JULY 10, 2006


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 10, 2006, at 6:40 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Catherine Arnold, Betty Bode, Bruce Dalrymple, Dennis Doyle, and Cathy Stanton. Also present were City Attorney Alan Rappleyea, Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, Finance Director Patrick O'Claire, Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Public Works Director Gary Brentano, Library Director Ed House, Human Resources Director Nancy Bates, Police Chief David Bishop, City Recorder Sue Nelson and Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.


COUNCIL ITEMS: There were none.

STAFF ITEMS: There were none.


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

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 12, 2006

06118 Liquor License: Change of Ownership - Express Mart

06119 A Resolution Expressing the City of Beaverton's Election to Receive Distribution of a Share of Certain Revenues of the State of Oregon for Fiscal Year 2006-2007, Pursuant to ORS 221.770 (Resolution No. 3865)

06120 Traffic Commission Issue No.: TC 593 - Removal of Two-Hour Parking Limit on SW Second Street Near Lombard Avenue

Contract Review Board:

06121 Waiver of Sealed Bidding - Purchase One Four Wheel Drive Front Loader From the State of Washington Price Agreement

06122 Bid Award - Rental of Construction Related Equipment

06123 Contract Renewal Between Chesshir Architecture P.C. and the City of Beaverton for the Storefront Improvement Program

Coun. Stanton said she had corrections to the minutes that she gave to the City Recorder.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0) Couns. Bode and Doyle abstained from voting on the June 12, 2006 minutes as they were not at that meeting.

Mayor Drake said the ordinances would be considered at this time.


Second Reading:

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

06114 An Ordinance Amending Provisions of Chapter Seven of the Beaverton City Code Establishing Regulations on Payday Lending. (Ordinance No. 4394)

06116 An Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance No. 4187) Land Use Map and the Zoning Map (Ordinance No. 2050) Regarding Three Parcels Identified on Tax Map 2S10600 as Lots 101, 102 and 105. CPA 2005-0006/ZMA 2005-0008; 16655 SW Scholls Ferry Road. (Ordinance No. 4396)

06117 TA 2006-0004 (2006 Omnibus). (Ordinance No. 4397)

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 06114, 06116 and 06117, now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)


06124 APP 2006-0004: Appeal of Town Square Too - Wal-Mart Approval (DR 2005-0068)

Community Development Director Joe Grillo read a prepared statement defining the process that needed to be followed for this hearing, including the various required disclosure statements (in the record). He asked if any Councilor had a potential or actual conflict of interest.

No Councilors indicated a conflict of interest.

Grillo asked if any Councilor had an ex parte contact to declare.

Coun. Arnold said her friend, Arlene Garrison, tried to talk to her about Wal-Mart and her concern about traffic. She told her she could not talk about the issue and concluded the conversation.

Coun. Bode said she had six messages on her voicemail that offered their opinion of "No Wal-Mart." In addition, she received a call from an elderly woman named Doris whom she called back and Doris said to "Just say no." She said she did not engage in conversation with her.

Coun. Dalrymple said he had six messages on his voicemail, all seeking a no vote on Wal-Mart. He said he did not return the calls.

Coun. Doyle said he had similar calls and he did not return the calls or engage in conversation with anybody in the community.

Coun. Stanton said she visited the site and had conversations with people about the process. She said she did not speak to anyone about the application and no one gave her anything substantive that she could share with the Council.

Mayor Drake said he had similar contacts but nothing of substance.

Grillo asked if any Councilor wished to declare any site visits.

All the Councilors indicated they either drove by or visited the site.

Grillo asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the right of any Councilor to participate in this hearing.

Henry Kane, Beaverton, said he wished to challenge Mayor Drake's participation and asked that the Mayor recuse himself from this proceeding for several reasons. (1) Mayor Drake was on record as saying that the zoning for this site was outright. Kane said the zoning was not outright and the Board of Design Review listed 76 conditions that were approved. (2) Some years ago The Oregonian quoted Mayor Drake as saying that the Wal-Mart site and application were an outright permitted use. (3) At the time of the hearing of the Gramor appeal, Mayor Drake stated several times that conditions change. He suggested the Mayor should consider not voting in the event of a tie.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea said the Mayor only votes in the case of a tie. He said he had not heard anything in Kane's comments that would require Mayor Drake to recuse himself from this matter. He said the comments were simply statements of what the standards were at that time.

Mayor Drake said Coun. Stanton wished to make a request regarding the process for this hearing.

Coun. Stanton, Council President, said the rules for this application were set by Codes and State statutes. She requested that all testimony be to the point and address relevant approval criteria. She stressed the Council cannot consider testimony regarding neighborhood compatibility, property values, economic impacts, appropriateness of use and Wal-Mart business practices in rendering its decision. She said irrelevant testimony would only reduce the amount of time available for others who wished to testify. She said the Council was the low man on the jurisdictional totem pole; OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and other agencies have standards, statutes and codes to oversee their areas of authority. She said the Council does not have that authority. She said everyone has a right to testify and she asked that everyone use their three minutes to convince the Council to do something that it could do legally.

Development Services Manager Steve Sparks introduced Senior Planner John Osterberg and Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley. He said staff from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) were present to answer Council questions. He said Washington County staff would be available at tomorrow night's meeting. He said he would give a brief project overview and Wooley would review the transportation analysis for this project.

Sparks said this site was annexed to the City on February 11, 2005. He said when this and other sites were annexed in February 2005, they were not rezoned to City zones because: 1) The annexations were in court and it was not known if it would stand up to legal challenge; 2) Ballot Measure 37 (BM 37) had recently passed election and the City had not undertaken a BM 37 comparative analysis of the County zoning and what City zoning could be applied to the sites; and 3) The City was working with the property owner to get Washington County to enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to allow the County to process the development proposal for this site. He said since the applicant and the property owner had established a working relationship with the County on this site, the City thought it was good practice to allow that relationship to continue. He said the Washington County Board of Commissioners declined to enter into that IGA. He said with these three factors, the Community Development Director and the City Attorney recommended to the Mayor that the City not proceed with rezoning the properties that were annexed in early 2005.

Coun. Stanton asked when the annexations were in court, was the legal challenge to the County to designate zoning or to the annexation.

Sparks replied the challenge was to the annexation.

Sparks said with those factors the applicant had to submit the development proposal to the City. He said Washington County had done a great deal of planning for this area; there was a Cedar Mill-Cedar Hills Community Plan, the Cedar Mill Town Center, the Peterkort Station Area Plan and the Peterkort Master Plan. He said the subject site was not identified as an Area of Special Concern in the Community Plan. He said a key consideration in developing the Peterkort Station Area Plan and the Cedar Mill Town Center Plan was addressing the County's growth allocation for housing and jobs from the Urban Growth Functional Plan - Title 1. He said the County and cities focused their development capacity in the multiple use zones. Beaverton focused its growth in the Regional and Town Centers. He said the County allocated a large number of its housing and job requirements on the Teufel site and on the area along SW Barnes Road that is controlled by the Peterkort family.

Sparks said after completing the planning study, the County considered what zoning would be appropriate for these areas. He said the County designated the site as the Transit Oriented-Retail Commercial (TO-RC) zone and one of the permitted uses was retail uses greater than 5,000 square feet. He said this was the same zone as the site across the street where Albertson's Market and the Outback Restaurant were located. He said with the annexation, the City would continue to apply the County zoning in terms of use, but the site was subject to the City's procedures, standards and processes. He said that was why the application went to the Board of Design Review and the City's design guidelines were applied to this development. He said the City prepared a crosswalk analysis between the County Code and the City Code that identified those provisions of the City Code that were applicable to this development (in the record). He said the City took a conservative stance and if the County Code had a provision that the City Code did not contain; city staff deemed the County Code was applicable.

Sparks said the BDR heard a great deal of testimony that this use was inconsistent with the transit oriented designation. He said the County Code was clear that this zone allows retail uses greater than 5,000 square feet and it defines retail business. He said staff took the position that the transit oriented designation involved design, not use. He said the County Code has a design review process that is applicable only to uses within the transit oriented zones; whereas the City's design review is applicable to most development. He said the BDR considered the record, weighed the material and evidence presented by all parties, and voted to approve the project. He asked Wooley to review the transportation issues.

Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley said the Transportation Division reviewed the application to see if it complied with the City Code requirements relating to streets and traffic. He said they worked on that task for over a year and had a number of meetings with the applicant to work out issues of concern. He said the traffic report estimates 7,400 new trips per day to this site. He reviewed the roads and streets that service the site (in the record). He said ODOT had jurisdiction for all freeways, freeway ramps and for SW Cedar Hills Boulevard between SW Barnes Road and Butner Road. He said the County had jurisdiction on SW Barnes Road and the remainder of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. He said the City dealt extensively with the State and County on this project.

