BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 11, 2006

CALL TO ORDER:

The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob Drake in the Forrest C. Soth City Council Chamber, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton, Oregon, on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 6:40 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

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.

VISITOR COMMENT PERIOD: There were none.

COUNCIL ITEMS: There were none.

STAFF ITEMS: There were none.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

06124 APP 2006-0004: Appeal of Town Square Too - Wal-Mart Approval (DR 2005-0068) - Continued from July 10, 2006 Meeting

Mayor Drake said the meeting would start with staff reading the hearing process statement. He said afterwards there would be a question-and-answer period and each side would be allotted 15 minutes to answer Council questions. He said he knew Council had questions for Peterkort's Traffic Engineer Don Odermott and for Washington County staff; 15 minutes would be allotted to each party. He said after the question and answer period, the meeting would continue with citizen testimony.

Community Development Director Joe Grillo read a prepared statement defining the process to be followed for this continued public hearing.

The Mayor asked if any Councilors had received ex-parte contacts.

Coun. Stanton said she received a few calls today; she sent a list of everyone who contacted her to Senior Planner John Osterberg. She said she did not talk to anyone; just noted their names.

Coun. Arnold said a fellow member of her Toast Masters Group told her that he did not like Wal-Mart.

Coun, Doyle said he received one call during the meeting last night; it was garbled and he could not make out the name of the person calling.

QUESTION-AND-ANSWER PERIOD

Mayor Drake said a Councilor requested an opportunity to ask Mr. Odermott questions regarding the transportation history of this area.

Transportation Engineer Don Odermott, Transportation Consulting Group, said he has been the Peterkort's traffic engineer since 1992. He said two and a half years ago the Peterkorts advised him Wal-Mart was looking at this site and asked him to work with Wal-Mart to ensure that the development plan was consistent with the Peterkort's vision for transportation planning. He offered to answer Council questions.

Coun. Dalrymple asked for a brief recap of the transportation planning in relation to the build out of the Peterkort properties. He asked how traffic would function at the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road and Highway 217/SW Barnes Road intersections, and in the area between the two intersections.

Odermott said in 1997 Washington County formed an Issues Resolution Committee to work with the community, including the Peterkorts, to develop zoning to meet Metro's density goals for housing and employment. He said one mechanism used to promote a transit friendly design was minimum densities through Floor Area Ratios. He said there was a need to promote the uses that promote transit-friendly design, especially near the Light Rail Stations. He said on this site the County recommended a .5 Floor Area Ratio but the community and the Peterkorts felt that was too high. He said eventually a .25 Floor Area Ratio was approved. He said this application was .35 Floor Area Ratio and the existing Peterkort retail center was about .29. He said that meant there was 25% less total daily traffic than that generated by the existing Peterkort retail site.

Coun. Stanton asked if he was saying that Wal-Mart would generate 25% less traffic than the retail property east of the Wal-Mart site.

Odermott said that was correct; this was a rough approximation based on peak hour traffic counts and data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual that shows the relationship between peak hour and average daily traffic. He said they worked with the County on the densities. He said the Peterkort's Master Plan was for no more than 15 housing units per acre north of the creek. He said the County was striving to put 27,000 households, 1.7 million square feet of office commercial and 620,000 square feet of retail on the Peterkort properties. He said the population and employment figures doubled and yet the road infrastructure remained at five lanes on SW Barnes Road and the 112th Avenue extension was three lanes.

Odermott said while the road infrastructure stayed at three and five lanes, the density more than doubled. He said Metro's 2040 goals were predicated on first hour failure, second hour recovery; that is LOS (Level of Service) E. He said Washington County said that was unacceptable. He said they continued to do all their transportation planning based on the County's criteria; the County and ODOT were extensively involved from 1999 forward. He said the 1999 Peterkort Transportation Master Plan looked at a full build out of the Peterkort, Choban and Teufel properties, and the hospital development. He said this Plan guided all Peterkort development, ensuring that the buildings were sufficiently set back to accommodate the five lanes and supplemental turn lanes required at some of the major arterial intersections. He said the intersection at SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/ SW Barnes Road has been called a mega intersection. He said as far back as 1983, reports by several consultants, ODOT and Washington County, concluded that double left turns, two through lanes and right turn lanes were required on all but one approach to the intersection. He said this has always been a large intersection. He said this is a tough indicator of the densities placed in this area.

Odermott referred to The Streets of Tanasbourne and the Evergreen Road/185th Avenue intersection, and said that according to the projections this Town Center region was almost fully built out. He said that intersection was at LOS E and recent projections indicated it was failing. He said that was a mixed use development, with a great blend of housing and commercial, and bus transportation, yet it was one of the largest intersections in the state. He said there was a constant theme; Metro has mandated density because people do not want to expand the Urban Growth Boundary. He said ways have to be found to accommodate the density and something will have to give. He said they struggle to maintain capacity on the roadways, yet still do the mandated minimum densities.

Odermott said the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection was large notwithstanding this project. He said when he reviewed this project he looked at a Floor Area Ratio of .3 to .35. He said he projected average daily traffic at 7900 trips per day; but for this project 7400. He said they had known since 1999 that this key site was the lynch pin for the transportation system. He said this parcel is an expensive site to develop due to the extra frontage and off-site improvements. He confirmed the intersection was large and conformed to the transportation planning but it had not used up the road capacity. He said the Master Plan models development for the Peterkort properties meeting the minimum Floor Area Ratios with an increasing tendency towards promoting multi-modal trip reduction as they move closer to the Light Rail Station. He said this development was consistent with the vision for that site; they had envisioned a big box retail development. He said his response to the Peterkorts was that this could be a lot worse because it would be a minimum of .25 Floor Area Ratio. He said if this was a two or three story shopping center the Peterkorts would have said no. He said this Wal-Mart would not have a grocery store; there was a requirement in the lease agreement to protect the Peterkort's grocery store across the street.

Odermott referred to the traffic north of this site. He said in the 2004 Update of the 1999 analysis, the County staff used a 1.5% growth rate which is a little higher than what had happened historically. He said they were comfortable with that growth rate. He said the hospital had not completed a Master Plan Update in 1999 so it could not be measured in the 1999 analysis. He said in the 2004 Update, Phase 1 was measured and there was enough room in the model for the hospital's Phase 2 improvements. He said this intersection had not reached maximum capacity.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if there was any discussion about a gateway to the north or a regional resource aspect to that intersection for the northern properties.

