JUNE 12 , 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, June 12, 2006, at 6:38 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Catherine Arnold, Bruce Dalrymple and Cathy Stanton. Couns. Betty Bode and Dennis Doyle were excused. 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 and Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.


Mayor Drake proclaimed June 14, 2006, Flag Day. He said the City, the Beaverton Elks Club and the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District would be sponsoring a Flag Day Celebration on Saturday, June 17, at 1:00 p.m. in Griffith Park. He said for the past ten years Beaverton had celebrated Flag Day but it was one of the few cities in the country to recognize Flag Day; he invited everyone to attend.


06094 Metro Participation in Purchase of Westgate Theater

Carl Hosticka, Metro Councilor, District 3, said he was there to present a check to the City in the amount of $2 million, which represented the transfer of funds to continue the transit-oriented development project near the Beaverton Regional Center. He said three years ago Metro awarded Beaverton $100,000 to study the Regional Center. He said in 2005 funding was approved to continue development of the Center and transit-oriented development; and in December 2005 the City and Metro signed an intergovernmental agreement in which Metro agreed to provide $2 million towards the purchase of the Westgate Property. He said the area would continue to develop as mixed-use of residential and retail, so people could live, work and play in the same area without having to travel long distances in their automobiles. He presented the $2 million check from Metro to Mayor Drake. He said the City has undertaken efforts far in advance of the rest of the region and Metro was proud to be partners in that effort.

Hosticka said Metro also completed funding allocations for the Nature in Neighborhood Grant Program. He said as Metro promoted higher density and more development in the Centers, it was realized that people need access to nature. He said Metro funded $1 million over two years to provide neighborhood and local non-profits groups grants to develop natural areas within the Urban Growth Boundary and within their jurisdictions. He said in May, Metro awarded $565,000 and some of that went to Beaverton Neighborhood Associations, including a grant for the restoration of Camille Pond and Golden Pond. He said Metro also completed other projects in partnership with the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD) that serve this area. He said Metro was happy to continue the partnership with the City and was proud to see the results of everyone's efforts.

Mayor Drake thanked Hosticka and the entire Metro Council. He said Beaverton has evolved so quickly over the last 20 years; the population has doubled and the community has become very diverse. He said the citizens do value the mixed-use development downtown and are excited about the redevelopment. He said the citizens also value the partnership the City has with Metro concerning the Greenspaces Program and with the THPRD. He said there were not many people who have not enjoyed the results of these two partnerships and the park amenities that are managed well by the THPRD. He said the City and citizens appreciate these services.

Hosticka said he looked forward to working together on similar projects.

Coun. Stanton referred to the agenda for this meeting and said the Council would be considering the intergovernmental agreement with Metro on the construction excise tax. She said that would provide more grant funds for planning the new areas inside the Urban Growth Boundary.

Coun. Arnold said this week while driving her daughter to the Cedar Hills Cinemas, she realized that she spends 75% of her work and play time in that area. She said she also realized that area was a Regional Center. She said while that area might not look like the typical downtown with skyscrapers, it was now Beaverton's downtown. She said she really appreciated receiving this money to help the City continue its vision for this area.

Hosticka said people think Metro is usually just about regulation but in this case Metro was working to invest in the communities with the redevelopment of downtown and natural areas. He said this provides a higher quality of life for the people. He said Metro also has the Drive Less, Save More Project and he hoped the Councilors were following that in their travels.

Coun. Dalrymple said from having served many years on the THPRD Board of Directors, he always appreciated the great relationship they had with Metro. He said it was good to see the crossover at the City now that he was on the Council.

Mayor Drake thanked Hosticka for the presentation.

06095 Presentation of Shields and Swearing-In of Seven Officers to the Beaverton Police Department

Mayor Drake said in 1993 the City started formally welcoming the new police officers to the community so the citizens could see the officers who would be serving them. He welcomed the new officers to the City family and to the community.

Police Chief Dave Bishop performed the swearing-in ceremony for the following new officers: Derek Bell; Justin Haugen; Benjamin Howard; Rob Jolie; Jered Lutu; Frank Pohle; and Marcus Stanton.

Mayor Drake presented the shields to the new officers.

Bishop welcomed the new officers to the Beaverton Police Department. He said he and the officers appreciated the support of the families and friends who were present.


John Addis, Beaverton, said the City has become entangled with religion by allowing a brick engraved with the name Jesus that was placed in front of the City Library. He said this was a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, the Establishment Clause; it was illegal and wrong. He said the remedy was to remove the brick or make it illegible. He said the City could remove the brick or defend itself against a law suit that would be costly.

Mayor Drake recalled that Addis spoke with the City Attorney last week. He asked the City Attorney to explain his conversation with Addis.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea said as part of a fund raiser for the Library, engraved bricks were sold. He said the City policy is that names can be placed on the bricks, along with "In Honor Of" or "In Memory Of.” He said Nancy Bader discovered one of the bricks had the name Jesus on it, so she went in the Library and requested a brick In Honor of Horace or Isis. The City said based on the policy the brick was approved. He said it was reported in The Oregonian. He said Addis' concern was that the City was violating the Constitution by establishing religion. He said the City's response was that Jesus was a name, and a common name in the Latino community, and because that one name is included among hundreds of other names, the City was not establishing religion. He said they checked into the background of the brick and the woman who purchased it did want to honor Jesus Christ, but normally the City does not check the intent behind the brick purchases. He said other names that have religious connotations, such as Mary or Thor, would also be allowed.

Rappleyea said the City was between two constitutional principals, the Establishment Clause and freedom of expression. He said the City steers a course between the two and does not attach any religious connotation. He said people are allowed to put what they want on the brick as long as it is limited to a name. He said Addis recommended removing the brick, but if the City did that, it could be sued for impinging on someone's right to freedom of expression. He said he believed the City's policy was defensible and the City had a pre-existing policy that tries not to offend anybody.

Addis said the First Amendment has to do with freedom of speech and the establishment of religion. He said everyone had freedom of speech rights. He said the Establishment Clause was a limit on government free speech. He said this was not a free speech issue; it was an establishment issue and the City would lose.