Wooley said under the City Code, the Traffic Impact Analysis has to investigate traffic conditions within the Area of Influence; that is the area where the projected traffic from the new development is at least 5% of existing traffic. He said for SW Barnes Road the Area of Influence was from the Sunset Transit Center to Saltzman Road and from Celeste Lane to Butner Road. He said the City had to consider prior decisions by the County's Hearings Officer related to the Peterkort properties. He said those decisions said that the traffic from all of the Peterkort's past and proposed developments had to be considered; if that exceeded 10% additional areas had to be reviewed. He said that included the intersections where the Highway 217 ramps connect with SW Barnes Road.

Wooley said the City Code requires a traffic volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.98 or less. He said a ratio of 0.1 would meet the capacity of the intersection. He said 98% of capacity was congested. He said the Code also requires that the average vehicle delay be 65 seconds or less. He said if the roads already exceeded that criteria the Code would require that development not make the condition worse. He said the developer was not required to go back and correct past errors, but it would require that they not make the traffic congestion any worse than the current condition.

Coun. Stanton asked if the 65-second delay was at an intersection and if it was an LOS (Level of Service) F.

Wooley said it was at an intersection and it was LOS E, which is close to failure. He said the goal is to figure out what mitigation is required, not the traffic numbers. He said there was also a requirement imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court called Rough Proportionality, which states that local jurisdictions can require conditions on development, but they cannot exceed the roughly proportional share; the conditions have to be roughly proportional to their impacts. He said that was why the Code requires that the applicant show they are doing their roughly proportionate share of the long-term needs. He said the City also considered the 1999 Master Plan for the Peterkort properties and its update in 2004. He said the Plan assumed full build-out of all the Peterkort properties and what the traffic requirements would be under that condition. He said that provided a good idea of the long-term needs for the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection.

Wooley said from the traffic analysis a list of needed improvements were developed. He reviewed the improvements in detail (in the record). The major improvements were: 1) Additional lanes on SW Barnes Road and traffic signal improvements at SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road to accommodate the Teufel development. He said these improvements have been approved and construction should start next month. He said if Teufel did not build these lanes, Wal-Mart would have to construct the improvements, in addition to its own improvements, because the Wal-Mart traffic analysis was based on those improvements being in place. 2) SW Barnes Road would be widened. 3) A signal would be added at 117th Avenue. 4) Dual turn lanes would be added to the Wal-Mart entrance. 5) A second right turn lane would be added to eastbound SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. 6) Additional lanes on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, north of SW Barnes Road. 7) Widening of the Highway 217 ramp to provide an additional westbound lane and extend the northbound right turn lane. 8) A signal would be added to the eastbound off ramp from Highway 26 at SW Cedar Hills Boulevard; this signal would be coordinated with the signal at the Butner Road/SW Cedar Hills Boulevard intersection.

Coun. Arnold asked when the improvements needed to be done.

Wooley said the improvements would have to be completed before occupancy. He said there were design issues yet to be resolved before the site development permit is approved and construction can start. He said the northbound right turn lane on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard at Butner Road would be extended to the freeway ramp, so traffic can use that lane as a through lane to the freeway; that would improve capacity.

Wooley said during the BDR hearings, there was concern about pedestrian access. He said pedestrian refuge islands would be constructed at the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection to shorten pedestrian crossings. He said all the signals would be pedestrian countdown signals. He said during the hearings concern was expressed that this development would use up all the capacity of this intersection and future development could not provide additional capacity. He said the Peterkort Master Plan indicated that when the Peterkort property is built out, there would be the potential to add more capacity to this intersection. He said this would occur by adding more turn lanes; the median would become left turn lanes so all approaches would have dual left turn lanes and a right turn lane. He said the ability to do that would come from the Peterkort properties as they would be developed.

Coun. Stanton asked if Wal-Mart were to build the Teufel improvements, when the Teufel development built its 501st unit, would Teufel then reimburse Wal-Mart and would there be additional improvements.

Wooley said the improvements at SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and SW Barnes Road would have to be in place before Wal-Mart could be open for business. He said funding was between Wal-Mart and Teufel. He said Teufel did not have any additional improvements on these two roads; however, there were improvements on other locations that Teufel would have to construct.

Coun. Stanton asked if the requirements for the Peterkort property would be in addition to these improvements for future development.

Wooley said that was correct. He said there were no new Peterkort applications currently before the City. He continued with his report stating that during the BDR hearing there was debate regarding the number of lanes at the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and SW Barnes Road intersection. He said there were eight lanes and two bike lanes. He said when people referred to this as a ten-lane intersection, they were including the bike lanes. He said there were questions on how long it would take a pedestrian to cross the intersection. He said the average time for crossing an intersection was 21 seconds. He said the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection was larger than the average intersection and he thought additional time could be added to the countdown timer; this would need to be discussed with Washington County as they have jurisdiction over this signal.

Coun. Arnold asked if this was relevant to what was currently being considered.

Wooley said it pertained to the question if the intersection provided an adequate solution for pedestrians. He said the City, Washington County and ODOT concluded that it could.

Wooley said concern was expressed at the BDR hearing about long-term needs; after this development, if future capacity was needed where would it come from. He said the Peterkort Master Plan provides reassurance that additional capacity is available as he reviewed earlier.

Wooley said there was a question at the hearing regarding how many ambulance trips were made to St. Vincent's Hospital on a daily basis. He said from July 1, 2005 through yesterday, Metro West Ambulance reported they had 12,168 ambulance transports to the hospital; 9,558 of those were Code 3 (emergency, running with lights and siren). He said that calculated to 25 trips per day. He said the route they usually follow was to use the freeway to Baltic Avenue which takes them up to the Emergency Room entrance; they seldom use SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and SW Barnes Road, especially with a Code 3. He concluded that: the proposed mitigation would slightly improve traffic operations at the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection, especially for southbound traffic; pedestrians and bicyclists would still be able to use the intersection; there is a way to address long-term needs; the application as submitted meets the Development Code requirements; and the promised mitigation is guaranteed by the conditions approved by the BDR. He said the transportation requirements were satisfied. He said Washington County has requested the addition of one more condition to the development approval; that as lanes are added to SW Barnes Road, a sign bridge be added to hang signs that direct traffic into the right lanes. He said if the Council agrees to that, staff would write appropriate language to add that condition.

Coun. Stanton said 9,558 Code 3 ambulance trips per year equaled 25 per day.

Wooley clarified Metro West Ambulance's preferred route was to use the highway to Baltic Avenue to the Emergency entrance to St. Vincent’s. (Coun. Bode asked for this clarification).

Sparks said that concluded staff's presentation.

Coun. Dalrymple referred to the TO-RC zone and asked what Washington County's original intent was in its long-term planning. He asked if the County had envisioned box stores or groups of stores. He noted the proposed store was much larger than 5,000 square feet.

Sparks said City staff asked the County's planning staff if the City was interpreting the County Code correctly in terms of procedures and what uses were allowed. He said the County responded that the City was applying the County Code correctly. He said in terms of what the County's intent was when the Code was changed; that conversation did not occur.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if staff could ask the County that question.

Sparks said staff could ask that question but he was not sure if that was applicable since the County Code states that uses greater than 5,000 square feet are allowed.

Coun. Dalrymple said he was asking because of the citizen participation and how that zone was allowed. He said there could be other permitted uses that were not on the list. He said he wanted to be sure on the distinction that it could be anything greater than 5,000 square feet.

Coun. Bode asked the footprint size of the shopping center opposite this site.

Sparks said staff could get that information.

Coun. Stanton asked if the new dedicated eastbound right-turn lane from SW Barnes Road to SW Cedar Hills Boulevard would be a permitted right turn or would it be restricted as it is currently.

Wooley said both lanes would be controlled by a separate signal; it would overlap, so that the right turn could go while the left turns were going. He said unless the County signed it as “No Turn on Red;” right turns could still be made on a red light.

Coun. Arnold read from page 15 of the staff report regarding City standards prevailing over County standards and that the City's zoning provisions would apply even if the County's standards were more restrictive. She said she thought that meant that in the County Code there was a section that dealt with transit oriented development and that the City Code would supersede that, even if the County Code was more restrictive. She asked if the City was making the standards more lax and said that was one of the opponent's arguments against the development.

Sparks said both the County Code Design Principles and City Code Design Guidelines were applicable to this project. He said the City's and County's Design Standards were not applicable to this project. He said under the City Code this project was a Design Review 3 which makes the Design Guidelines the applicable provisions. He said under the County Code it is a Type 2 process and is subject to either the Design Standards or the Design Principles. He said staff looked at the Design Principles (County) and Design Guidelines (City). He said for staff to say the City's standards were less or more stringent than the County was a subjective call, since the discussion was about principles and not quantifiable standards.

Coun. Stanton asked for his subjective view as a planner.

Sparks said he was not prepared to give his view at this time. He said it was staff's position in looking at the crosswalk analysis and the Code that they are equivalent.

Coun. Arnold read from page 116 of the staff report "The overall impression, particularly on class 1 Major Pedestrian Routes, should be that architecture is the predominant design element over parking areas and landscaping." She asked what a Class 1 Major Pedestrian Route was and if SW Cedar Hills Boulevard fell under that category.