Odermott said he had never heard the term gateway until this went through BDR. He said it has always been a functional task to keep traffic moving away from the interchange. He said the biggest challenge was that SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was three lanes yet several transportation experts have said it needs to be five lanes. He said the approval conditions extend SW Cedar Hills Boulevard to Celeste Lane. He agreed with previous testimony that it is very difficult to cross the street to KinderCare. He said this was a political decision that transcends any development application.

Coun. Dalrymple referred to previous testimony regarding the number of trips to St. Vincent's Emergency Room annually; 12,000 ambulance trips and 78,000 trips in regular vehicles. He asked how that was mitigated in the transportation plan.

Odermott said they did not single out any one use even though they recognized the significance of the hospital. He said the same argument was made with TriMet. He said it all boiled down to making sure that there is a road system that can function at the level of service that would commensurate with the local goals. He said that goes back to the question of how to weigh the increase in density and achieve as much trip reduction as feasible. He said it was always recognized that this intersection was not pedestrian friendly and part of the solution was the County’s mandate to make that road five lanes so pedestrians coming from the north can use the sidewalk on the north side of SW Barnes Road to get to the transit station and cross at five lanes. He said there are major arterial to arterial intersections at each end and they are not pedestrian/bicyclist friendly places. He said that was part of the trade-off. He said he thought the additions of the islands were a great idea to minimize pedestrian crossing distances and improve safety.

Coun. Dalrymple agreed that density and political planning were the issues.

Odermott said he asked the Peterkorts if he could officially say they hoped to decrease density and their answer was yes. He said that was not an easy issue because the density has to be transferred somewhere and no one else in the region is looking for more density. He said that was the problem.

Coun. Stanton referred to St Vincent’s Phase 2 development and asked if the hospital would have to work with the County on the transportation system and mitigation for SW Barnes Road, east of Highway 217.

Odermott said that was correct since the interchange system had arterials on both ends and there were spacing issues. He said the Peterkorts met with hospital staff and ODOT staff and advised them that the right-of-way that the Peterkorts own, that is needed by the hospital, is available. He said they have pre-planned all the critical infrastructure for the traffic lanes that the hospital would need. He stressed they were committed to working with the hospital to achieve the needed improvements. He said they had great success in working with Washington County as they leveraged the traffic impact fees. He said in the past they worked with the developers and were able to get them to construct some of the improvements voluntarily.

Coun. Stanton said when there are problems on Highway 26 she often uses SW Barnes Road to W. Burnside Road. She asked if Multnomah County had plans to widen SW Barnes Road in that area.

Odermott said that has been a hotly battled issue between Washington and Multnomah Counties. He said Washington County wants SW Barnes Road to be five lanes; Multnomah County does not agree. He said Washington County staff were present who could speak to that issue. He said Beaverton's Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements, require three weekdays of counts and the design has to be for the peak 15 minutes of the worst of those three days. He said the probability of there being an incident on Highway 26 on one of those days was very high. He said he was not aware of any current plans to widen the SW Barnes Road/W. Burnside Road interchange.

Coun. Stanton asked if the Peterkorts owned any property to the east.

Odermott replied they did not. He said the north leg of SW Baltic Avenue was owned by the Peterkorts and there was an easement agreement between the Peterkorts and the hospital that regulates that leg.

Mayor Drake asked if there were any questions for the appellant's team. He said that since the appellant's traffic engineer was not able to attend this meeting, any questions were to be conveyed to Mr. Kleinman (appellant's attorney) and a written response could be submitted in the next week.

Jeffrey Kleinman, appellant's attorney, said they would take that opportunity if there were any questions.

Coun. Arnold asked Kleinman to respond to Odermott's comments.

Kleinman said regardless of the Peterkort Master Plan, there were independent criteria that apply to this application and the applicant did not meet the traffic criteria. He said to the extent that a retail use at this site was taken into account in the 1999 Transportation Plan, that plan was based on traffic data from the years prior to 1999. He said the growth since then warrants completely different data. He said the Urban Growth Boundary has been expanded since 1999 and that was considered. He said the history does not buttress this application and it does not trump the approval criteria; Wal-Mart must meet that criteria.

Coun. Dolye asked Kleinman if he would respond in writing to Odermott's comments.

Kleinman said they would provide written response.

Mayor Drake referred to Kleinman's comment that the 2004 study did not take the Urban Growth Boundary extension into consideration. He said in the general sense the point of traffic impact fees was that capacity is increased based on a development's impact to the area. He said the County has correctly assessed that the Bethany expansion will have a huge impact on eastern Washington County. He asked how much responsibility a property owner has for helping account for the traffic adjacent to their development when it was caused by the Urban Growth Boundary expansion.

Kleinman said those were philosophical questions that need to be worked out at a governmental level. He said what applies in this case are the specific City, County and ODOT requirements that capacity issues at the affected intersections not be made worse than they already were, that pedestrian safety and convenience be protected, and that the objectives of a transit-oriented area be met. He said regardless of the philosophical questions, in this instance the applicant has not complied.

Mayor Drake said the difficult question is that if a development produces a certain amount of traffic and there is still capacity left, is that property owner still responsible because a decision was made to expand the Urban Growth Boundary five miles away. He stressed this is the philosophical issue cities wrestle with daily in this region because in the next twenty years there is an identified need of ten billion dollars for all forms of transportation and only 40% of the monies needed to solve these problems has been identified. He said this causes an area like this one to start "behind the eight-ball." He noted the decision made regarding the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard extension several years ago has now resulted in a much bigger bottleneck. He said this has weighed on his shoulders and he was concerned about the bottlenecks created in many areas. He asked if Bernstein (appellant's traffic engineer) could respond to this question regarding the bottlenecks from a broad sense, not from a philosophical viewpoint.

Kleinman said he would ask Bernstein to respond.

Mayor Drake asked if there were any questions for Washington County staff.

Acting County Engineer Tom Tushner, Senior Planner Phil Healy and Traffic Engineer Jinde Zhu, from Washington County, introduced themselves.

Mayor Drake said that problem solving was limited for traffic access into and out of the SW Cedar Hills/SW Barnes Road intersection to the north. He said due to the terrain, there were no inexpensive solutions for moving traffic north and south. He said regardless of the store located on this site, there would be increased uses with high density residential and commercial developments on the other corners of this interchange and with the growth in the expansion area. He asked what the County could foresee concerning the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard extension north of Cornell Road and if there was a long-term solution other than the current lanes; did the County have any realistic plans to undo that bottleneck.