Mayor Drake said Addis had the right to express his position on this issue. He said this issue was discussed when this policy was established at the Library. He said the idea behind the bricks was to raise funds for the Library and the trust fund. He said this was not to impinge on anyone's freedoms or push anything specific onto anyone. He said if Addis felt compelled to act, he should do so. He said the City was neutral and was not advocating for or against anything of that nature. He said as the policy was established, the City remained neutral and the City was not going to censor what names were placed on the bricks.

Addis said people were within their rights to do that on their private property; the City was not allowed to do that.

Henry Kane, Beaverton, said he was a history buff and very familiar with the intent of the Establishment Clause. He said at that time in history, establishment of religion referred to official churches that were taxpayer supported and sometimes if people did not attend, they were fined. He said there are many instances in everyday life where there is a reference to God, such as on legal currency. He suggested to Addis that he consult a constitutional law expert and he was confident the expert would say this refers to an official church. He said an objection over a common name such as Jesus would not go far. He said if anyone wanted to sue the City he would intervene on the side of the City.


Coun. Stanton said she would be attending a Transportation Symposium tomorrow and she was looking forward to hearing Mayor Drake who was one of the speakers. She said the Good Neighbor Center, a family homeless shelter that the City has supported through its social service funding program, just received a $6,000 check from the Lake Oswego/ West Linn Welcome Wagon. She said she wanted to point out that other agencies were also supporting the programs that the City supports in its social service funding.

Coun. Arnold said the first Picnic in the Park at Autumn Ridge would be held on June 22, 2006. She invited everyone to come out and meet the Mayor and Councilors, share their concerns and visit with their neighbors.

Coun. Dalrymple congratulated Darwin Barney, a graduate of Southridge High School who now plays baseball for the Oregon State Beavers. He said the Beavers beat Stanford last night and were now headed to the College World Series in Omaha, Nebraska.


There were none.


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

06096 Liquor License: New Outlet - Sambi

06097 Approve Application and Adopt Resolution of Support for Metro Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Project Proposals (Resolution No. 3860)

06098 Compensation Changes

06099 Authorize Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro to Collect and Remit the Metro Construction Excise Tax and Retain an Administrative Fee

06100 Development Services Fee Schedule Amendment (Resolution No. 3861)

06101 A Resolution Approving Transfer of Appropriation Within the Building Fund to Provide Contracted Plan Review Services (Resolution No. 3862)

06102 Authorize Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County Cooperative Library Services Regarding the Provision of Telephone Reference Service

Contract Review Board:

06103 Contract Renewal Between Unlimited Choices, Inc., and the City of Beaverton for the Adapt-a-Home Program

06104 Contract Renewal for Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Portland Development Commission (PDC) and the City of Beaverton for the Management of the Citywide Housing Rehabilitation Program

Coun. Stanton said she would continue to stress that the Metro Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) strengthens the efforts to link transportation expenditures to implementing Metro's priority land uses, which are Regional Centers, Town Centers and industrial areas. She said she thinks the 125th Avenue Extension Project would qualify because it was right between the Town Center of Murray Scholls and the Regional Center of Washington Square. She said she hoped next year that the 125th Avenue Extension Project could go forward with the MTIP.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Arnold, Dalrymple and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (3:0)


06105 Appeal of TA 2004-0012 (TC-MU Commercial Use Restriction Amendment)

Community Development Director Joe Grillo read a prepared statement defining the process for the public hearing.

Development Services Manager Steve Sparks reviewed the appeal before the Council. He said the text amendment before the Council was to amend one use limitation of the Town Center Multiple-Use (TC-MU) zoning district. He said the use in question was the limit on individual retail uses to a 50,000 square-foot footprint. He said the applicant had a proposal for a retail development over 50,000 square feet and forwarded a text amendment that would allow an alternative way to meet the Code. He said the text amendment was the subject of the appeal before the Council.

Sparks said the proposed text amendment was to meet the Code with the 50,000 square foot limitation or exceed that 50,000 square feet with the City entering into a development agreement with that property owner. He said as a component of the Planning Commission's review, the Commission reviewed a development agreement. He said the Commission's final action was a split vote to recommend approval of the text amendment and a unanimous vote on denial of the development agreement.

Sparks said the only issue before the Council was the text amendment; the development agreement was not under consideration. He said the text amendment would apply to two sites in the City. The first site was the former Progress Quarry now known as Progress Ridge and the second site was on Barnes Road, at the southern edge of the Teufel Nursery site that is currently being redeveloped and will be known as Willamette Ridge. He said currently the text amendment would not apply to any other sites in Beaverton. He said it could potentially apply to other areas if the City were to annex land that is in Washington County that has a Town Center Zone designation, or if in the future an area within the existing city limits is rezoned to a Town Center-Mixed Use District. He said staff recommendation was to reject the appeal and support and acknowledge the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the text amendment.

Coun. Arnold asked if development agreements could include more issues than the square footage of a project, such as design aspects.

Sparks said an agreement could include design aspects.

Coun. Arnold asked if the agreements do include design aspects, would they still have to go back through the regular review process before the Planning Commission or Board of Design Review (BDR).

Sparks said the development agreement was authorized as a land-use tool by State statute and it was considered a land use decision. He said the State statute does not provide a detailed process for the agreement but since it was a contract, the ultimate decision authority would be the City Council. He said the Code was silent as to a process for reviewing development agreements. He said staff decided, with the Mayor's approval, to send this development agreement proposal to the Planning Commission to advise the City Council on how to proceed. He said if this text was adopted, there was nothing in the City Code to require that a development agreement go to the Planning Commission or to the BDR. He said it could conceivably go to the Council for a decision, or the Council could refer it to the Planning Commission or the BDR.

Coun. Arnold asked if that meant that during the middle of reviewing a development agreement, the Council might send the agreement to the Planning Commission or BDR for their opinion.

Sparks said that would be up to the Council to decide.

Coun. Arnold asked if there was a not a clear process for the development community to follow. She asked about noticing requirements.

Sparks replied there was no clear process in the Code and that included noticing requirements for development agreements. He said in this case, staff considered it a Type 3 land use application and did the broadest notification of 500 feet. He said under State statute the noticing requirement was 100 feet; all other noticing requirements were the same as the City Code.