Sparks said a Class 1 Major Pedestrian Route was a City designation that staff applied to the City's Multiple Use zoning areas to help determine what design guidelines and standards would apply in those areas. He said the City had not gone through a zoning map analysis and amendment process for this area. He said when that process occurs, route classifications would be considered. He said as part of the zoning map analysis they would consider the Community Plan for guidance in designating a major pedestrian route. He said they would look at the Community Plan and County zoning to help determine what City zone would be the most comparable to the County zone.

Coun. Arnold asked if the Code Section was applicable to this project.

Sparks said it was not applicable since the road had not been designated as a Class 1 Major Pedestrian Route.

Coun. Arnold asked if there was something similar in Washington County. She said the entire area would be densely populated when fully developed and they were discussing making this area pedestrian friendly by using the County's transit oriented district. She asked if this was applicable or was the County Code a valid concern to this application.

Sparks said he would have to get back to her with an answer, as he would need to see how it was identified in the crosswalk between the County and City Codes.

Coun. Arnold asked if the traffic volumes were understated in the Trip Generation Manual.

Wooley replied ODOT raised the same concern regarding the Trip General Manual. He said the Transpo Group (applicant's traffic engineer) did a study using a larger number and concluded it did not change the mitigation requirements. He said they did not go back and redo the whole study.

Coun. Arnold said that Wal-Mart would be off the Highway 26 intersection, and there was no other store like this in the area, which suggests that the traffic might be higher than the averages seen in the data sample on this map. She asked if there was another way to look at that.

Wooley replied he was not aware of any other data and there wasn’t anything else in the record that could provide more guidance.

Coun. Doyle referred to previous comments regarding future development increasing the demands on this area. He asked what it would take to move the traffic and keep it below failure.

Wooley said the remaining large vacant parcels were the Peterkort and Teufel Nursery properties. He said development on the Teufel project was already factored into this development. He said the Peterkort development would provide additional left and right turn lanes at SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and SW Barnes Road to handle the additional traffic.

Mayor Drake said traditionally the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires a building to front onto the roadway. He asked why Wal-Mart was setback from SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and the major view from SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was the parking lot. He said most of the recent developments in the City have conformed to the TPR and questioned why this was different.

Sparks said that portion of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, south of SW Barnes Road, is in ODOT jurisdiction and ODOT designated it as a freeway on-ramp to Highway 26. He said it was not a road that would have vehicular access to the site from SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. He said initially ODOT did not want any pedestrian activity on the west side of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard; that included no sidewalks. He said since that time, the City, County and ODOT had additional conversations about this issue and have now concluded that pedestrian activity would be allowed on that side. He said one of the improvements that Wal-Mart would help fund was construction of a pedestrian under-crossing on the Cedar Hills ramp to continue the pedestrian movement south on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. He said SW Barnes Road was the main front road for vehicular access and pedestrian activity to the site.

Mayor Drake said he thought the pedestrian under-crossing was doable but he was concerned for safety reasons. He said many jurisdictions no longer had passageways under streets for safety reasons.

Mayor Drake asked if a Target store would generate similar traffic as a Wal-Mart store.

Wooley said based on the Trip Generation Manual, a Target store would fall under the same category as a Wal-Mart and if they were the same size they would have a similar amount of traffic.

Mayor Drake referred to future potential growth for the area north of Cornell Road and for St. Vincent's hospital when Phase II is developed. He expressed concern regarding the impact on this intersection; with the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard extension to Cornell Road that bottleneck would get worse. He said he was concerned that if Wal-Mart was approved, during peak times the traffic would backup that far and there was no outlet north. He asked how traffic to the north would be addressed.

Wooley said he would defer to Washington County as they were more familiar with that issue. He said the Code did not require review of that issue for this project, so staff did not review it in detail. He said during the BDR hearings, they learned that Don Odermott, traffic engineer for the Peterkort family, was a wealth of historical information and he was present if Council had any questions. He said they also learned that the impact of St. Vincent's traffic on the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection was small. He said most of St. Vincent's traffic used the interchanges at Highway 217 and many of the hospital's commuters use transit.

Coun. Stanton referred to page 2,832 of the staff report, where it stated that Criterion 3 was not met due to the lack of a Clean Water Services provider letter. She asked if Clean Water Services amended its provider letter. She also asked why there was no site exit onto southbound SW Cedar Hills Boulevard.

Wooley said ODOT considers that section of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard to be part of the on-ramp for Highway 26 and does not allow access to an on-ramp.

Coun. Stanton asked if there was any conversation with ODOT about reviewing this particular site and changing their position.

Wooley said TVF&R wanted emergency access to SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and ODOT said its standards did not allow them that flexibility.

Coun. Stanton asked if anyone sent a letter to ODOT asking them to waive the standard for this application.

Wooley said the access was not pursued after the response was received on TVF&R's request for emergency access. He said it seemed clear they would not get anywhere with any request for access onto the ramp.

Coun. Stanton referred to page 2,832, Criterion 4, which stated that proposed access and subsequent modification of the SW Choban Lane driveway to SW Barnes Road could "feasibly" be provided to the site and the Choban property. She said she needed additional assurance that the City had gone beyond "feasible" as that made her nervous. She also asked for the feasible probability.

Wooley said when the initial staff report was written the City had no assurance that the Chobans were in agreement on this plan. He said subsequently the City did get a letter stating they were in agreement.

Coun. Stanton said the term feasible referred to access.

Senior Planner John Osterberg said that was a finding in the staff report and feasible meant the access could fit and be provided. He said this was covered by Condition No. 61 that required that access be provided prior to issuance of a permit.

Osterberg said the Clean Water Services provider letter was Exhibit 3.8 on page 608 of the record, dated May 9, 2006. He said it related to the revised storm drainage feasibility study for the applicant and the City's acceptance.

RECESS: Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 8:15 p.m.

RECONVENED: Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m.


Greg Hathaway, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, attorney representing Wal-Mart, said this application was highly scrutinized by the City, ODOT and County staff, and the BDR. He said the result of this review was that City staff determined that the applicant satisfied all applicable requirements, and County and ODOT staff determined that this application satisfied all of the County's and State's transportation standards. He said the BDR also determined that all the standards applicable to this application were satisfied with the conditions the Board proposed.

Hathaway said the BDR took its job very seriously and asked many of the questions Council just asked. He reviewed the key issues that were decided by the BDR. He said the BDR determined that the proposed use was permitted by right in the TO-RC zone. He said the BDR also acknowledged that the County's Comprehensive Plan, when it created transit oriented districts, specifically recognized that if a retail use was beyond one-quarter of a mile from the Light Rail Station, there could be large box retail. He said regarding the question of the County's intent when it formed the TO-RC District, Ordinance 483 provides that retail uses that market primarily to an area larger than the station community may be allowed in the TO-RC District, if located at least one-quarter mile from the Light Rail Station. He said when the TO-RC District was adopted, the County Comprehensive Plan recognized this use and that was a significant statement of intent by the County.

Hathaway said the third significant action of the BDR dealt with transportation. He said the BDR accepted the unbiased and expert conclusions of the City's, County's and ODOT's transportation staff. He said it was not easy for the applicant to meet the stringent standards of all three agencies; the agencies concluded that the applicant met all the standards and the BDR accepted the agencies' conclusions. He said the applicant did a comparison with the Wood Village Wal-Mart and it was determined that the traffic generated by the Wood Village Wal-Mart was less than the traffic used in the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip General Manual (in the record).

Hathaway said another key issue in the BDR hearing was the improvements at the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection. He said the focus was on what Wal-Mart was doing to create these improvements and the potential congestion these improvements could create. He said Wal-Mart's proposed improvements were consistent with the transportation planning that has occurred in this area for the last ten years. He said they were not creating anything different from what has been planned for a decade. He said this project would generate less traffic on this site than was assumed as part of the Peterkort Transportation Master Plan.

Hathaway said the architectural design for this building was substantial and this project raised the architectural bar for commercial retail in the city. He said the BDR ensured with its conditions of approval that this center was pedestrian friendly. He said the most important action by the BDR was that it rejected all of the opponents' arguments. He said the BDR did not change its position regarding transportation issues after the expert testimony from Mr. Bernstein, the transportation engineer for the opponents. He said none of the staff from the City, County or ODOT changed their positions after the expert testimony from the opponents' group. He said Council would hear the same arguments at this hearing. He asked that the Council affirm the BDR's decision and said the applicant was prepared to comply with all the conditions imposed by the BDR. He said it was important for Wal-Mart to be in this community and stressed they complied with all the requirements.

Scott Jackson, Perkowitz & Ruth Architects, Portland, applicant's architect, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the site plan for the proposed project and the architectural design features (in the record). Major features of the design included: Site layout for the store and companion buildings; Ground-level parking under the store; Screening of the parking lot on SW Barnes Road; Five plaza areas including the main entrance; Variety of building forms and scales; Variety of paving materials; Raised planters and variety of landscaping; Vehicle and bicycle parking; and Access to the building.

Coun. Stanton asked if the office building on the northwest corner of the lot was a stand-alone building and where the parking for that building was located.