Acting County Engineer Tom Tushner said north of this intersection SW Cedar Hills Boulevard was seen as a three-lane facility. He said in the County's 20-year planning horizon, the models show that it meets the County's level of service standards. He said within the planning horizon that is an adequate facility.

Coun. Stanton asked if that was for proposed build out or for current development or for the next five years.

Tushner said the models projected out for twenty years.

Coun. Stanton asked if the current road would hold for 20 years; or if it would hold for 20 years with the improvements from future development.

Tushner said the County's Transportation System Plan calls for improvements on SW Barnes Road; five lanes are planned up to Leahy Road and three lanes east of there. He said there were funding deficiencies and currently there were no specific plans for improvement.

Coun. Stanton asked if the road met today's current conditions. She said five years from now there would be no guarantee that what was on the road would not meet what was on the ground; and there would be no guarantee that the County would make improvements to the transportation system to meet the build out.

Tushner said the funding to build the ultimate system was not identified. He said as development occurs they go through extensive analysis to ensure that the projects meet the Level of Service standards for the impact area. He said as developments aggregate, there is the philosophical issue of what happens as traffic filters out to other areas.

Coun. Stanton said she was looking at Bethany as it builds out and what the traffic situation would be in the future.

Tushner said they were struggling with that issue now and hiring a consultant to study those areas and do projections. He said they would look beyond the north Bethany area and would extend further out into existing roadways.

Coun. Stanton said as a transportation junkie she knows that doing the models and plans, and presenting them to the government body, did not mean the improvements would be built. She said she was concerned about SW Cedar Hills Boulevard north of Barnes Road and about Bethany.

Mayor Drake asked if the County's current 20-year improvement plan included the north Bethany expansion and its impacts.

Tushner said it did not; that area was going through the process now and densities and infrastructure needs have not yet been figured out.

Coun. Doyle asked if the County concurred with the statement that the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection was currently near failure and with the proposed improvements it would remain near failure.

Traffic Engineer Jinde Zhu said the County, the City and ODOT concurred with those results.

Coun. Dolye asked since future development plans are known when would the intersection begin to fail. He noted previous comments that it would fail in 2007.

Zhu said with the improvements added by Wal-Mart he did not believe the intersection would fail with the planned improvements.

Coun. Stanton asked if the modeling had determined when the intersection might fail.

Zhu said per County Resolution Order 8695, the County's main purpose was to assess safety not capacity.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if the County staff concurred with Odermott's previous comments or did they have a different position that they would want to state.

Tushner said he agreed with the history that Odermott presented. He said they reviewed the relevant sections of the Peterkort Master Plan several times though they have not officially blessed the entire document. He said to the extent they have reviewed the document, they find it to be accurate and concur with the Plan.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, north of SW Barnes Road, would be five lanes or three lanes in the long-term.

Tushner said the road would be three lanes; and the designation of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and Cornell Road was based on community input to the Board of Commissioners. He said those roads are based on the needs of the County's existing planning designations. He said that road and other facilities in the Plan, such as the arterial for the Teufel property and the extension of Baltic Avenue, would carry additional capacity once constructed. He said the current transportation plan does not reflect the Bethany area because that area is under study. He said no development would occur in that area until the transportation planning and the land use designations have occurred. He said as part of the process there would be a transportation plan amendment to add necessary facilities into the plan. He said the intersections could widen beyond the three lanes and five lanes so more capacity would be available.

Coun. Dalrymple confirmed with Tushner that there might be additional turn lanes or a longer stacking element.

Coun. Arnold asked County staff what transit oriented meant to them.

Tushner said the concept was to have dense development near transit facilities so that a maximum number of people can be served by transit instead of automobile. He said the further away you move from a transit center, the looser the uses become in terms of being transit oriented.

Coun. Arnold asked where high rise buildings would be in this area.

Tushner said that would depend on the planning designations. He said one area would be along the north side of SW Barnes Road and the retail densities would be high at the transit station.

Coun. Arnold asked if the Council should be envisioning people walking to Wal-Mart.

Tushner said they intended to have a pedestrian-friendly environment to the extent possible, though the large intersection made that more difficult. He said there were pedestrian trails between the parcels and wide sidewalks with amenities to make the walking environment better for pedestrians.

Coun. Arnold asked how big an issue it was if people who lived across the street were driving to the store versus walking.

Tushner said that was a subjective question because they were moving farther away from the transit center and the site is next to the freeway. He said the different environment has to be considered.

Coun. Arnold asked if the gateway terminology was used in the County's planning or did that come from other sources.

Tushner said that was a planning concept, however, that was not included in any of the County's requirements for the project.

Coun. Arnold asked what the significance was in calling this an "area of influence" in the Community Plan.

Tushner said he did not understand that terminology. He said this property was not included in the Cedar Mill Town Center ordinance.

Coun. Bode thanked the County staff for coming. She said this process involved working with different agencies and moving toward a higher-density development; that involved looking at the infrastructure to see if it is running behind or equal to the needs of the rate of development. She said at times there has been a disconnect and part of the struggle is to find the connection and meet the long-term needs of the community.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Mayor Drake explained testimony cards would be drawn in random order, alternating between those in support and opposition to the application.

Mike Fisher, Beaverton, 97008, testified that he supported the Wal-Mart Store because the developer had addressed the traffic congestion issues. He said he looked forward to having a Wal-Mart in this area.

John Imlay, Portland, 97225, testified he was opposed to the Wal-Mart Store. He said he was a resident of the Peterkort area and the proposed development would be 200 yards from his home. He said Celeste Lane would become a cut-through street increasing noise and impacting safety for pedestrians and homeowners.

Leonard Oppenheimer, Beaverton, 97008, testified he supported the Wal-Mart development because the zoning was correct and he suggested an overpass for pedestrians. He said Wal-Mart had met the conditions for the project and he believed it would be a good neighbor. He said he lived on Denney Road.

Chet Lee, Portland, 97225, testified he opposed the Wal-Mart Store as he was concerned about increased traffic and bicyclist and pedestrian access. He said his friends would take side streets to avoid the intersection if the store is built. He urged the Council to visit the neighborhoods around the proposed site. He said the public would hold the Council accountable.