Coun. Arnold said that since the City has no process, at a minimum the City would have to follow State statute and notice at 100 feet for meetings that would go back and forth between Council and Planning Commission or BDR.

Sparks said that was correct, but as a matter of practice the City would follow its Type 3 noticing process because it was setup to be done this way.

Coun. Arnold asked if the person submitting the application would pay for the noticing.

Sparks said that was correct; noticing was included in application fees.

Coun. Arnold asked if the Council crafted a development agreement that included design components, what that would mean in terms of going back to the Planning Commission or BDR.

Sparks said the Planning Commission also had these questions regarding how development agreements work. He said a development agreement decides design issues prior to returning to the decision making body for design review or conditional use. He said the City was providing an assurance to the property owner that they could do the project in concept; that gives the property owner or developer a greater level of confidence to proceed through the land use stage. He said this could limit the review of the decision-making body, depending on the conditions in the development agreement. He said the development agreement would have to comply with the Code, unless the agreement waived Code requirements such as parking or setbacks. He said it is possible that a development agreement could tie the hands of the Planning Commission or BDR.

Coun. Arnold asked if a developer would have to present the same evidence to the Planning Commission or BDR.

Sparks said the developer would still present the entire proposal package to the Planning Commission or BDR. He said the proper board would review the proposal to ensure compliance with the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and the development agreement. He said this added another review level.

Coun. Arnold said the development agreement could take away some of the discretion currently provided to the Planning Commission and BDR. She asked if the developer would still have to do the traffic studies and tree plans.

Sparks said that was correct. He said there was a minimum content for development agreements as specified by ORS. He said there was no maximum in terms of what was included in a development agreement. He said a lengthy development agreement (50-60 pages) could be submitted that included a detailed site plan. He said that could severely limit the review of the decision-making body.

Sparks said in his experience, development agreements were usually shorter (20 pages) that mostly consist of legal language and the substantive land use sections are three to five pages long. He said property owners and developers are looking for a level of assurance that what they are proposing can be done. He said it could push the Code limits, but they are trying to determine if this is a good project in concept. He said that the agreements do not completely obviate the BDR's or Commission's role in reviewing a land use application, but conceivably it could.

Coun. Dalrymple asked staff to outline the process through which the TC-MU zone was established for these two sites, with specific attention to the Progress Quarry site.

Sparks explained in 1997-98 the City entered into a consulting contract to do a planning study of the Murray Scholls Town Center area. He said that area along Barrows Road/Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Boulevard was designated as a Town Center on the 2040 Growth Concept Map by Metro. He said as part of the City's Title 1 compliance, the City had to implement the Multiple Use zones. He said as part of this two-year study the boundaries were set for the Town Center. He said the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code were amended in late 1998 early 1999, and the development in that area was consistent with the vision developed in that planning process. He said there were several well-attended open houses to review these plans and extensive public involvement. He said the changes were adopted in 1999 with strong public support. He said the Teufel Nursery site was annexed in 2003 and at the time of annexation the Washington County Transit Oriented zone was converted to the most similar zone which was Town Center.

Coun. Dalrymple confirmed with Sparks that these changes came about with a great deal of community involvement. He asked if there had been the same level of community involvement regarding the proposed text amendment.

Sparks replied that the two cases were totally different. He said the notification area for the Town Center study was much larger than the notification area for the text amendment. He said in terms of participation, he thought the text amendment had the same level, if not more involvement than the Town Center. He said the citizens from the Windsor Park neighborhood were very involved during the planning study and through the development application and text amendment.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if there was any other reason for the City to consider a text amendment to the TC-MU designation if not for this application.

Sparks said it was possible for the property owner to have submitted a request for a Zoning Map Amendment. He said he did not think staff would have supported a zone change given the extent of work involved in establishing the current zone. He said there was also a question regarding the City falling out of compliance with Title 1 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. He said he would hesitate to speculate about the zone change possibility. He said while the Planning Commissioners understood the intent of having a firm limit of 50,000 square feet, they felt having the flexibility for a larger footprint was a useful tool in considering development of the Town Center zone. He said that was why they supported the text amendment.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if the Town Center designation could be modified instead of doing a text amendment. He said the modification could be more specific versus less specificity but allowing for a development agreement. He said he was wondering if there was another way to look at this, such as a permitted use, rather than the ambiguous use of a development agreement.

Sparks said there could be amendments to eliminate the use restriction, make the size limitation higher, or allow a size deviation such as ten percent (10%). He said either of these could provide flexibility in building size.

Coun. Dalrymple said in his experience as a developer, development agreements were after-the-fact to ensure that decisions were well documented and agreed to by everyone. He said this proposal was different from what he was used to seeing.

Coun. Stanton confirmed with Sparks that the creation of the TC-MU zone was done as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. She asked if that was city-wide notice.

Sparks said he would have to check to see if it passed the threshold of Ballot Measure 37 (BM 37). He said BM 37 requires that if the change negatively impacts the value of someone's property, notice will be provided city-wide or to the affected area.

Coun. Stanton noted on March 8, 2006, the Commission voted unanimously to have a work session on this text amendment and how it would align with the Development Code. She asked if staff had scheduled the work session.

Sparks said typically work sessions were held at the beginning of the year, so it was anticipated this would be held in January, 2007.

Coun. Stanton noted the Commission also voted unanimously to deny the development agreement, which was not being considered at this meeting. She said she assumed the applicant would appeal the denial of the development agreement.

Sparks replied there was no appeal of the development agreement.

Coun. Stanton asked if the Council was only considering Exhibit A of Land Use Order 1853, which stated: “the City and the applicant could enter into a development agreement pursuant with State statute which assures the City that the applicant's proposal will be consistent with the purpose for Multiple Use Districts set forth in Code Section 20.20.1 as more specifically applied in the TC-MU District.”

Sparks replied that was correct.

Coun. Stanton asked Sparks to paraphrase Metro's April 6, 2005, letter (page 819 of the record).

Coun. Arnold read the sentence in the third paragraph of the Metro letter that stated "While the proposed text amendment for the Town Center - Multiple Use zone is not inconflict with Functional Plan Title 6, it appears it may be inconsistent with the Murray Scholls Town Center Master Plan."