Jackson said it was an attached building and they would share Wal-Mart's parking area under the store. He clarified this parking area was at grade, under the building and the parking would be open and spacious. He said all the buildings were at grade and the main Wal-Mart store was above the parking lot. He said the store would be at ground level and there was access through stairs, escalators and elevators.

Coun. Bode referred to the site plan and said it looked like there was a sidewalk that would run into the Highway 26 ramp. She said she thought ODOT had not permitted pedestrian access on that ramp.

Sparks said the original proposal indicated no pedestrian access. He said over time, through negotiations with ODOT and Washington County, the pedestrian sidewalk was proposed and agreed upon by ODOT and the County.

Coun. Stanton said if ODOT agreed to the sidewalk, why couldn't there be a dedicated right-turn lane out of the parking lot for westbound Highway 26.

Sparks said they did make that request of ODOT and ODOT's regulations were clear. He added there were representatives from ODOT present at the meeting.

Coun. Stanton asked that someone from ODOT address that issue during the hearing.

Jackson clarified that the sidewalk continues from the ramp up to the corner of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and SW Barnes Road.

Coun. Stanton asked how much pedestrian movement there was on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard.

Hathaway said there was hardly any pedestrian traffic at that location.

Coun. Dalrymple referred to the site drawings and noted that the planting material looked fairly mature. He asked if the trees that were planted would have a caliper size consistent with what was shown on the drawings.

Jackson said the drawings show the plant material at 15 years maturity.

Coun. Bode asked what size the plants would be when planted.

Shawn Parson, PacLand Landscape Architect, Seattle, Washington, said at the time of planting the trees would be larger than the standard specification. He said they would get the largest type tree they could get in nursery stock, which is usually three-inch caliper. He said for shrubs they would get five-gallon container size, which is usually between 18-24 inches in height and width.

Coun. Dalrymple said the trees in the drawings looked like they were 15-20 feet high. He asked what the height of a three-inch caliper tree was in comparison to what was shown on the drawings.

Parson said depending on the species, a three-inch caliper tree would be between 15 and 18 feet tall. He said the trees in the drawing were 20-25 feet in height. He said he thought the majority of the trees would be near or more than 15 feet at the time of planting. He said they would use ample supplied material.

Coun. Arnold asked Jackson to review the store entrance locations along SW Barnes Road.

Jackson reviewed the entrances for Retail Building No. 2 (in the record). He said all the tenant spaces would have access on the SW Barnes Road side and on the south side for easy access from the parking lot. He reviewed the entrances for the plaza areas, for Wal-Mart, for the parking under the store and for the office building off of SW Barnes Road (in the record).

Coun. Arnold asked if there were other entrances to Wal-Mart other than the main door.

Jackson said there was an entrance in the garden center area. He said everything for operational purposes and for the retail store would come through one central area for security reasons and checking out. He said the garden center was a duplicate area.

Coun. Arnold asked the size of the retail building.

Jackson said the retail building was 9200 square feet and it could be divided into as many as eight stores, though it would probably be four to six stores. He reviewed the northern entrances to the retail building and said it would have glass frontage.

Coun. Stanton asked where the Tri-Met bus stop was located.

Dan Boultinghouse, PE, PacLand, Portland, said the Tri-Met stop was currently west of 117 th Avenue. He said they were currently talking to Tri-Met regarding another stop. He said Tri-Met reviewed and approved the proposed site.

Coun. Arnold said one of the concerns expressed was that pedestrian activity would not happen and that the doors on the northern side of the retail building would not be used because the tenants would not want to maintain two entrances.

Jackson said it would be up to the tenants to layout their own stores.

Coun. Arnold asked if that meant they did not have to install the doors (on the north side).

Boultinghouse replied that the Code required doors on the north side and they have to remain serviceable.

Coun. Arnold asked if the doors could become emergency exits only.

Sparks said there was no County or City Code requirement that says the doors have to be open.

Jackson said it was their assumption in doing the design that the doors would be operational.

Coun. Arnold referred to the transportation number and said she felt that the traffic volumes for this site could be determined from the stores sales records and projections.

Bruce Haldors, President, Transpo Group, Kirkland, WA, applicant's transportation engineer, said he has done Wal-Mart retail studies for 15 years and the main question on every project was how many trips would the store generate and how are they generated. He said this industry relies primarily on the ITE Trip Generation Manual which is a compilation of traffic studies of stores. He said the free-standing discount store figures in the Manual were from Target and Wal-Mart stores. He said every site was unique and to determine trip generation they look at community size, access, housing density, roadway widths, etc. He said in this application they had the data from the Manual as well as the data collected by a traffic engineer representing the opponents of the Hillsboro Wal-Mart store. He said this data was collected from the Wood Village Wal-Mart and they identified a trip rate that was lower than the Trip Generation Manual's trip rate. He said to be conservative and work from a worst case basis, for this project he did a sensitivity analysis that used a trip rate that was 50% higher than the trip rate documented at the Wood Village store. He said as part of that analysis they looked at the traffic impacts to see if that would change the mitigation and impact of this proposed store. He said the answer to that was no; he said that no answer was validated by the City's, County's and ODOT's traffic engineers. He stressed that they have done studies of their stores throughout the West Coast and validated these traffic numbers, and the ITE Trip Generation Manual was comprised of those studies.

Coun. Arnold asked if they had a sales estimate, and the average purchasing amount per customer, why doesn’t that give them a more exact number for trip generations.

Hathaway said the standard that was used was the ITE Trip Generation Manual. He said that was the best objective standard. He said in this case the City, County and ODOT required that the applicant do a sensitivity analysis to validate the Manual to make sure it was the best standard. He said the three transportation agencies define the rules of the game and that was the standard that was used and the applicant complied with that standard.

Coun. Arnold asked if her calculation to determine trip generation (i.e., projected sales divided by average sale per customer equals the number of customers per day) was not valid because Wal-Mart did not estimate correctly. She asked why that would not be mathematically correct.

Mayor Drake suggested that the team get together after this meeting to look at her question and develop a response.

Coun. Stanton asked how people would access the parking lot.

Jackson said everyone has to park under the building.

Mayor Drake asked what the peak hour was for this project and how many additional vehicles there would be per hour.

Haldors said their analysis was focused on the evening commuter peak hour from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He said the analysis focused on the peak 15 minutes of the peak hour traffic. He said he would need to find the numbers in the record.

Mayor Drake said it would be interesting to know the figures for the bell curve of the top six hours.

Haldors said the record did not include a 24-hour traffic profile for the store. He said he could provide that if Council wished.

Coun. Stanton said she would like to see that.

Coun. Bode asked if the Wood Village Wal-Mart has a grocery store.

Haldors said when it was developed it did not have a grocery, but it now does.

Coun. Bode said a Wal-Mart without a grocery store would have a different trip generation rate than one with a grocery store. She said this proposed Wal-Mart did not have a grocery store so this project could not be compared with the Wood Village store.

Haldors said they used the trip generation numbers for the Wood Village store before the grocery section was added.

Coun. Stanton said she assumed the Wal-Mart store would be built first but when would the other buildings be constructed.

Jackson said all the buildings would be built at the same time.

Coun. Stanton said she agreed with Coun. Arnold that eventually all the front doors on the Retail 2 Building would face the parking lot and not SW Barnes Road. She asked if there was anything in the conditions to prevent that. She said she was talking about visual design that identifies the front of the building facing the parking lot.

Jackson said their intent was to focus on the pedestrian way. He said there was a movement in the Metro regional area to have retail businesses front on pedestrian sidewalks. He said it was a conundrum from a retailer's point of view.

Coun. Dalrymple asked about the signage program for the Retail 2 Building.

Jackson said the signage would face SW Barnes Road as shown on the elevation drawings. He said the signage program would comply with the City standards.

Coun. Arnold asked what he meant by a sign program.

Jackson said a sign program defines how much signage can be located on a building. He said this was guided by the City's Sign Code.

Sparks said signage on the north side was not required by the Code but a retailer rejecting signage was unheard of.


Jeffrey Kleinman, Portland, attorney representing the appellant Save Cedar Mill (SCM), presented Council an Appeal Memorandum of Save Cedar Mill, Inc., dated July 10, 2006. He said this memorandum contains a list of proposed findings of denial. He introduced Robert Bernstein, the SCM traffic engineer and Tom Armstrong, the SCM planner. He said they would address the appeal points raised by SCM.

Kleinman said in an article from the July 9, 2006 The Oregonian, the Community Development Director Joe Grillo was quoted as saying this appeal was too late and they should have appealed the County's zoning. He said this property was zoned Transit Oriented-Retail Commercial (TO-RC) in the County and that zoning was applied by the City. He said the County's design standards and principles were integrated into this zoning and they were not comparable to City standards. He said Wal-Mart's application violates standards. He said Armstrong would cover these violations. He said the June 29, 2006 staff memorandum states that design issues are the subject of City and County design principles and guidelines and are "highly discretionary and subject to varied opinions by decision makers."