Rachel Chauvin, Beaverton, 97005, testified she supported the Wal-Mart Store because she currently drives to 82 nd Avenue to shop at Wal-Mart. She said if this was another retail store, the protest would not match what was currently happening and it was fashionable to oppose Wal-Mart.

Margy Imlay, Portland, 97225, said she lived in the Peterkort area and she could not leave her neighborhood and access SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. She said she was a small business owner and could not compete with Wal-Mart. She said this proposed development goes against the City’s mission to preserve and enhance Beaverton has a responsive, dynamic, attractive and safe community.

Dave Fasler, Aloha, 97007, testified he supported the Wal-Mart Store. He said he drove this area daily and it has been a nightmare for years. He said some type of retailer would go into that site and he felt the City should work with Wal-Mart and make them a good citizen.

Hans Harper, Portland, 97225, testified he was opposed to the Wal-Mart Store. He said multiple lanes of traffic were not the answer and this area should be more pedestrian friendly. He said at rush hour SW Cedar Hills Boulevard approaches gridlock and a large store would only make the problem worse.

Brian Doyle, Portland, 97229, testified he was opposed to the Wal-Mart Store. He said he lived 500 yards from the proposed development and showed the Council slides of the current traffic congestion on SW Cedar Hills Boulevard in the proposed area. He said the existing traffic infrastructure was insufficient. He said building a big-box store in this area and creating the state's largest intersection would be the worst thing the Council could do.

Jeri Tass, Portland, 97225, said she was concerned that the proposed Wal-Mart would further increase traffic congestion and would affect fire/police emergency s tandards and emergency traffic associated with the St. Vincent's Medical Center. She questioned if the Peterkorts were concerned about density why would they approve this project. She said it was possible for a project to meet all applicable codes and still be a bad idea; codes are guidelines and do not negate the responsibility to think beyond the code. She said codes can be interrupted in different ways and all interpretations should be considered.

Coun. Arnold reminded Ms. Tass and the citizens that the Council has to follow laws and does the best it can for people as a whole.

Tass said she was a building designer and what she meant was that she could not just follow the code in designing a building; she has to go beyond the code to meet the needs of the environment and provide for future needs.

Stuart Fishman, Portland, 97225, testified he was opposed to the Wal-Mart Store because it would slow traffic on Highway 26 and the surrounding roads, which would increase the time of his commute to and from work.

Carl Thompson, Portland 97229, said he was opposed to Wal-Mart and agreed with comments made by Brian Doyle. He said the problem was not Wal-Mart but rather was there justification in adding more traffic into this intersection with the proposed growth in residential development that will add 10,000 people in this area. He said this site was not pedestrian friendly or transit-oriented.

RECESS:

Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 8:30 p.m.

RECONVENED:

Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m.

Betsy Brooks-Harper, Portland, 97225, said she was opposed to Wal-Mart and she knew from experience that from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. it is easier and faster to reach Emmanuel Hospital than St. Vincent’s. She said someday someone would lose their life because they tried to reach St. Vincent's in heavy traffic. She said she lived north of SW Cedar Hills and SW Barnes Road and she has waited up to 12 minutes trying to get through that signal. She said there is currently a great deal of cut-through traffic in the nearby residential neighborhoods which is unsafe for those residents. She said traffic in this area was already bad and she could not imagine how a Wal-Mart or any big-box retailer would affect that congestion.

Coun. Arnold said in considering this application, the Council was acting as a jury that would make a decision based on the laws that are in place. She said the Council would not make its decision based on where people live.

Sadi McIntyre, Portland, 97229, said she was opposed to the Wal-Mart. She said this issue demonstrated why the Legislature needs to enact laws to allow citizens to vote on annexations. She said the most disturbing aspect of this issue was the timing of the Wal-Mart application and the City's decision not to rezone the site after the annexation was complete. She said none of the Council live in this area or travel the site daily. She said 1700 residents participated in the planning for this community and specifically stated a big-box store would not work in this location; transit-oriented means smaller stores that draw their customer base from the local community.

Mark Medonis, Portland, 97225, said he was opposed to the Wal-Mart. He said he lived in the Peterkort Village Neighborhood, and he picked that neighborhood because he could walk to the nearby shopping center. He said the expansion of the intersection was discouraging. He asked that the Council follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. He said this project did not follow the transit-oriented goal to limit automobile use.

Nancy Hollander, Portland, 97229, said she was strongly opposed to this project. She said the process was seriously flawed when it allows development of an expanded intersection that would reach 98% capacity the day the stores open, and when it allows development that would destroy the local character of the immediate and surrounding area, and would jeopardize the safety of all who travel through the area. She said this opposition movement was a local grassroots effort to save their community. She asked that the Council serve the needs of the entire community though they are in Washington County.

Nancy Myers, Portland, 97225, said she lived in the Westhaven Neighborhood and she was opposed to placing Wal-Mart in this neighborhood. She said the proposed project does not meet the spirit of the transit-oriented zoning. She asked how the expanded interchange and increased congestion meet the intent of the transit-oriented system. She said this was not the right choice for the long-term health of the community.

Patricia Sipowicz, Portland, 97225, said she deals with the congestion in this area daily and was opposed to this project. She said Cedar Mill Middle School was less than one mile from the proposed site and over 400 students walk, bike or are driven to the school every day the school is in session and their safety should be of tantamount concern to everyone. She said the current traffic congestion would increase with the proposed development. She expressed concern regarding the inability to quickly reach the hospital. She said the community was depending on the Council to make the right decision for the community and deny this application, and to find retail stores that would meet the transit-oriented goals of this site.

Melissa Starr, Tigard, 97223, said she supports Wal-Mart. She said in considering the current traffic congestion, she did not unders tand why citizens did not want the road improvements Wal-Mart would provide. She said this site was zoned for a big box development. She said she has worked for Wal-Mart for 21 years; it is a great company and she now drives one hour to get to work every day. She said having a Wal-Mart in this location would cut her commute in half or more.

Lori Morgan, Portland, 97225, said she opposed Wal-Mart. She said she has lived on the corner of 82nd Avenue and SW Barnes Road since 1965 and asked what jurisdiction’s vision was the 2020 Vision. She said the traffic on SW Barnes Road was horrible and it backs up to West Burnside Road. She said the noise and air pollution were terrible. She suggested looking at the County's citations for this area as this could be a revenue source for needed improvements. She asked that Council deny the application.