Sparks said in the letter Metro stated it did participate in Beaverton's planning process for the Town Center Master Plan and discussed what the City envisions for Town Centers. He said Metro also acknowledged that Town Centers need a retail anchor that will advance the continued development of the Center to a prosperous stage, complete with retail, employment and residential uses. He said the letter also states there is an opportunity for the City and Metro to work together to achieve a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development. He said Metro did not make a statement opposing the project.

Coun. Stanton asked if any other jurisdictions had changed their Town Center Code designation to allow for a building larger than 50,000 square feet.

Sparks said each Town Center was different and not all have size limitations. He said the centers have different use restrictions to reflect different context and s tandards. He said he thought some of the centers would allow buildings larger than 50,000 square feet though he had not specifically researched other cities' codes. He said one example of a change was the Cedar Mill Town Center; it did not have a use restriction but with adoption of the City Code it will have a use restriction.

Coun. Stanton reiterated that this winter a work session would be held with the Planning Commission on this text amendment and how the Development Code could implement the concept of allowing a building up to 90,000 square feet.

Sparks said development agreements could apply to anything in the Code though ORS states the agreements cannot be inconsistent with the Code. For example, if office uses were prohibited in a zone, a development agreement could not be used to allow them. He said if the City had development agreements as a tool in the Code, it would specify what the agreements could be used for, such as development or parking standards. He said that would be part of the discussion with the Planning Commission.

Coun. Stanton said she felt approving this text without tying it to any criteria and a development agreement, was putting the cart before the horse. She said she would need to know the parameters before she would approve allowing those parameters to be the model. She said during the hearing she had hoped to hear from the applicant and staff why it would be okay to approve a mechanism that is not constructed as a tool.

Sparks said the Planning Commission struggled with that question. He said the Commission and staff felt that since the development agreement and the Code applied to two property owners in the City, they had a level of comfort in going forward with the text amendment as proposed, using approval criteria consistent with the Multiple Use purpose. He said there could be other approval criteria that would be appropriate for reviewing a development agreement, but they are not part of this proposed text amendment.

Coun. Stanton asked if the text amendment were approved, would a development agreement materialize without any criteria or would the applicant wait until the City developed criteria before submitting an agreement.

Sparks said if the Council approved the text amendment, 30 days from the date of the second reading of the ordinance the amendment would become effective and any property owner within the TC-MU zoning district could propose a development agreement. He said the only approval criteria would be is it consistent with State statute and have the required procedures been completed. He said in going through that process, the City would have to make a decision that it is consistent with the purpose of Multiple Use District set forth in Code Section 20.20.1. He said this would come to the City Council, unless the Council wanted the Planning Commission to review it first.

Coun. Stanton asked if this would be like starting all over again.

Mayor Drake said if this was approved as recommended, the citizens would have the opportunity to help shape the development. He said if it was not approved, the applicant could still proceed with a development agreement. He said in this way the developer and the neighbors would have the security of knowing what was negotiated and being developed. He said The Round was a great example of a development agreement that set parameters and eventually The Round was developed within the parameters. He noted the development agreement was not before the Council as it was denied by the Commission. He said even if the Council granted the appeal, the developer could return under different parameters with a development agreement. He said this would not make a development agreement go away but it would restrict the maximum size of the footprint of the building.


Barry Cain, President, Gramor Development, Tualatin, applicant, introduced himself and his attorney Steve Abel. He said the Streets of Tanasbourne was built in a Town Center and in that Center, the Meier & Frank store was 160,000 square feet. He said in this Town Center Fred Meyer was the perfect anchor because there were many grocery stores in that neighborhood but no other retail stores. He said people were driving long distances to other retail stores.

Steve Abel, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, attorney for the applicant, said they were endorsing the Planning Commission's and staff's recommendations to approve the text amendment. He said this text responds to an existing State statute that allows development agreements. He said he used development agreements in several circumstances in other jurisdictions for projects that were successful for the cities, the developers and the residents. He said the text amendment would allow a developer, through the use of a development agreement, to exceed the 50,000 square foot limitation that exists in the Zoning Code. He said the Planning Commission testimony demonstrated why larger format stores were the only way to succeed in some Town Center locations. He said they believed that was the case in this Town Center. He said in this Town Center, if they were not able to build a larger format store, a series of 50,000 square foot buildings could be built. He said the Council needed to consider if that was more or less intrusive, or if it makes a difference if there is one building versus multiple buildings. He said the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Town Center demand that square footage; the square footage does not arise from anything other than the Code's demand for minimums in the Town Centers. He said this was a simple amendment that had little to do with anything but responding to the Code and doing it in a way that is consistent with real market conditions and real developers who have a tenant (Fred Meyer) who is willing to build in this location.

Abel said he thought the Planning Commission missed some relevant history of this project. He said the process began two years ago in a series of meetings with the developer, the development team, and the City staff. He said this two-year process involved several meetings with staff where project details were reviewed and many modifications were made to the site plans, elevations, studies, public/open spaces, design and street widths. He said that was in anticipation of using a development agreement and going through this process. He said he thought they were 98% done with that process. He said staff might disagree because there were some elements that were not satisfied with regard to the loading areas behind the building. He said he had every reason to believe that staff had consulted with the appropriate individuals within the City to make determinations about the appropriateness of this particular development.

Abel said after its review, the Planning Commission either made no resolution with respect to the design or the proposal, or it made some resolution (7:0) that was not appealable, so it was not a final decision. He said he was disappointed in the process. He said they worked in good faith with City staff for two years and the Planning Commission reviewed the project. He said to now say that the project cannot be discussed with the Council and the only matter before them was the limited question of the development agreement text amendment was hard to take. He said in many ways there was no process because when they started he believed the text amendment was not needed to do a development agreement in the City; the State statute demands that cities go through the process of development agreements when they are necessary. He asked the Council to make a decision on whether or not the text amendment is appropriate, and immediately begin the process of finishing the approval of this application that has been before City staff constantly for the last two years and give it fair consideration. He said without fair consideration the City has not given Gramor or Fred Meyer their fair day in court and the City has a significant procedural issue.

Mayor Drake asked if the 50,000 square foot limit would not allow a two or three story building with a 50,000 square foot pad, joined with a breezeway or another pad.