Robert Bernstein, Seattle, WA, transportation engineer for the appellant, said common sense and technical analysis indicates that the proposed development and intersection widening do not improve existing conditions, do not accommodate the proposed development and make conditions worse for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. He said the applicant's technical analysis indicates that even with this extensive mitigation, the Cedar Mill street system will be on the brink of failure. He said there were various key traffic movements that exceed capacity; the northbound left turn from SW Cedar Hills Boulevard onto SW Barnes Road was over capacity and in the applicant's calculations queues backup to upstream intersections. He said they believe the conditions would be much worse and they identified a series of errors, omissions and assumptions in the applicant's analysis, that were detailed in the BDR hearing testimony over the last several months. He said correction or revision of these items would result in the failure to meet City standards analytically. He said the finding that the street system functions adequately was an analytical house of cards that would fall. He said regardless of what numbers are used, the system would never work as well as the analysis indicates; particularly in cases where there are double left and right turns.

Bernstein said the proposed mitigation measures would make the situation worse not better. He said the widened SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection would not work for vehicular traffic and was a permanent "show-stopper" for pedestrian or bicycle traffic. He said to cross SW Barnes Road on the west side of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, pedestrians would have to cross eight lanes of traffic and two bike lanes; a total of 106 feet of exposure to traffic. He said to cross SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, south of SW Barnes Road, one would have to cross ten lanes of traffic and two bike lanes; a total of 130 feet of exposure to traffic. He compared that to an average wide intersection of 70 to 80 feet. He said he did not know of any intersection that had such a large pedestrian crossing area. He said regardless of refuge islands and extra crossing time, there was no way this intersection could be considered safe and convenient for pedestrians. He said the eastbound and southbound movement would have to be signalized No Turns on Red. He said pedestrians would avoid this intersection and the intersection would be "poison" to any walking community. He said the conclusion that the widened intersection meets standards and would be safe and convenient for pedestrians defies common sense and was analytically incorrect.

Tom Armstrong, Winterbrook Planning, Portland, planner for appellant, showed three drawings to illustrate the lack of pedestrian and transit orientation in the proposed design (in the record). He said two errors were made in determining the applicable criteria for this application. He said the crosswalk analysis done by City staff was flawed. He said the transit oriented design principles in the County Code Chapter 431, that implements the TO-RC zoning, was what should be applied to the project. He said it was not comparable and it was not superseded by the City design guidelines. He said the City's original crosswalk compared the City's guidelines to the County's guidelines. He said the County guidelines were advisory statements only; the applicable criteria under a County application were the principles and standards. He said there was no comparison or analysis between the County design principles and standards, and the City design guidelines. He said there was one reference to one of the standards, saying it was applicable, but they never provide findings to state how the proposed design is applicable. He stressed the County transit oriented design principles in Chapter 431 was the benchmark against which this project should be measured.

Armstrong said the second error was that SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was a street not a freeway and it is not an ODOT facility. He said the letter from ODOT in the record states ODOT does not have jurisdiction over SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. He said SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was an arterial; none of the approach roads to Highway 26 are classified freeways, they are arterials. He said this was important because within the County's transit oriented design guidelines there is a "pedestrian street" designation. He said the County defines a pedestrian street as any street within the transit oriented district, except for parking alleys and freeways. He said that definition was not dependent on jurisdiction or access. He said common sense says that freeways do not have sidewalks. He said SW Cedar Hills Boulevard is a street; it has sidewalks and an underpass. He said when those two items are considered in conjunction, and when you look at the required corrective action and apply the County standards, the design fails on each of the three major street frontages.

Armstrong said the view from SW Cedar Hills Boulevard would be an expansive parking lot; the County standards and Transportation Planning Rule require that at least 50% of the building street frontage be built to the sidewalk. He said in addition the buildings are to have habitable, usable space with activity areas and ground floor windows. He said regarding the SW Barnes Road frontage, the applicant just testified that for the Retail 2 Building they would defer judgment to the tenant. He said the applicant controls the tenants, but the applicant is not willing to make promises to make the pedestrian sidewalk become a reality.

Armstrong said his written testimony (in the record) focused on the design flaws of the Wal-Mart building. He said there was no major entrance; the major entrance to Wal-Mart is 80 feet off of SW Barnes Road across the parking lot. He said the other shops next to Wal-Mart were too small and there was no activity on the street; the pedestrian plaza is dead space as there is no reason for anyone to use that space; and the main tower is an architectural feature not a functional space. He said the County standards require that habitable space be predominant; not parking garages or blank walls. He said ground floor windows along that frontage need to look into active uses. He said on the public access street side, the road is too long; it extends beyond the entrance to SW Choban Lane. He said this violates the County block link standard; this was a super block. He said the Cedar Mill Community Plan had an interim access that was eliminated. He said there was a way to organize this site so that it is broken into smaller manageable blocks and provides pedestrian circulation throughout the site. He reiterated that the staff report has stated there is a high degree of discretion in this review. He said the Council has the power to exercise that discretion and deny this application based on design reasons.

Coun. Stanton referred to the property on the north side of SW Barnes Road and asked if it was transit oriented retail and if the Albertson's store was included in that designation.

Armstrong said it was transit oriented-residential. He said he thought Albertsons was transit oriented.

Coun. Stanton asked if Armstrong's comments regarding design flaws and County transit-oriented standards were correct, why would the County allow a big box development that is auto-dependent. She said Wal-Mart met all of the County's design standards. She asked how he could refer to transit friendly when Tri-Met was not near that site. She said pedestrian friendly might be fine in 20 years when the entire area is developed, but she did her own pedestrian survey for two hours one day and there was no one walking in that area. She asked why there was an intensity to create a pedestrian-friendly area where there are no pedestrians.

Armstrong responded there currently were no pedestrians because the area was only half built out. He said this development would be there for 50 years. He said the Teufel and Peterkort properties would develop in the future. He said the Cedar Mill Town Center was on one end and the Sunset Transit Center was on the other, all along SW Barnes Road. He asked why would the City sell itself short by saying there was no one there now, so it does not need to be addressed. He said the people are coming and the vacant land that surrounds this area would be developed under the transit-oriented zoning with a high density. He said the more a pedestrian orientation is encouraged, the more people will want to walk to the shops. He said if this is closed off, it will force people into cars.

Coun. Stanton asked how there could be design flaws on these three streets if Wal-Mart has met the design criteria as stated by staff.

Armstrong responded the applicant had not met the design standards. He said staff did not apply the County design principles. He said staff applied the City design guidelines and stated that some design guidelines were not met. He said he was talking about the County's pedestrian-oriented design standards; what the building looks like and how it relates to the street. He said these standards have to be applied to the project and staff's position was they had not. He said that was the flaw in the process.

Bernstein said regarding pedestrian circulation/transit access, the point they have tried to make throughout the process is that if this is designed this way, pedestrian activity cannot be encouraged, so pedestrians would not come. He said if they have to cross ten lanes of traffic to get to a bus stop, they would not take the bus. He said there would be ten lanes to cross because of this development and because of the double right turn lane, a bus stop cannot be located close to this site. He said it all points in the same direction; this design kills any opportunity available to make this area acceptable and attractive for pedestrians and transit.

Coun. Stanton said regardless of Wal-Mart, these lanes would still come with the Teufel and Peterkort development. She said Teufel would have to construct more lanes once they reached their 501st unit.

Kleinman said that was not necessarily correct. He said certain lanes were required of the Teufel development. He said there was no specific legal mandate for the remainder of the additional lanes and turn lanes. He said this was being triggered by Wal-Mart in this particular application. He said he was not aware of any requirement attached to future Peterkort development that would require this configuration of the intersection.

Coun. Stanton asked Wooley if Wal-Mart was doing any additional traffic improvements that were not required of Teufel.

Wooley replied yes; Wal-Mart was adding a right-turn lane from SW Barnes Road to SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and extending some of the turn lanes required for Teufel.

Armstrong said the second right turn lane from SW Barnes Road to southbound SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was huge. He said because of that lane there would be no transit stop near that intersection; the stop would be across the street. He said due to the conflict with the double-right turn lanes, Tri-Met would not put a bus stop there. He said the second right turn lane increases the crossing distance so that pedestrians cross in two steps by using the pedestrian refuge and going through a second light. He said this lane impacts the pedestrian environment of the intersection and corner.

Coun. Arnold noted that the appellant stated that the transit oriented design criteria from the County and City are different, but staff's position is that the standards match up. She said there was no real cross reference in the record and she did not hear any testimony that clearly explained the difference between the County and City standards. She asked when the appellant states that Code 431 was not met, what standard did the City use and why doesn't that meet Code 431.

Armstrong said in the initial staff review, they compared guidelines to guidelines, without considering that the County's guidelines are only advisory statements to be considered in the building design.

Coun. Arnold said she did not think the City compared guidelines to guidelines and she thought this was a terminology issue. She said the City had guidelines that were above standards. She said if you do a Type 2 application and meet the standards you are done; if you do a Type 3 application to go through design review for a higher density and yet meet the standards, then there are guidelines. She said in the City there are guidelines for Type 3; the County has principles, which are the same thing as the City's guidelines, and there are standards under the principles. She said they all sound similar and she thought it should be simple to compare them and determine whether or not they match.

Mayor Drake suggested that staff would provide the answer tomorrow.