Peter Gearhart, Portland, 97229, said he opposed the Wal-Mart development because of safety issues for pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles. He said the proposed design for the intersection runs counter to developing pedestrian safety plans. He said 57% of fatal crashes have occurred at intersections. He said based on 2004 data, Beaverton currently has the third highest fatal and injury automobile crashes in the state; the rate is 9.26 per 1,000 residents, with an average of 5.64 for all cities as a whole. He said 1,042 people were injured in 2004, 48% of those crashes were intersection related. He said in spite of this the City was looking at creating the largest intersection in the state. He said his statistical information was from ODOT.

Peter Hoeckel, Portland, 97229, said he opposed the Wal-Mart. He agreed with previous comments regarding traffic congestion at the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection. He said he travels daily from Highway 26 onto SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and making a legal eastbound turn onto SW Cedar Mills Boulevard was impossible. He said the proposed improvements might improve the current traffic situation but adding traffic from the proposed and future developments would worsen the condition. He asked that Council deny any application that adds significant traffic volumes from outside of the immediate area.

Barbara Garrett, Portland, 97225, said she opposed the Wal-Mart; she travels through this intersection twice a day. She said despite the zoning for the site it would not make sense to have big-box store at that location. She said in the past the City rejected an application for a Wal-Mart Store at Allen Boulevard and Highway 217. She said that site had more available roadway access than this proposed site and yet the Council denied the application. She said if that site was rejected, this site should also be rejected for lack of access. She asked that the Council use its discretion to deny this application.

Steve Kaufman, Chair Save Cedar Mill (appellant), Beaverton, 97006, summarized the appellant's findings for denying this application on the basis of transportation and design codes that were not met (in the record). He said they rejected the applicant's arguments that because the City, County and State approved the application, the appellant must be wrong. He said historically staff conclusions have been called into question and their recommendations overturned; staff opinion was not fact. He said Save Cedar Mill feel the BDR's decision was unduly influenced by staff and it should not be used as precedent. He said in the appellant's opinion the facts lead to a moderate development approach that would preserve the character and vision of the community.

Hilary Hutchinson, Beaverton, 97005, said she was opposed to the Wal-Mart development because of the traffic congestion it would create. She said she was angered that the community's environment could be destroyed by people who do not live there. She said Wal-Mart was not an Oregon business and they were trying to muscle their way into a community where they are not wanted.

Phil Saunders, Portland, 97229, said he opposed the Wal-Mart; he said he was 16 years old and this development would negatively impact his life. He said he takes TriMet to school through this area and traffic is already congested and the intersection is dangerous. He said he was also concerned about his grandfather who lives on SW Barnes Road and has had to be rushed to St. Vincent's several times. He said the increased traffic could delay medical attention for his grandfather or anyone needing immediate care. He said he has had more near-misses riding his bike in this area than in downtown Portland.

Henry Kane, Beaverton, 97008, said the City had no right to rule on this application because the site was forcibly annexed which was unconstitutional. He said the Wal-Mart traffic analysis understates the traffic counts generated from this development and the computer program used to prepare the traffic analysis could not be verified for validity. He said BDR Chair Doukas should not have participated in this consideration of the application as she was not a resident of Beaverton and was not appointed to the BDR by the entire Council; also she failed to disclose that she earns her living showing developers how to get their projects approved. He said because of this the BDR and the opponents were denied an impartial board member. He said the proposed site was too small to comply with design and transportation codes.

Brian Teller, Beaverton, 97006, said he opposed this project. He said his house in Cedar Mill has been in his family since 1968 and he has lived there since 1991. He said there have been many changes in that time and the quality of life has lowered. He said he uses the Sunset Transit Center frequently to get to downtown, and he would hate to lose this convenience. He said the thought of driving through the traffic congestion created by the construction of this major center was awful and his only option was to drive up SW Barnes Road instead.

Paul Parker, Portland, 97229, said he opposed this project. He said he had a 30-year career in local government and was now retired. He said government staff were dedicated and have great expertise but they were not objective. He said it is their job to help applicants work out the issues with proposed developments. He said the staff does not work with the community or the opposition as it does with the applicant. He said the result is unwitting co-option and a bond is formed with the applicant. He said staff may be experts but they are not unbiased. He said the BDR was given an impossible assignment and never had a hope of addressing the real issues. He said Chair Doukas recognized this when she said upon handing down the decision "A very long list of frustrating items of how poorly Beaverton and Washington County have played together. We have very little ability to do much about the transportation system which is the key issue. The fact that we are dealing with a hybrid Code process is an error of many steps. I want the public to unders tand that we are frustrated as well. We can sort through some details. At the end of the day it is design more than anything else that we get to review." He said the BDR decision was full of doubt and lacked conviction. He asked that the Council uphold this appeal.

Todd Burns, Portland 97229, said he opposed this proposed project and his concern was that this development would be less than 200 yards from his child's daycare center. He said he would pull his child from the daycare center if the roads become a nightmare. He said according to a news story this week, the two highest records for 911 calls were held by Wal-Mart Stores in Clark County, Washington; he said one store had 900 calls in one year and the second had 600 calls. He said the neighborhood's small community feeling would disappear and he would probably move from the area.

Karen Ronning-Hall, Portland, 97225, said she opposed this development because the proposed intersection expansion was not safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. She said this auto-oriented store did not meet the requirements and spirit of the transit-oriented zone. She asked why the Council would approve this project when it previously denied a Wal-Mart application for Tualatin Valley Highway based on transit and pedestrian needs. She said this development did not make good sense.

Steve Lyon, Portland, 97229, said he opposed this development. He said the City staff did not enforce the Code's parking lot s tandards for stall width and the use of compact spaces for short-term parking. He said the parking lot design was challenged at the BDR hearing. He read Code 60.30.10, which governs long-term parking, and said the applicant used this Code section as justification for providing 20% of the spaces as compact. He said this parking lot was for short-term parking, not long-term or employee use. He said staff erroneously agreed with Wal-Mart and incorrectly advised the BDR that these s tandards were satisfied.

Scott Whipple, Portland, 97229, said he opposed this application. He asked the Council to apply the zoning laws. He said the application does not meet the purpose and intent of the transit-oriented zone. He said the major problem with this project was traffic. He urged Council to deny the application.

Coun. Arnold asked that staff let the Council know if there is a response to the parking concerns voiced by Steve Lyon. She explained to Whipple that purpose was a guideline not a rule. She said underneath purpose are s tandards and Council has to make its decision based on the s tandards.

