th Place only.

Coun. Ruby said he would not support Coun. Stanton ’s amendment as he was persuaded by the testimony that the restriction impacted the use and enjoyment of the affected residences. He said he thought involving the School District in the enforcement was a better way to proceed.

Rappleyea advised the amendment could be part of the motion or a separate action. He added the seconder of the motion would need to agree to the amendment. He noted if it was a separate recommendation, it would not have the force of law.

Coun. Stanton said she supported having Coun. Bode’s amendment as part of the motion because it gave it the force of the Council’s deliberation.

Couns. Ruby and Doyle agreed to include Coun. Bode’s amendment in the motion.

Coun. Soth said he would not support the motion. He said in this situation they needed to ask if this was a commercial zone or a residential zone. He stated any business must accept the conditions they were dealing with. He said he was very concerned about the children’s safety and when 158 th Place was eventually connected the traffic would be much worse. He said he did not think the turn around was a problem with a 32-foot street. He said Folck’s recommendation on the hours made sense to him, because the people who stopped at the daycare facility and at the Mackey’s did not stay long and in those cases parking was not an issue. He said the perceived drop in property value was a red herring; unless it was supported by certified appraisals it had no value. He concluded he would not support the motion for those reasons.

Coun. Doyle said he respected the solution the Traffic Commission tried to craft but his concern was enforcement. He felt this had to be solved with signage and using current laws. He said when the road goes through and traffic increases, more solutions would probably be needed. He said he thought people would not comply without enforcement by the Police.

Coun. Stanton said she would not support the motion because this was a safety issue for children and this motion did not advance the safety issue. She said if the motion failed she wanted to craft a motion asking for parking restrictions on the east side of the street.

Mayor Drake stated the motion included granting the appeal, removing the proposed restriction, and directing staff to work with the School District to provide more passive enforcement and directing the Police to focus enforcement in that area. He asked if the motion included reporting back to the Traffic Commission. He noted the original motion said to report back in November, but he thought December was better to give staff sufficient time.

Coun. Ruby said originally Coun. Bode amended the motion to instruct staff to work with the School District to make it clear this was a cooperative effort to discourage use of that street for dropping off and picking up children. He said the discussions would include methods the School District could use to accomplish this.

Coun. Bode responded her amendment included providing better drop-off and pickup service in front of the school itself.

Coun. Doyle said he wanted to be clear that he felt signage was needed to let people know the rules for each side of the street and this needed to be enforced. He said if that failed, they could discuss this again to see what was needed to get people to respect the signage. He confirmed the City had the capability now to do the signage and let people know this activity was not allowed.

Mayor Drake said he recommended reporting back to the Commission in December because advance time was needed on the staff report.

Coun. Stanton stated that during the deliberation she changed her mind and she would support the motion.

Mayor Drake and Coun. Doyle confirmed the report back would go to the Traffic Commission through the normal process.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby and Stanton voting AYE, Coun. Soth voting NAY, the motion carried (4:1).

Wooley confirmed with the Council and Mayor Drake that the motion included granting the appeal, working with the School District to resolve the issues, placing signs in the area stating the existing restrictions, providing police enforcement and reporting back to the Traffic Commission in December.

Suspend Rules:

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04165 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 :

Rappleyea read the following ordinance for the first 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)

Second Reading :

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

04151 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located South of NW Cornell Road and West of NW 114 th Avenue; CPA 2004-0008/ZMA 2004-0008 (Ordinance No. 4316)

04152 - An Ordinance Renaming SW Millikan Boulevard Between Murray Boulevard and Tualatin Valley Highway to “SW Millikan Way”; SNC 2004-0001 (Ordinance No. 4317)

04153 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, as to a Specific Parcel, From Office Commercial (OC) to Community Service (CS); ZMA 2004-0006 Summit View Zoning Map Amendment (Ordinance No. 4318)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 04151, 04152 and 04153 now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Doyle, Ruby, Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (3:0) Couns. Bode and Stanton left the Council dais and did not vote on this item. They returned shortly after the vote.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 9:14 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.


Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth, 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 and in accordance with ORS 192.660(1)(e) to deliberate with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

The executive session convened at 9:21 p.m.

The executive session adjourned at 10:16 p.m.

The regular meeting reconvened at 10:16 p.m.

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton , that Council authorizes the City Attorney to proceed with the two issues discussed in executive session. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Stanton and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.


Catherine L. Jansen, Deputy City Recorder


Approved this 19th day of July, 2004.

Rob Drake, Mayor