Armstrong said that in the County and City guidelines, what is applicable in the transit oriented-retail commercial district is important. He said the City guidelines apply city-wide and the guidelines that apply to the mixed use districts are the ones that apply to the major pedestrian routes. He said the City has said that its hands are tied; the City has not designated any routes in this area, so it cannot apply those guidelines. He said the standards that should be applied in the City's station areas and regional centers are the major pedestrian route standards. He said in the City's opinion these are not applicable. He said that is why the appellant is saying the City guidelines are more generic, apply city-wide and are not comparable. He said the focus should be on transit oriented development design principles and standards. He said the other issue is that the County principles and standards do apply. He said under the County guidelines this is a Type 2 design review so they would start with the standards; if they are not able to meet the standards, then the higher principles would apply.

Coun. Dalrymple asked Bernstein for help in understanding why he felt he was right. He said if they are looking at an increased traffic count of 50% more, where did the applicant go wrong and how was the appellant right.

Bernstein said he was right as he was not focused on one scenario. He said he started with Transpo's traffic analysis and looked at all the assumptions, factors, estimates and the background information. He said he found eight to ten areas where he felt the report was either wrong, off or could have reasonably used a different assumption. He said when his findings are taken into consideration along with Transpo's results, it shows the system is on the brink of failure. He said there was a list of issues and one or more would "bring down the house of cards."

Bernstein said some of the issues that could cause system failure were: how the intersections operate close together; having more traffic coming from Highway 26 than was estimated; having a Subway store that generates 30 times the number of trips per square foot than specialty retail; the double left turn lane cannot carry the number of cars that the analysis assumes; future development that brings more traffic after 2007. He said every assumption and estimate in the applicant's analysis would have to be "spot-on" for the system to barely work as the applicant has shown. He stressed there were many ways for the system to fail.

Coun. Dalrymple asked Bernstein if every transportation study he did was spot-on.

Bernstein replied it was not but that was his point. He said in all transportation studies there is a large margin of error; it is not an exact science. He said when a study says the traffic is close to the limit, but has not failed yet, at that point you have to look at the range of possibilities. He said the chances that it would be close to the limit and not fail are very slim. He said if the analysis had shown that there was a great deal of capacity available, he would not be here testifying. He said he was here because these figures were on the edge; even if the analysis was correct what would happen in 2007 when new developments come in bringing more traffic.

Coun. Dalrymple said the record indicates the level of service would function better after the improvements are made.

Bernstein said some movements would improve and some would not. He said when considering all the factors he questioned the conclusion.

Mayor Drake said realistically this intersection was a monster with many competing interests. He said retail boutique shops on this site would not be successful for a number of economic reasons. He said if this site were developed with a store whose size was between a Wal-Mart and boutique shops, the intersection would still look like what was being projected today.

Bernstein said he was correct. He said in this case there are conflicting traffic standards and aspirations that probably cannot be met. He said the conflicting standards are that lanes need to be added to meet traffic volumes and the transit center was trying to accommodate transit; you cannot build that many lanes and accommodate a transit/pedestrian environment. He said a choice would have to be made. He said in the Cornell area, Washington County made the decision to build it as they wanted and traffic would have to deal with it. He said this was basically the Council's decision. He asked if the Council wanted this many lanes knowing it would be over crowded anyway or ratchet it back to give transit and pedestrians a chance.

Coun. Dalrymple said with all the development that was coming this intersection would be improved. He asked Bernstein if his solution was to not build anything or develop something less. He asked what he saw happening to allow development to occur.

Bernstein said he was not in a position to comment. He said in many cases there would be no solution; there is a dilemma regarding what the Council wants the City to be given but you cannot have everything. He said this intersection is overloaded and would get worse; the proposed layout makes it a poison pill for pedestrians and transit.

Coun. Dalrymple noted the Peterkorts have a great deal of property yet to be developed and he did not think the City or County would tell them they could not develop it. He said there has to be a solution even if it is not the best solution.

Bernstein replied that was what the Council would have to decide.

Coun. Stanton said the City would have to decide on this site but the area north of SW Barnes Road was in Washington County. She said this site was not in the heart of the City; it was on the far north end of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. She said it was difficult for the City to have a vision for a project that another jurisdiction developed and another jurisdiction would continue to develop.

Mayor Drake said the Peterkort Master Plan had been in existence for quite a while and that vision was already in place.

Kleinman said this site was never included in any master plan. He said the only place this site appeared with any assumed land use was in the traffic study, where a big box retail was placed on the site for traffic generation assumptions. He said all of the County master plans designated this site as "Not a Part of This Plan." He said in response to Coun. Dalrymple's question regarding a solution, he did not think it was a good solution to take the last available capacity and use it for this single development leaving none for the development of the other Peterkort properties. He said this was an egregious non-solution.

Coun. Arnold asked Kleinman if he was referring to road capacity.

Kleinman replied that was correct.

Coun. Arnold said in the transit oriented district street blocks are to be urban sized. She asked what urban sized was and what in the City Code was comparable.

Bernstein said the County principle was that street blocks should be more urban scale than suburban scale. He said the County sets a limit of 330 feet; the downtown Portland street blocks are 200 feet, which were very small. He said it was fair to look to the standards to guide the interpretation of the principles, and the standard was 330 feet. He said the north access on this site was over 600 feet.

Coun. Arnold asked if the City had comparable standards.

Sparks replied the City did have comparable standards. He said staff could come back to Council with a written response. He said the standards depend on the street classification.

Mayor Drake asked Wooley if he had said this parcel under the 1999 Peterkort study could generate up to 7900 trips daily and Wal-Mart was projected at 7400.

Wooley said that was correct; the 1999 study assumed 114,000 square feet of retail and two large restaurants on this site for an estimated trip generation of 7900 trips per day.

Mayor Drake asked Kleinman or Bernstein to comment on that study and that Wal-Mart's traffic estimate was less than what was shown on the projection.

Bernstein said the previous comment that all the capacity was used up was based on the analysis done for this proposal. He said the capacity is used up by the traffic from Wal-Mart, from the out buildings, and from existing traffic. He said if this is considered with the fact that the system is at the brink, and with the proposed improvements, this intersection is at the edge for capacity. He said the only thing that could be done would be to try not to make it any worse or build an overpass. He said that was their point.

Coun. Stanton said Metro allows LOS F on the arterials everywhere in this region during the peak hours. She suggested he have this conversation with Metro.

Bernstein said this was being discussed because the City did not have a LOS F standard. He said this project did not meet the City's standards and he was asking the Council to look at the real-world aspects, not just the computations. He asked what this intersection would be like in December, 2007 when computed capacity is used up. He said access to the northern neighborhoods and to Wal-Mart would be totally clogged.

Coun. Bode asked Bernstein to explain his statement that Wal-Mart would build a project that would clog up the street system so consumers could not get to their store.

Bernstein said what would be more likely to happen was that traffic would use other routes and neighborhood streets to get to and from the store.

Coun. Bode said she has to listen based on facts and honest projected data versus innuendo. She said she does not believe the world's largest retailer would build a store that no one would come to because they were causing their own traffic jam.

Bernstein said he would withdraw that statement. He said what he was saying was that computationally and realistically that intersection was already full, would get worse with the addition of Wal-Mart; it would get worse for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit as all the improvements are basically for the automobiles.

Coun. Arnold agreed that Council has to make its decision based on fact. She said she would love to see a matrix that shows what is in the County transit oriented district, what the City used instead, and the arguments on why they are or are not the same. She said that would give her a better idea of what she is reviewing. She said the issue is design.

Kleinman responded that the analysis she is requesting is set out in Armstrong's memo that is Exhibit D to the packet they distributed at this meeting (in the record). He said regarding the design standards, when the County allowed large retail to locate within this district, it did not make it easy because it adopted guidelines, standards and principles that are thresholds that have to be met. He said you do not get a pass just because you are a large retail use.

Coun. Arnold said she looked forward to reviewing the material submitted at the meeting by both sides.

Kleinman asked that the record be held open for seven days for written testimony.

Coun. Arnold asked staff how long it would take to put the information she requested together.

Sparks replied they would try to have that available for the hearing tomorrow.

Coun. Doyle asked if there was anything more Bernstein would like to add regarding super blocks.

Bernstein said these were issues raised at the BDR hearing. He referred to the access road that T-s into SW Choban Avenue and loops around 177th Avenue, everything ends as one huge block. He said the backside of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was a parking lot. If the City applied the block standards from the transit oriented district and the TPR, a street could be pulled through and connections could be made.

Coun. Stanton explained for the audience that the Council previously agreed that LOS F was not acceptable in Beaverton and later approved LOS D which is much better.

Mayor Drake thanked everyone for their presentations.

RECESS: Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 10:30 p.m.

RECONVENED: Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 10:49 p.m.

Mayor Drake said the Council may have further questions and he knew Councilors had questions for the Peterkort's Transportation Engineer Mr. Odermott. He said at the meeting tomorrow night he would give each side the opportunity to answer Council questions. He said he would limit the testimony to 15 minutes each.