Elizabeth Zeller, Portland, 97229, said she opposed any big-box development in this area because of its impact on traffic, bicyclists and pedestrians. She said she was an avid bicyclist and Wal-Mart would draw traffic from around the region all day long, making it unsafe to bicycle in that area under any circumstances. She said congestion in this intersection would move traffic onto neighboring intersections, such as Murray Boulevard, making those areas unsafe. She asked that Council deny the application.

Marilyn McWilliams, Portland, 97225, said this project did not meet Code 60.05.35.6 which requires that the architecture be the predominant design element over parking areas and landscaping; in this project the parking lot and landscaping were predominant and the building was in the distance. She said Code 60.05.35.8 requires that ground floor building elevations be pedestrian oriented and provide views into retail, office and lobby space. She said this project provides views into the parking garage and blank walls, has few windows and you cannot see into the store. She said Code 60.05.40.7 requires that pedestrian access be provided along all streets, but the ultra-long block on this project does not have pedestrian access. She asked that the project be modified to meet the Code or the application be denied. She said her vision was to see medical offices on this site as it was close to transit and the Medical Center.

Maurice Trout, Portland, 97225, said he was speaking as a private citizen and not as a member of the Beaverton Traffic Commission on which he serves. He said the Peterkort Village area currently has a serious problem with cut-through traffic; many people use the neighborhood streets to avoid the congested intersection. He said an additional 3500 cars per day would encourage more cut-through traffic. He said pedestrians would not be safe with the expanded intersection and additional development.

Chris Iwai, Portland, 97229, said she was opposed to Wal-Mart and disabled, on a fixed income and her first priority was her health. She said when she needs to get to St. Vincent's she does not want big-box traffic clogging the roads. She said this was a medical corridor. She said her neighborhood was bordered by NW 112th and NW 114th Avenues, and despite neighborhood watches, crime has increased in this area. She said the areas near SW Cedar Hills Boulevard were prime areas for crime. She said last year eight cars on NW 112th Avenue and ten cars on NW 114th Avenue were broken into with one stolen. She said the parks were taken over at night by drug dealers and prostitution, and she has observed drug users in her neighborhood many times and has advised the police on their activities. She said new development provides new opportunities for drug dealers.

Dean Moberg, Portland, 97229, said he opposed Wal-Mart; cut-through traffic has turned West Lawn Terrace into a de facto arterial street as drivers seek to avoid the congestion at Cornell Road and SW Barnes Road. He said Wal-Mart would make the situation worse not only on West Lawn Terrace but also on Celeste Lane and in Peterkort Village. He said this was dangerous and decreased the livability of the neighborhood. He thanked Council for listening and asked them to vote against the proposed Wal-Mart.

Mike Gordon, Portland, 97229, said he opposed this Wal-Mart project due to traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. He said he often drives south through this area and more traffic would increase backups and wait times at the intersection. He said a left turn from the Highway 26 off-ramp is currently very difficult and would get worse. He said his children walk and bicycle to school and Peterkort Square and a Wal-Mart would make this more dangerous. He said this was a pedestrian-hostile development.

Linda Fravel, Portland, 97119, said she opposed Wal-Mart for they pull in people from areas outside the neighborhood who bring in other elements like crime, noise and litter. She said it currently takes four light cycles to get through this intersection in the morning. She asked that Council deny this application.

Jan Johnson, Portland, 97225, said she opposed this proposed development. She said she frequently goes to St. Vincent's for cancer treatments. She said six weeks ago there was a condition of total gridlock around the hospital; no one could enter or leave the hospital. She said hospital staff told her this was not unusual. She said this area did not need a regional store drawing more vehicles to Highway 26, Highway 217, SW Barnes Road or SW Cedar Hills Boulevard. She said she lives one-and-one-half miles from St. Vincent's and it is quicker to go to Emmanuel Hospital.

Brad Avakian, Portland, 97229, State Representative for this area and a resident of Bethany neighborhood, said this was a difficult proposition before Council in that the BDR approved this project and yet putting this development on this site was an extreme thing to do. He said he thought the Council could find reasons for approving or denying the application which meant the Council has free choice through the discretion granted by law. He said the law is viewed by most people as the standard for optimum behavior. He said the law is actually the minimum conduct expected of the community and that means more can be done. He said people elect their officials to follow the law, to be visionary and plan for the community, and to protect the welfare of the people. He said Council has the discretion and evidence to support both sides and he urged the Council to support the people in the community and deny this application.

Chris Lunt, Portland, 97229, said he opposed the Wal-Mart. He said per the Comprehensive Plan definition of a public road, SW Cedar Hills Boulevard and Highway 26 were public roads and public streets in the Zoning Code. He said Code 60.05.40.2 requires that the Wal-Mart loading dock to be screened and sound mitigated. He said other Code requirements regarding public orientation, parking lot location, screening, pedestrian access and connectivity have to be met for these public roads/streets. He urged a no vote on this application.

Jim Johnson, Portland, 97225, said he opposed the proposed Wal-Mart. He said the growth from the current neighborhoods would ensure that the intersection would be very crowded in the future. He said this makes the intersection capacity a resource to be carefully allocated; it should be given to the local community. He said Wal-Mart's study said 60% of the store's traffic would come from outside of the local area; in comparison Fred Meyer's stores draw from the local community within a radius of two-and-one-half miles. He said to follow through on the Peterkort's vision, as currently presented on their Web site, a series of stores that support the local area needs to be built.

Anne Miller, Portland, 97225, said she opposed Wal-Mart; she lives in Cedar Hills and works in Cedar Mill and travels past this site twice a day. She said the increased traffic from Wal-Mart would be terrible and the crime would increase. She said the Wal-Mart store in Vancouver, WA was responsible for more calls to police than any other development in Vancouver. She said this development would negatively impact traffic, pollution, transit, property values and crime rates. She asked that Council deny any big-box development in this area.

Ellen Saunders, Portland, 97229, said she was concerned about Wal-Mart's policy to allow overnight camping. She said though the City prohibits overnight camping, the store would still be on the camping map distributed by Wal-Mart. She said this would increase demands on the police force to enforce the ordinance. She said there were many options for development that would enhance the community and improve the quality of life. She said this area provides the opportunity for sensible urban growth and could become a model of development.