Abel said the City would determine what structural elements constitute the square footage and that may depend on the Code and how Floor Area Ratio is calculated. He said there were formulas through which that could be done. He added this comes from the City Code provision that addresses restrictions of uses on 50,000 square feet. He said their original thought was that because it was the kind of complex that Fred Meyer wanted to build, that each one of the uses that constitutes Fred Meyer and its adjoining retail facilities was less than 50,000 square feet.

Mayor Drake asked if a developer could do two 50,000 square foot floors.

Abel said that might not be possible based on the City's interpretation of the Code. He said under the City's interpretation he thought separate 50,000 square foot buildings could be built on that site to add up to the same square footage that was proposed in the Fred Meyer project.

Mayor Drake said the current Raleigh Hills Fred Meyer has two separate buildings. He said if neither of those buildings was over 50,000 square feet, the developer could still do that project under the current Town Center Plan.

Abel agreed that was possible. He said that while two or three 50,000 square foot buildings could be developed, the risk involved in retailing today needs to be considered. He said Fred Meyer did not wish to construct a two-story building. He said retail was a very competitive business and it was hard to have two buildings and have them work the same way as a single building.

Coun. Arnold asked Abel to clarify his comment regarding being able to have a development agreement without this text amendment.

Abel said the State statute states that cities and counties have the ability to enter into development agreements, and has a series of constraints on how the agreement is put together. He said his opinion was that this does not have to be incorporated into the City Code in order give power to the City under that statute.

Coun. Arnold reiterated that in Abel's opinion the City could initiate a development agreement regardless of the Code per State statute.

Abel said that was correct although the City would have to follow State statute regulations. He said the process they entered into with the City was for a limited modification to the Town Center regarding the 50,000 square feet. He said the City's response was that if they wanted to work with the size limit, they would need to use a development agreement so that the developer could show that the purpose for the Town Center was better achieved for that modification. He said the development agreement was customized for the size aspect only.

Coun, Arnold asked if the City Attorney could respond to that statement.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea said he agreed with Abel that they all worked long and hard on this project. He said the applicant worked hard to address the City's concerns. He said he agreed that the City did not need to implement State law into the Code before the City has a development agreement. He said if the City wants to vary any Code provisions, there has to be a method for doing that. He said a development agreement cannot vary a Code provision. He said the agreement must meet the requirements of the Code and that was what they were trying to do with this text amendment. He said the Code has a 50,000 square foot requirement; they have to either meet the Code standard or do a development agreement. He said there was some flexibility with the development agreement but the agreement cannot violate the provisions of the City Code.

Coun. Arnold asked for further detail as she felt she was hearing opposite views from Abel and staff.

Abel clarified that the only way to modify the provision for the square foot limitation was to do the development agreement text amendment being requested. He said the issue is does the size limitation make sense or should there be flexibility in the Code to allow an alternative approach if real market conditions demand it.

Coun. Stanton asked Abel if he said that at any time Gramor could bring this forward with a Conditional Use Permit and bypass the text amendment.

Abel said under the City's interpretation of the 50,000 square foot limitation means (that it goes to use and not a series of sub-uses) a conditional use would not allow them to develop the Fred Meyer store or any use larger than 50,000 square feet.

Coun. Stanton said the applicant kept referring to Fred Meyer. She said there was no guaranty that it would be Fred Meyer.

Abel said the development agreement has Fred Meyer as the signatory to the provisions and it is contractually bound.

Coun. Stanton said she read that Fred Meyer would be the record holder through construction. She said as she read it, that meant Fred Meyer or Gramor could sell their spaces to someone else. She asked if that was right.

Abel said Fred Meyer has agreed to open the store. He said from a developer's s tandpoint that was the only guarantee they ever had on a project; they had no control over what changes occur in the future. He said Gramor had agreed to stay involved for at least two years after construction.

Coun. Dalrymple asked Abel for clarification regarding his point about use and the various uses that make up the component of the store.

Abel read the Code provision that "individual uses larger than 50,000 square feet are notpermitted." He stressed it was the use that was restricted not the building size.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if an apparel department, grocery department and a deli department were three separate uses within one building.

Abel said that was an aggressive formulation. He used the example of a garden center that was not an interior department; the question was if that was a separate use for the purposes of the calculations. He said the City's interpretation was that Fred Meyer was a single use and the garden center was part of that single use. He said they could accept this interpretation if they could figure out how to work with it.

Cain said Fred Meyer does not have any department over 50,000 square feet; they were a department store made up of smaller stores owned by the same people.

Coun. Dalrymple asked Sparks if a Safeway store that has several different uses under one roof (grocery, pharmacy) was considered one use.

Sparks replied that was one use.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if the State statute says that the approved use through a development agreement could be three to four times greater than the maximum allowed within the zoning district.

Abel agreed that the State statute does not say that. He said the statute defines the development agreement; states that it is allowed in cities or counties, and it gives cities the contractual ability to work with a developer, so both sides are certain regarding what is being developed. He said the agreements were excellent tools for both sides.

Coun. Dalrymple said he agreed they were excellent tools but he did not agree with giving too much leeway around the original intent of the zoning district.

Abel responded that that was why the development agreement text amendment was worded as it was; to point back to the purpose for those districts. He asked how someone could build a rational Town Center with the Floor Area Ratio, restricted parking and size limitation. He said they do not believe it would be built.

Coun. Dalrymple said if they felt the Center could not be built, what was their opinion regarding a zoning amendment, so they do not get the cart before the horse.

Abel said when the City first began the process of the Town Center mapping and planning in the late 1990's, Gramor was the developer of the property at Murray Scholls Town Center. He said he thought everyone would agree that was a good development. He said to make that development occur, the property had to be freed from the Town Center and its requirements. He said under the existing Town Center provisions; they do not believe the Murray Scholls Town Center development would have occurred.

Coun. Dalrymple said that was a good response because that was a viable development.

Cain stated, in response to previous comments about uses, that Safeway and Albertson's were grocery stores in their entirety. He said Fred Meyer was a grocery store plus many other department stores, such as hardware, home supplies and sporting goods. He said these were allowed retail uses in the City Code.

Mayor Drake responded that he can shop in all the departments in a Fred Meyer store and pay in one area, so it was still one Fred Meyer store.