Kleinman said he objected to giving 15 minutes to a party because the Peterkorts were essentially co-applicants and could have participated with Wal-Mart in the presentation.

Mayor Drake said there were some questions about history; he was not offering 15 minutes for each side to do another presentation. He said he would keep a lid on open-ended questions, but would allow 15 minutes for each side if the Council has questions. He confirmed that the Council was comfortable with this procedure.


Lorraine Clarno, President, Beaverton Area Chamber of Commerce, Beaverton, representing the Chamber Board of Directors, said the Chamber supports the Wal-Mart application. She said the Chamber represents over 720 members and supports economic growth, job growth and consumer choice. She said the BDR decision demonstrated that Wal-Mart successfully met all development standards. She said Wal-Mart provides Beaverton citizens the opportunities for jobs and consumer choice. She said while Wal-Mart would increase traffic, it had met all necessary traffic mitigation requirements to ensure the most effective roads in and out of this area. She submitted written testimony for the record.

Kevin Hohnbaum, Chair, Chamber of Commerce Business Advocacy Group, said the Chamber supports businesses. He said small business can benefit from the additional traffic and customers who would shop at Wal-Mart. He said the Chamber would proactively seek ways to help small businesses identify niches to thrive from Wal-Mart's presence. He said they appreciated the residents' concerns regarding additional traffic and road congestion; however this parcel has been designated a large transit oriented retail commercial site by County and local jurisdictions. He said if not Wal-Mart there would be another big box retailer. He thanked Council for its time.

Darla King, Chair, Central Beaverton Neighborhood Association Committee, introduced Ron Popkin.

Ron Popkin, Portland, 97225, said he has lived in this area for 37 years and has served on committees and on the BDR. He said when he served on the BDR, the Board considered Sexton Mountain development. He said the application looked like it met all the criteria, yet the BDR felt something was wrong with the project and decided that it was not compatible with the area and turned it down. He said the Comprehensive Plan states that new design should enhance the livability and respect the character of existing areas. He said this project and the intersection do neither. He said the Comprehensive Plan states that if an area has an established, desirable characteristic, it should be maintained; infill is to be compatible including size and scale. He said this project fails to meet the Comprehensive Plan test. He said he was a retired civil engineer and engineers were often guilty of solving a problem, but failing to look at the results of their solution. He said when you hear that the additional turn lanes may not function as they are supposed to that needs further investigation. He urged the Council, in the face of all the conflicting information, to call a temporary halt to this project. He said the New Jersey Turnpike with 12 million people was 12 lanes. He said the City was looking at ten lanes. He asked if the Council wanted an intersection the size of the Turnpike in Beaverton. He said his answer would be no.

Coun. Arnold explained that the Council cannot decide to not make a decision.

Coun. Stanton said the City was under the State's 120-day rule and the deadline was the day after the scheduled date for decision. She said she did not think Wal-Mart would extend the 120 days; and if the Council does not make a decision, Wal-Mart could do whatever it wanted on that site.

Popkin said he could not believe there was no way for elected officials to say this was not the right development for this area. He said if that was the case decision making was going to the technocrats.

Mayor Drake pointed out that previously Wal-Mart voluntarily waived the 120 days to 240 days.

Bruce Bartlett, Chair, Citizen Participation Organization 1 (CPO 1), said CPO 1 passed a motion that detailed five issues it felt were applicable to this case; he said testimony was turned in to the BDR previously and the letter has not changed since then. He said the first issue was increased use of neighborhood routes by cut-through traffic. He said the impact to the town center would be debated; the larger the store the more it loses the personal scale. He said there was concern that the mix of different scales would clash. He said those two issues would occur no matter what happens on that site. He said the Wal-Mart store generated interest in CPO 1 activity unlike anything he had previously experienced. He said hundreds of new people attended the CPO 1 meetings and they were concerned about the impact of the store. He said the greatest impact of the store was the size of the intersection; having the largest intersection in Oregon was not enviable. He said he could not offer a solution and the question would come down to the ultimate capacity of the intersection once all the improvements are built. He asked if full capacity was reached, how would future needs be accommodated as land north of Highway 26 is developed. He said regarding zoning there were many nuances in the County and City Codes. He said he thought the two lined up well, but the devil was in the details. He said he was not sure he would want to walk to this site. He said this project would create the worst-case traffic scenario that he could envision.

Martin Jensvold, Region Access Management Engineer, ODOT Region 1, said SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, between SW Barnes Road and Butner Road, was under ODOT jurisdiction. He said access is controlled by Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 734, Division 51, which states that ODOT cannot accept an application for access to a freeway ramp. He said ODOT considers the frontage on west side SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, between SW Barnes Road and the westbound on-ramp, to be part of that ramp; any access to that section of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard is prohibited. He said this issue came up when the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District (TVF&R), wanted emergency access onto that section of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. He said because of Division 51 that was not allowed. He said ODOT met with the City, County and TVF&R, and agreed on an alternative access off of SW Barnes Road and secondary accesses off the main access road and SW Choban Lane. He said regarding the pedestrian connections from the early stages of the proposed development ODOT expressed concern about the pedestrian sidewalk on the two-lane free-flowing on-ramp onto Highway 26. He said that was the main objection to providing a sidewalk on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard that would be built to that point and ended. He said they met with the City, County and developer and developed a plan to try to get funding for a pedestrian under-crossing. He said the sidewalk would continue from SW Barnes Road, along SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, underneath Highway 26, and connect to the existing sidewalk at Butner Road.

Coun. Dalrymple noted the ramp design was for two-lane free-flowing access onto Highway 26. He asked why it was designed this way, and if there was another option that would provide the opportunity to do something else on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. He asked if ODOT had to have the whole street face.

Jensvold said ODOT considered a number of options but due to the proximity of SW Barnes Road and the dual turn lanes, and because there is a lot of jockeying of traffic, this design offered the best protection for SW Cedar Hills Boulevard to prevent traffic queues and backups. He said the best way to keep traffic flowing smoothly was to minimize conflict by giving drivers an option of which lane to move into. He said one reason for providing three lanes on the south section was to ensure lane balance on the dual left and right turn lanes by directing the outside left turn lane into the outside lane of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if having the traffic signal close to where the sidewalk would start created some other opportunity versus having no light and having speed limits instead.

Jensvold said the signal at the westbound ramp terminals would tend to backup traffic and potentially block access onto the westbound on-ramp. He said there were no pedestrian crossings at the westbound off-ramp; pedestrian access was only on the on-ramp through the under-crossing.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if the signal light controlled the two free-flowing lanes.

Jensvold replied it did not.

Coun. Doyle asked if the two free-flowing lanes would be metered before entering Highway 26.

Jensvold said the meter was already installed further down the ramp.

Coun. Doyle asked if backups were anticipated.

Jensvold said that would have occurred if they had signalized the ramp for the pedestrian crossing.

Coun. Arnold asked if they were talking about metering the entrance to freeway.

Jensvold confirmed that was what they were discussing.

Coun. Arnold said earlier there was discussion about conflicting merging traffic from eastbound and westbound SW Barnes Road. She asked if there were issues with that.

Jensvold said that was why it was anticipated there would be no right turns on red from eastbound SW Barnes Road onto SW Cedar Hills Boulevard with this design but right turns on red were currently allowed.

Coun. Arnold said there was earlier discussion regarding construction of an under-crossing. She asked if people were currently crossing there.

Jensvold said the main issue was residential development on the south side of the freeway and commercial development on the north. He said it would be good to enable people to walk from the residential area to the retail area. He said by providing the pedestrian under-crossing, traffic flow could be maintained without pedestrian conflict. He said the City and/or County would apply for a grant through ODOT to pay for the under-crossing and Wal-Mart would pay a portion of the cost. He said a conceptual design of the under-crossing was provided by the applicant.

Coun. Stanton referred to OAR 734, Division 51, and asked if anyone ever received a waiver on access control. She said she was looking at having a right- turn-only lane out of the parking lot onto westbound Highway 26.

Jensvold said that he was not aware of any waiver. He said the rule was established in 2000; prior to 2000 developments were not subject to this rule.

Coun. Doyle asked if there was an intersection similar to this one in Region 1.

Jensvold said a similar intersection was Oregon 213 at Beaver Creek Road in Oregon City. He said that project included dual left turn lanes and separate right turn lanes on all but one approach, and there were two through lanes in each direction. He said that was the closest to this design.

Coun. Doyle asked if this design was of any concern to ODOT.

Jensvold said he understood why the additional lanes were needed. He said ODOT pushed for the island on the eastbound right turn lane and on the southern east quadrant to help minimize the crossing distance for pedestrians. He said some improvements were at ODOT’s recommendation.

Coun. Stanton agreed the Oregon 213/Beaver Creek Road intersection was large. She asked what the zoning is for that area.

Jensvold said he was not familiar with the zoning for that area. He said that section of Oregon City was one of the major growth areas anticipated for that area and that was why the intersection was so large. He said based on recent studies there were indications it may not be enough.