Pamela Monheimer, Portland, 97225, said she opposed Wal-Mart; she works on SW Barnes Road, her husband works at and her daughter attends Catlin Gable School next to St. Vincent's. She said their daily lives center around this area and they moved to this site so they could walk, ride bikes or take transit to their work and school. She said she opposed Wal-Mart at this location as it does not meet the transit-oriented zoning requirements. She said while the Zoning Code allows a building greater than 5,000 square feet, that did not mean it should be a "gargantuan" building. She said she would like to see a development similar to the Streets of Tanasbourne, Bridgeport Village or Orenco Station at the appropriate scale, with a few anchors, restaurants, small shops and greenspace. She said people would walk, bike and gather there as intended by the transit oriented zone.

Aaron Brown, Portland, 97229, said he opposed Wal-Mart; he referred to the City Goal 1 Preserve and Enhance the Sense of Community. He said the sense of community was cherished in Cedar Mill. He said the proposed gargantuan intersection and big-box development were not part of the community. He said this was an opportunity to create a vision for a progressive Beaverton. He asked that Council deny this application.

Richard Battaglia, Portland, 97225, said he opposed Wal-Mart; he lives less than one mile from the proposed site and walks to the transit center and Peterkort Village every day. He said he opposed this project because the expanded intersection would still remain at gridlock. He said promoting locally-friendly retail would cut traffic volume. He said he was also concerned about increased crime rates and cut-through traffic.

Ram Koganti, Portland, 97229, said he opposed Wal-Mart; he was an engineer and engineers make mistakes and over design projects. He said when an error is made in the design the engineer fixes it. He said the lynch pin of the Wal-Mart traffic analysis was the 7400 added daily trips. He said that number might be wrong and asked how much of a margin was added to the design. He asked if the number was wrong and traffic volume was much higher, would Wal-Mart be shut down. He said simply saying that the community would have to live with it was not an acceptable solution.

Molly Peters, Portland, 97225, said she opposed Wal-Mart; she did not feel it was right that in order for the Peterkorts to carry out their personal enrichment plans they get to use the public roads as well. She said the Peterkort lease arrangement with Wal-Mart could not happen without a massive reconfiguration of all the roads surrounding that development. She said the people who live in the community and use these roads are not happy and this is an unacceptable solution. She said just because it can be done, does not mean it must be built.

Gail Parker, Portland, 97229, said she opposed Wal-Mart; she has lived in this area for 30 years and many residents remember when Beaverton was an ugly, sprawling, congested suburb. She said recently there were signs that Beaverton was turning around. She said the Library, The Round, Cedar Hills Crossing and denial of the Gramor/Fred Meyer development represented wise and thoughtful change; it was not the time to slip back into poor planning. She said in exercising leadership the only path available was to exercise vision, courage and conviction. She said the Council only needs to find that the application does not comply with one Code requirement to vote no.

Dina Gross, Portland, 97229, said she opposed Wal-Mart; City staff has not enforced the Code requirements for garden centers in the transit oriented district. She said the Code prohibits outdoor storage of materials and display of merchandise. She said when the garden center was challenged at the BDR hearing; staff responded "We do not read it that way." She said Wal-Mart revised its design to roof and enclose the center with a security fence. She said it was still a garden center and a prohibited use in the transit oriented-retail center zone. She said the Community Plan does not list a garden center as a permitted use.

Mary Beth Wells, Portland, 97229, said she opposed Wal-Mart; and agreed with previous comments regarding traffic, lack of access to St. Vincent's and crime in Wal-Mart parking lots. She said she lived in North Carolina and statistics could be obtained from there about crime in Wal-Mart parking lots. She said if you Google the term "boon dock camping" you would come across many Web sites that tell people how to circumvent local ordinances that prohibit camping in Wal-Mart parking lots. She said the City's ordinance would end up being unenforceable. She said when she and her husband retire they will settle in an area that offers many forms of transportation, not just the automobile. She urged the Council to consider how this development would affect the community.

Dan Rohrer, M.D., Portland, 97225, said he has been a physician in this community for 18 years and was now the Medical Director for Cranial Surgery at the Providence Brain Institute primarily based at St. Vincent's Medical Center. He said over the years he has seen many disasters and the outcome to some of those cases could have been better if he had been able to reach the hospital. He said he lived one-and-one-half miles from St. Vincent's; if there is no traffic he can reach the hospital in five minutes but if there is any traffic slowdown or blockage it can take 30 minutes to get to the hospital. He said he has jumped curves, made U-turns and gone the wrong way on a one-way road to circumvent the traffic in that area. He said one of the two ways he has to reach the hospital is through the proposed expanded intersection. He said if he does not get there in a short period of time a patient can have irreversible brain damage, slip into a coma and die. He said in the past three to five years he has had to leave his car and jog to the hospital because he has to get there. He asked that the Council consider those facts as he has been dealing with this for a very long time. He said in the three minutes for testimony time allowed at this hearing, if he was not able to reach a patient they would lose a lot of brain cells.

Mayor Drake asked if SW Lynnridge was easily accessible through Park Way and if that route was not available to him.

Rohrer said he preferred to use that route and then onto Baltic Avenue straight across SW Barnes Road and into the Emergency Room entrance. He said the problem with this proposal is that traffic coming from Highway 217 to get to Wal-Mart would be dropped off on SW Barnes Road across from the ER entrance. He said there have been numerous times when he could not get to that location and he had to leave his car and jog to the hospital. He said his second option was to go through the SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road intersection that has been proposed for expansion.

Coun. Bode asked if he was the only neurosurgeon on staff and if he was delayed was there no other staff that could do the necessary intervention.

Rohrer said there were other neurosurgeons; however, because of the medical legal malpractice situation in Oregon, there was a lack of neurosurgical coverage for emergency rooms. He said there were eight to ten neurosurgeons at St. Vincent's and most of them cover multiple hospitals and may be in surgery so there is a designated doctor for ER calls. He said if that designated doctor cannot reach the ER room, backup is requested; if the backup person cannot reach the hospital then the patient has to be transferred to another hospital which leads to further delays. He said they have had patients come to St. Vincent's because of a lack of neurosurgical coverage in areas outside of the Portland metropolitan region. He said doctors in other fields also face the same situation.

Curtis Charles, Portland, 97225, said he opposed the proposed Wal-Mart because of the increased traffic and the small size of the site. He said a regional big-box development does not fit in the transit oriented-retail commercial zone and the expanded intersection was not pedestrian or bicyclist friendly. He said this store would be an additional drain on the police force with increased crime and enforcement of the prohibited overnight camping

Karen Mayhew, Beaverton, 97005, said she opposed Wal-Mart; and as a Highway 26 commuter at SW Cedar Hills Boulevard, she was convinced this development would create intolerable traffic at that intersection. She said she has cut through the neighborhoods surrounding this area trying to get home on Walker Road. She said there will be more cut-through traffic to avoid the expanded intersection. She asked that Council deny this application.