Cain agreed and said two years ago they decided not to go through the zone change but instead go through the development agreement process. He said for many months they negotiated the draft development agreement and thought they had an agreement and text amendment everyone liked. He said now they've killed the horse and were left with the cart and he wished the Council could look at the cart because it was beautiful.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 8:21 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m.


Appellants Sara Yahna and Kim Levine, Beaverton, introduced themselves and thanked the Council for the opportunity to present their concerns about the text amendment. Levine said they would first cover the criteria mentioned in their appeal and then they would elaborate on their concerns about the text amendment.

Sarah Yahna said the first criterion was Criterion 3 - The proposed text amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan. She said they were not opposed to retail commercial development at this site and the overall square footage was not an issue for them. She said their concern was that the proposed text amendment would modify the existing TC-MU Code. She noted the City created the Murray Scholls Town Center Master Plan under Title 1 of the Functional Plan. She said one of their concerns under Criterion 3 was that the proposed text amendment may be inconsistent with the Murray Scholls Town Center Master Plan, as noted in Metro's April 6, 2005, letter (in the record). She said in reference to Title 6, the applicant's argument that it is necessary to provide an anchor store is irrelevant because the TC-MU Code currently allows for an anchor store. She said there has been no compelling evidence that an anchor store must be larger than 50,000 square feet. She said there were many Town Centers where the anchor store was 50,000 square feet or smaller. She repeated there was no need for the text amendment because the Code allows for an anchor store to be built on this site at 50,000 square feet or less. She said Criterion 3, Title 12, Protection of Residential Neighborhoods, was not addressed by the applicant in the application. She said they believed the protection of the neighborhoods was in jeopardy due to the increased noise and crime associated with a single store size larger than 50,000 square feet.

Yahna noted Criterion 4 was that the proposed text amendment was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. She said Chapter 2, the Public Involvement Element, was very important to the appellants. She said the text amendment does not provide process and procedures for public involvement. She said the development agreement was too ambiguous and would not provide the public with appropriate unders tanding. She referred to the Planning Commission Minutes of March 8, 2006, (page 123 of the record) where Chairman Johansen stated that "Adding the development agreement approach has the potential to add an additional level of complications that could threaten even the most diligent member of the public's ability to unders tand how to engage them inthe process." She played a portion of the recording from the Commission's March 8 meeting that she felt better relayed how much discussion, thought and concern there was about the text amendment. She said this was a split decision and there was a great deal of concern (page 129 the record). She said the public cares about this issue; the Neighbors SW Neighborhood Association Committee (NAC) voted unanimously to support the appeal and oppose the proposed text amendment. She said they gathered 68 signatures from Beaverton residents supporting the appeal (in the record). She said there were numerous letters and e-mails supporting the appeal and also over the course of many months relating to this topic (in the record). She said they had high citizen turnout at the Commission hearings.

Yahna referred to Criterion 4, Chapter 3, the Land Use Element, Goal 3.5.1, Policies B, C, D, E, F and H, dealing with making sure the environment is pedestrian friendly. She said they do not feel that a store of this size with associated parking would allow for a pedestrian-friendly environment. She said Goal 3.7.1, Policy A, also relates to having a pedestrian-friendly environment.

Yahna referred to the purpose of a text amendment and said that the intended spirit of how a text amendment should be used must be considered. She said they understood the purpose of a text amendment was not a criterion. She said the text amendment application does not meet any of the reasons stated in the purpose. She read the purpose statement as follows: "Such amendments may be needed from time to time to reflect changing community conditions, needs and desires, to fulfill regional obligations, and to address changes in the law." She said none of the reasons were applicable to the proposed text amendment. She said the purpose of a text amendment was not to satisfy a developer's or property owner's preferences or wants. She stressed the defined purpose has not been met.

Yahna also noted there wasn’t a development agreement criterion in the text amendment, as noted by the Council earlier. She agreed with the Council that this was putting the cart before the horse and this was important to the appellants. She said there was nothing that stated there would be minimum variance to the Code, there was no evidence that the development agreement was truly necessary, there was no defined process for public involvement, and the Commission was very concerned about the text amendment and struggled with the vote. She said they believed the only reason the text amendment was being considered was because of the developer's current application. She noted previous comments regarding alternatives, such as changing the zone designation. She said they felt the best alternative solution was to build a Town Center that meets the TC-MU Code. She said they believe that is a viable solution and there are many examples of that in the region. She said because this developer cannot build such a development, or does not have a client that is willing to do so, was not sufficient reason to forego the TC-MU Code. She said this Code was well thought out and well planned, and they believe it could be successfully implemented.

Kim Levine said the community wants a Town Center. She said they have filled the Council Chamber before with neighbors and concerned citizens who care and want to be involved in the process. She said when they heard that potentially they might not be involved in the process, they could not believe that would happen. She said in this instance there was no process for community involvement. She said they signed on for a Town Center and they were excited about that project. She concluded this was not what they got.


Alton Harvey, Sr., Beaverton, Vice Chair, Neighbors SW NAC, said he was representing the NAC Board. He said the appellants met with the Board several times and expressed their concerns. He said the NAC was not against the project, but they were not clear on what the final size of the development would be and there was no clear understanding of where the developer was headed on this project. He said the Board voted unanimously to support the appeal.

Coun. Arnold said when the developer did the first neighborhood review, the NAC voted to support the project. She asked Harvey why that had changed.

Harvey said when the project was first presented it was very impressive. He said the maximum size of the project was not brought up at that meeting. He said at the next meeting the project size was different, so the NAC wanted to take another look at the development. The NAC went out and canvassed the community to get further input. He said the neighbors all met and reviewed the project with the appellants. He assured Coun. Arnold that the entire neighborhood was considered and included when the project was reviewed.

Walter Gorman, Save Cedar Mill Committee, Portland, said he was President of Community Participation Organization (CPO) No. 1 when the Town Center Plan for Washington County was developed between 1996 and 1997. He said during that time they had many meetings, each of which was attended by 200 to 450 people. He said the County area was not very involved in creating the City's Town Center Plan. He said there is a problem in that the City and the County each have a piece of the Town Center site. He referred to Beaverton Development Code (BDC) - Compliance With Other Criteria (page 27-28 of the record) and said the applicant failed to provide actual evidence demonstrating compliance with any of the criteria under Section 3 of the Teufel Ordinance.