Dawn Bonder, representative for Citizen Participation Organization 7 (CPO 7), Portland, thanked the Council for recognizing CPO 7 as a group with an interest in this matter. She said CPO 7 represents the residents of Rock Creek, Bethany, West Union, Baseline and Five Oaks Neighborhoods. She said these areas span the City of Beaverton and unincorporated Washington County. She said the intersection of SW Barnes Road and SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was the gateway to northwest Washington County. She said the residents of CPO 7 must pass through this intersection or the Highway 26/Highway 217 intersection in order to reach their homes and jobs. She said traffic congestion was already grueling and that was before completion of the north Bethany expansion that would add 15,000 residents to the area. She said the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was overdue for an update and the traffic generated by north Bethany and Bonny Slope had not yet been included in the RTP. She said in the next year this area would see tremendous population growth and asked that the City view this intersection as a regional resource. She asked that Council look at this decision in the context of how approval would affect the region's ability to manage project growth in all other aspects of the infrastructure planning.

Bonder said the approval of Wal-Mart necessitates the creation of the biggest intersection in the state. She asked what would happen when one million people move into this area in the next 20 years. She asked how the traffic and other unintended consequences from this project would be handled. She said CPO 7 was requesting that the Council take a big-picture view and look at the impacts this application would have on the entire region's infrastructure. She said Washington County was a crucial economic engine in the state and the City needs to protect the region's ability to meet future transportation and infrastructure needs of the businesses and residents. She said this project would hamstring the City's ability to work with the County, Metro and State to continue to offer citizens and businesses the opportunity to thrive. She asked that the Council not approve any proposal that would use all the available traffic capacity to meet the needs of one development.

Jim Crawford, a Director on the Home Association of Cedar Hills (HACH), Portland, said he was an architect and land use planner. He said the HACH represents 2,114 homes located between Center Street and Highway 26. He said HACH opposed any big box retailer in this area. He said this area was zoned transit oriented-retail center and this was a land use issue regarding uses that do not support transit or pedestrians. He said in 1996 the Council denied a Wal-Mart project on Tualatin Valley Highway. He said that project was three-fourths of a mile from the Light Rail Station and one-half mile outside the transit overlay district. He said the land use issues and conclusions made by the Council for that application were applicable to this project. He said as part of the 1996 appeal, Tri-Met stated that the proposed commercial development was not consistent with the goals and development plans of affected State, regional and local jurisdictions because it would establish an auto-oriented commercial center that serves a regional market in a transit land use area. He said the record also stated that "The proposed store was close enough to reinforce the transit supportive land use plans developing around the Light Rail Station. The proposed auto-oriented regional commercial center would not reinforce the transit supportive land use in the transit overlay district." He said in this case Wal-Mart claimed that because they were more than one quarter mile from the Sunset Transit Station, they were not required to comply with County Code 375, that limits development to those that generate a relatively high percentage of trips serviceable by transit. He said what they failed to acknowledge was that there were four primary bus routes running adjacent to their site on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and SW Barnes Road. He said staff was wrong to not require the transit commercial district standards be met. He noted Coun. Soth said on the record in the 1996 appeal hearing, that "He has seen very few transit riders pack home a bathtub, cartons of diapers, 24-roll packages of toilet paper or a lawn mower on a train or bus."

Crawford said Wal-Mart is not transit supported. He said in reviewing the 1996 Wal-Mart application, Jack Orchard (Wal-Mart's attorney) said that large scale uses belong away from congested areas. He said he agreed with that comment and asked why Wal-Mart was now proposing a store for the most congested intersection in the City. He said at the conclusion of the 1996 hearing, the Council record provided a finding that the development of an auto-oriented commercial center was not consistent with the 2040 Growth Concept and would then prevent the development of land uses to support a transit system. He said the record also concluded that the Council finds that the proposed commercial use was not consistent with the goals and development plans of affected State, regional and local jurisdictions. He said these findings were true for the proposed store in Cedar Mill. He said the Council should be consistent with its previous decision to deny a big box retailer in a transit-oriented zone. He added that Mayor Drake signed the 1996 order.


Ty Wyman, Dunn Carney LLP, Portland, attorney representing Providence Health Systems of Oregon, the owner/operator of the St. Vincent's Medical Center, said he wanted to be clear regarding St. Vincent's Medical Center's position on this project. He said he appreciated staff's comment regarding the 12,000 emergency medical vehicles visiting St. Vincent's over the past year. He said last year the St. Vincent's Emergency Room (ER) saw 78,000 patients; of that, 66,000 patients went to the ER in their own vehicles. He said the Center was concerned for those patients. He said emergency vehicles are equipped to get through congested traffic; the average citizen is not and they have to wait through all the lights. He said their concern was maintaining traffic flow on SW Barnes Road for people trying to get to the hospital; he said that did not include the thousands trying to get to the Center just to see their doctor. He said the traffic study attached to the application showed extensive improvements to the SW Barnes Road/ Highway 217 intersection. He said there was some back-pedaling on those improvements and their concern was that this intersection had not been adequately mitigated through this process. He asked that the Council ask the applicant to do what it originally committed to earlier in the initial traffic study.

Walt Gorman, Portland, 97229, said he was a participant during the Town Center and the Main Street design phase from 1994 to 1997. He said 1700 people were involved in seven meetings, with never less than 220 people per meeting. He said the Town Center design had two overlays; the Town Center overlay for this parcel and the Main Street overlay. He read from the Cedar Mill Town Center Plan, June 30, 1997, prepared by Washington County Land Use and Transportation: "The study area for the Town Center Plan focuses around Cornell Road, specifically between Murray Road and Saltzman, residential neighborhoods within a quarter mile north and south of Cornell. The Town Center area of influence is bounded by 143rd on the west, Cedar Hills Boulevard on the east, Highway 26 on the south, and Burton Road on the north." He said this showed this parcel was in the Town Center area of influence. He said Metro Town Center and Metro Main Street Plans were overlays that are to be considered part of the land use process. He said the Metro Main Street handbook addresses these core areas of Town Centers and Main Streets and lists prohibited uses on Main Streets; that include uses that are low density, require a large parking lot, dominate a large portion of the main street frontage or large warehouse retailers. He said this was the original intent of what this area was going to be. He said these were important issues that were not being addressed.

Coun. Dalrymple asked Gorman if he was saying that the use of large box use retailers was not to be allowed within the area of influence.

Gorman replied that was correct.

Coun. Dalrymple asked staff whether or not this was considered.

Sparks said this was submitted to the BDR by Gorman. He said staff looked at the Cedar Mill/Cedar Hills Community Plan and the County Development Code. He said the items that Gorman referred to were not in those plans.

Coun. Dalrymple asked Sparks for information about the areas of influence and how that fit into the review process.

Sparks said staff would need to return with that information to Council.

Gorman said the purpose for those hearings was to allow citizen involvement. He said the citizens of Cedar Mill were involved and were part of this plan. He said the County would not say it was not part of the plan or not in the Code. He said the County would assume that the Town Center and Main Street overlays were always part of the plan. He said these overlays were shown in the Cedar Mill Town Center Plan published by Washington County on June 30, 1997.

Coun. Stanton said this was Exhibit 2.25, page 431 in the record. She said areas of influence were not discussed in the Town Center Plan that was part of the record. She asked if there was another document.

Mayor Drake asked Gorman to send his information to Sparks.

Coun. Arnold said she read somewhere that this was an area of influence. She said this area was not part of the Town Center, it is not part of the transit station area; it is in the Cedar Mill Plan as an area of influence but what does area of influence mean. She asked Gorman to elaborate on what she read regarding protecting the Town Center from destruction.

Gorman said it takes a long time and a lot of community resources to build a Town Center area with small retail shops. He said putting in big box development breaks up or blocks the area from developing as a Town Center.

Coun. Arnold asked the role envisioned for the area of influence.

Gorman said the area of influence would eventually be connected to the Town Center. He said that area's development should be considered part of the Town Center and not detrimental to the Center. He said it would not be good to put a lot of investment into the Town Center and then have it not work. He said they were trying to do some difficult processes in developing the entire Metro region. He said Regional and Town Centers are important and if it gets more difficult to get there, the area is no longer a Town Center.

Jason Stevens, Portland, 97225, said he lived in the area to the northeast of the intersection next to the new Peterkort development. He said his neighborhood consisted of three blocks and in that neighborhood there are 22 kids under the age of ten, two of which are his. He said they were all pedestrians and he noted the stores that they visit. He said crossing SW Barnes Road was already bad and was getting worse. He said his children cross SW Cedar Hills Boulevard to get to KinderCare and it was very hard to get there on foot. He said this environment makes it difficult for children to reach the places they want to go. He said it was ironic that the road revisions are called improvements because once installed it gets harder to cross the street. He said it seemed silly to him to have to use his car just to cross the street. He urged the Council to think about the pedestrians. He said these streets are like walls that are keeping people in their cars.

Mayor Drake noted they had reached the agreed time to adjourn and asked for a motion to continue the hearing until tomorrow.

Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Dalrymple, that Council continue this appeal hearing APP 2006-0004 to July 11, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton 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 12:02 a.m.

Sue Nelson, City Recorder




Approved this 7th day of August, 2006.

Rob Drake, Mayor