Larry Bates, Portland, 97229, said this site was not included in any master plan. He showed a map from the 2004 Peterkort Station/Barnes Road Master Plan that showed the proposed Wal-Mart site marked "Not Part of Master Plan." He said Odermott's study only projects out to Year 2015, not to 2020 as required by the City for Transportation System Plan evaluations. He said big-box stores do not belong in transit centers because they generate few transit trips. He said a transit study of the Costco in southern San Francisco found that the store generated only 80 transit trips per day. He said if this Wal-Mart generated 94 transit trips per day that would only be 1.3% of the total number of trips to the store. He said Wal-Mart would not provide sidewalks to the nearest bus stop which indicates what Wal-Mart thinks of transit. He said he did not see a big box development in the County's transit oriented zone.

Tom Pavlik, Portland, 97229, said he walks in his neighborhood for his health and he has to stop often as he walks. He said the expanded intersection does not make walking possible for him and for senior citizens. He said he does not understand how this project is transit oriented.

Linda Popkin, Portland, 97225, said if the Comprehensive Plan was to maintain its integrity, projects that conflict with the Plan should be rejected. She said her car was demolished by cut through traffic two years ago. She said the proposed improvements show five lanes stopping at Celeste Lane which would make that road unusable. She said that would limit the 2,500 residents in that area to one entrance and exit. She said that was unacceptable and staff needs to figure out this transportation need before any development can be approved.

Christy Middleton, Portland, 97229, said she opposed Wal-Mart; the people who live in this community want a voice on how it is developed. She said they expect City leaders to act on their behalf. She said the wait times at the signaled intersection would increase during peak commute hours. She said the transit oriented designation does allow a building greater than 5,000 square feet but she asked if they intended it to be a building that was 32 times greater than that. She suggested a better site for this store was the old Greenwood Inn site on Highway 217. She urged Council to deny the application.

 Michael Burton, Portland, 97203, said per Oregon law, zoning has to follow the plan and planning is about people and communities. He said the Council has the opportunity to make a policy statement on this issue. He read a quote made by Mayor Drake several years ago as Metro and the cities were drawing the Urban Services Boundary: "As controversial as any planning decision can be, the process of involving the public in the processes has always proven of greater value in the long term than ignoring the views of the public." He said Mayor Drake insisted that all of the region's citizens be given an opportunity to be heard regarding the drawing of the Urban Services Boundary. He said these citizens were not within the boundaries of Portland or Beaverton, but it was known that some day they would be because the State required the drawing of the Urban Services Boundary.

Burton said during the hearings on the Urban Services Boundary it was decided that before any annexations a Concept Plan would be done for the areas to be annexed. He said the cherry stem annexation that brought this property into the City violates the Concept Plan. He said the cherry stem creates a very intensive development in an area without a Concept Plan that determines what would happen to all the areas surrounding that site. He said to allow an intensive development as currently proposed by Wal-Mart, without planning for the surrounding area, was a mistake. He urged the Council to remand this back to staff and ask for a comprehensive Concept Plan on how this would affect the rest of the Urban Services Boundary, as agreed to by Council under a Metro ordinance in 1997.

Coun. Stanton replied to Burton that while this was a good idea, the deadline on this project was the first week in August.

Burton repeated that the plan should trump the zone.

Mike Krahmer, Portland, 97229, said he was a fifth generation Washington County resident who lives in Cedar Mill. He said he opposed the proposed development. He said Cedar Mill was unique as an intersection of suburban, rural and urban areas. He said since 1970 Beaverton has had a reputation for creating strip malls and having decreased livability and increased congestion. He said if this Wal-Mart application is approved, the Council will have confirmed the worst fears of the majority of this area's residents. He said this development might have made sense ten years ago but in today's reality it would be a monstrosity and it would doom this area. He said if the Council approved this project, it would increase the cynicism and anger of the residents of Cedar Mill toward future annexation into Beaverton. He asked the Council to deny this application.

Sara Pascoe, Beaverton, 97229, said she was opposed to this project. She said she has lived in unincorporated Washington County for 11 years and she walks to the library, post office, local schools and farmers market. She said that was why all the residents were here. She said SW Cedar Hills Boulevard/SW Barnes Road was a great intersection that served medical facilities, two schools, a transit center and a recreation center and it needs to continue working for the community. She said this development would bring in regional traffic that would clot off this "life blood artery" for many people.

Robin Sherwin, Portland, 97229, said she was opposed to this application. She said though the zoning allowed a store over 5,000 square feet, did that mean they had to allow a store that was 30 times that size and 40% the size of the Houston Astrodome. She said the City's ordinance prohibiting overnight camping in parking lots was unenforceable. She said several Wal-Mart stores in Oregon allow overnight camping in direct violation of ORS 446.410 and 446.350. She said the recreational vehicle traffic that Wal-Mart generates was not factored into the traffic analysis and the traffic analysis was flawed as traffic was often at a s tandstill, even when the light is green. She proposed the Greenwood Inn site as an alternate location. She said Wal-Mart has 300 dark stores in this country and many municipalities have had to write ordinances requiring escrow accounts to pay to tear the stores down as they go dark; on average the stores are dark for five years and it is very hard to find a tenant to replace them. She said the below-store parking and the pedestrian tunnel were unsafe. She asked that the Council reject this application for the betterment of the community.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing to oral testimony.

Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle that: 1) The public hearing be continued to August 7, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chamber; 2) The record be held open for seven days until 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 18, 2006, so that all interested parties may submit testimony; 3) That from July 19, 2006 and ending at 4:30 p.m. on July 24, 2006, the record will be held open to accept written testimony in response to the evidence presented into the record from the prior week; 4) Starting July 25, 2006, and concluding August 1, 2006, the applicant will have opportunity to submit a final written rebuttal; and 5) At the August 7, 2006, meeting the Council will receive the final oral rebuttal of the applicant and after the rebuttal the Council will deliberate on this appeal and render an oral decision. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 12:06 a.m.

APPROVAL:

Approved this 14th day of August, 2006.

__________________________________
Rob Drake, Mayor