Gorman reviewed three criteria the application had not met. First, he said, the applicant did not meet the requirement for interaction with other users of the site. He said because this was a split site (Teufel Nursery/Cedar Mill Town Center), it was designed to be a small, community-oriented development of small stores, small restaurants and specialty stores. He said if this text amendment were approved, one side of the Town Center would have no size restrictions and the other side would have a 50,000 square foot limit because it is under the County Code. He said the second criterion that was not met was to provide the public with more certainty regarding future development of the property. He said this would do the opposite because the size would not be known and more uncertainty would be created. He said the third criterion that was not met was the development of a plan that would produce a high degree of urbanism on the property. He said instead the proposed development would produce a high degree of super urbanism. He said a big box store would block out the neighborhood connections, pedestrian connections and access to transit. He said the other criterion that was not met was listed in the record.

Gorman referred to the Comprehensive Plan and noted Goal 3.7.1 requires that Town Centers develop in accordance with the community vision. He said the community vision was developed ten years ago and it was in the Cedar Mill Town Center Plan that was produced by the County in June 1997. He said this was used as a guideline to develop the Cedar Mill Town Center for the coming decade. He said it was developed with the community and was intended that the community would always be involved. He said they did not want a development agreement that isolated the community from the project. He said the applicant and the City failed to consider the Transit Oriented-Retail Commercial Zone that applied to the sitewhen it was within the County's jurisdiction. He said the allowance of big box development contradicts the purpose and requirements of the County's zoning.

Coun. Arnold thanked Gorman for providing the documentation ahead of time so that Council had time to review it. She said it was very clear.

Jason Yahna, Beaverton, said he supports the appeal and opposes the amendment. He said this did not match the spirit of what Gramor was first trying to do.

Brian Boe, Beaverton, said he was frustrated with the ten-year process. He said he was involved from the beginning and there was a great deal of community involvement. He said the project was voted down because the community did not want a big box store. He said the frustration for everyone was that there seemed to be no other alternatives. He said the developer wants to bypass the current system that allows community input and the system was ignored until the end. He said he invited Gramor to a meeting at his home to present the project. He said by then it was too late to help Gramor develop a project that the neighborhood would have supported. He said the community supported development in that area but there were already problems with traffic that would only get worse with a big box development. He said 50,000 square feet was just the footing and he was told it could be a two-story building and a large parking structure.

Boe said the neighborhood was densely populated and very active. He said neighborhood safety would be jeopardized by bypassing the current system. He said he felt they were being bypassed again and he felt the rug had been pulled out from under them, so now they were trying to prevent a disaster. He said he disagreed with the Planning Commission's decision. He said the residents spent a great deal of time on this over the last ten years and were not paid for that time. He said applicant commented on his frustration after working for two years on this project; he noted the applicant was paid for his work. He noted most of the residents of neighborhood signed the petition opposing the project (in the record). He said if Fred Meyer built a 50,000 square foot, two-story store, the community would support them. He suggested the developer be more creative or seek other stores.

Coun. Stanton asked Boe which meetings he attended.

Boe said he attended many meetings including those of the NAC and the Windsor Park Homeowners Association, of which he was once President. He said Windsor Park was the only single-family home development that borders this project. He said they have been involved with this for ten years and the neighborhood does not support the project.

Henry Kane, Beaverton, asked that the record be kept open for seven days after the close of testimony, pursuant to ORS 197.763(6). He said denial of his motion would be prejudicial and he needed seven days to respond to new issues of fact and law that were raised at this meeting. He said CPO No. 4 opposed this development. He said if this was approved, the applicant would get approval for a 151,000 square foot store; that is three times the existing size limit adopted by Council in 1999. He said he needed seven days to list the cases in which the LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Commission) enforced orders for violating the State land use laws. He said a public body could not use a development agreement to get around its code. He said there was no procedure for public involvement in this proposal and the public should be involved. He said Metro spent thousands of dollars to setup Town Center zoning. He said Metro and LCDC both say this is wrong. He said the people come first.

Mayor Drake asked the City Attorney to comment on Kane's request for an extension.

Rappleyea said the request for an extension was mandatory after the initial evidentiary hearing. He said this issue had several evidentiary hearings before the Planning Commission. He said the idea behind the extension was that if new evidence was presented, an extension was granted to give sufficient time to address the new evidence. He said this was not the initial evidentiary hearing; there were two or three at the Planning Commission. He said if new evidence was brought up an extension could be considered but he did not hear any new evidence. He said Kane requested additional time to provide a list of legal cases. He said Council could extend the hearing if it wished to do so, but it was not required.

Steve Farley, Beaverton, said he supported the appeal and opposed the text amendment. He said most of his points were already covered by several people. He said he was encouraged to see the Council spent a great deal of time reviewing this proposal and had good questions. He said tonight's turnout was a small representation of the many people concerned about this text amendment. He said many feel the current zoning worked fine. He said the proposed changes could have a significant and detrimental effect on the area, especially in relationship to safety. He asked the Council to support the appeal and leave the zoning district as it is. He asked that if additional action is needed, that the developers work within current guidelines and the Code. He said the developers know the Code and are trying to change it to their benefit.

Coun. Arnold responded to Boe that there were many letters from people in the staff report. She clarified for the audience that this was a legislative action and in legislative matters the number of citizen comments can be considered in the decision making process. She said in land use matters only comments that address criteria can be considered and Council cannot consider the volume of opposition in its decision. She said the speakers did a great job in referring to criteria.

Peter Christianson, Beaverton, said he lived in the oldest house in Windsor Court. He said the neighborhood residents feel the social compact and trust has been severely compromised by what has occurred. He said democracy was about participation and getting results when appropriate. He said the developer has said the Town Center cannot work with this size limitation. He said logically that makes no sense. He said the Planning Commission Chair said some of the centers work well and some don't. He said if there were no 180,000 square foot stores then that is not the problem. He suggested the developer look harder. He said if this text amendment passes, there would be no end to exceptions. He said if the Town Center concept makes no sense, do not add a text amendment; change the law.

Joe DeMartino, Beaverton, said he has lived in the Windsor Park neighborhood for 11 years. He said they approved the development presented by the applicant; they were thrilled and excited about the Italian Villa drawing. He said there was not sufficient road infrastructure to support a big box store. He said that was why they were excited about the smaller development that would promote pedestrian and bicycle traffic. He said he would prefer a smaller development to reduce vehicle traffic.

There was no one else who wished to testify.


Cain said he believed the project they developed was the best for that site. He said the appellant stated they were not against the amount of retail required. He said what they were putting on that site was the amount of retail required. He said there was a Floor Area Ratio requirement of .5, that was very high, and initially it was 3.5. He said the appellant said with big box development there was more crime, safety was more of concern, and more parking was required. He said that was not true. He said Fred Meyer was not a big box store; Fred Meyer was a neighborhood department store and it has a two-to-three-mile radius for traffic. He said they met with many neighborhood associations who supported the project, including the Neighbors SW NAC and at that time the NAC voted to support the project. He said they did not meet with the Harlequin Drive group and that group was now opposing the project. He said when they met with this group, their main concerns were the cut-through traffic between Barrows Road and Scholls Ferry Road, the noise and speed on Barrows Road, and their desire for a path around the lake. He said some did not want Fred Meyer. He said all Town Centers have to be considered differently. He said this was a good store for this area, the pedestrian environment was superior to any project they have done, and the amount of traffic would not be any greater if the store was contained in one building versus many smaller buildings.

Coun. Stanton asked Sparks if Fred Meyer falls under retail trade as noted in the Code.

Sparks replied that it did.

Coun. Stanton referred to the use restrictions under Code Section, e and g, and asked if there was anything that allowed individual uses larger than 50,000 square feet to go through the Conditional Use process in a Multiple Use District.

Sparks said under “D,” the Code allows more than 50,000 square feet, if it is bounded by streets. He said in this project a building could be larger than 50,000 square feet, provided it is more than one story.

Coun. Stanton asked if the Code allowed a building with a 50,000 square foot footprint that would have breezeways or bridges extending to another building.

Sparks said staff would look at this from a planned perspective; if the total footprint was more than 50,000 square feet, that would not meet the use restriction. He said the footprint would not have to be all foundation.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 9:35 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 9:43 p.m.

Mayor Drake asked if there were any questions for staff or brief comments. He reminded Council that this applies to both town centers.

Coun. Stanton referred to Code and asked if the 50,000 square feet was the footprint or an aggregate.

Sparks replied staff has interpreted this Code provision from its inception as a footprint, not an aggregate. He said when the Code was developed in the late 1990's the City and neighborhood were concerned about big box development and the stereotypical development for big box has been one single-story building that sprawls out. He said they were trying to develop ways to be responsive to the property owners demand for an anchor tenant of something more than 50,000 square feet and that was where the grid of public or private streets was developed. He said this would still give the feel of the Town Center that they were trying to develop and they could have more than 50,000 square feet as long as they were confined on a single parcel. He said to allow an anchor tenant that was larger than 50,000 square feet; it would have to be a vertical design. He said he recognized that Code Section D does not have the word footprint; however, that is how this provision has been interpreted. He said if the Council felt that this needs to be clearer, that word could be inserted into that section.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Arnold MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Dalrymple, that the Council rule in favor of the appellant and grant the appeal.

Coun. Arnold commended both the appellant and applicant for outs tanding participation throughout the entire process. She said as painful and long as it was, this is what democracy was about. She said she believed that Gramor did do a lot of public involvement work and that they have concerns about whether there is a real need for an anchor store. She said she thought the evidence was mixed on whether or not an anchor store was needed and it could depend on the nature of the Town Center. She said the Planning Commission struggled with that. She said she agreed with what she heard Commissioner Maks say in the recording of the Commission meeting, that a Fred Meyers serves many areas, but if Fred Meyers leaves, what would that building become. She said that was why the issue of assignability was a big concern; if it turned out to be a restaurant, then the traffic would become regional in nature not just neighborhood and the streets are designed for neighborhood traffic. She said she was voting in favor of appellant for three reasons. First, she said she does not see any assurance for a process for public involvement. She said the second reason was that as a minimum in a text amendment, that it go to the party that would hear it. She said the current process serves the City well and as a minimum she would want it going through the first level through the appropriate body, be it the Commission or the BDR. Third, she said she spent a lot of time reviewing the materials and listened to the Commission meeting tapes. She said the Commission struggled with this and it was a split recommendation. She said the Commission finally said they would do something next year to fix this. She said she did not feel it was right to put something out that was only half done; they should be comfortable with the whole process.

Mayor Drake asked if the motion included all of the exhibits presented and the record that was presented in the staff report.

Coun. Arnold replied that it did.

Coun. Dalrymple said it was not his sense that a State statute with use of a development agreement would provide for a use that was three to four times greater than the zone designation would initially provide. He said that was taking interpretation too far. He said it was important that the citizens of Beaverton understand that there has to be a level of trust. He said sometimes that might mean things may not get done as easily as one would desire, but maybe there was a way to work through the process to get everyone where they want to go. He said he thought Gramor was a good developer but in this case he had to support the appeal.

Coun. Stanton said she would support the motion for some of the same reasons. She read quotes from the record regarding the vision and development of town and regional centers. She stressed a text amendment applies to all areas with that designation. She said doing a text amendment for Gramor at Progress Ridge could have unintended consequences in other areas of the community. She said the reasons for doing a text amendment were: 1) To reflect changing community conditions, needs and desires; 2) To fulfill regional obligations; and 3) To address changes in the law. She said this proposal does not meet the reasons for doing text amendments. She said for the vision of the Town Center adopted under the 2040 Plan and based on the reasons for doing a text amendment, she could not support the applicant but would support the appellant and current motion.

Mayor Drake repeated that the motion was to reverse the Planning Commission's decision and grant the Appeal of TA 2004-0012 (TC-MU Commercial Use Restriction Amendment). Question called on the motion. Couns. Arnold, Dalrymple and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (3:0)

Coun. Stanton said she would like to have a joint work session with the Council and Planning Commission when the Commission studies the text amendment.

06106 Public Hearing on Biggi Investment Partnership Measure 37 Claim (Continued from May 15, 2006 Meeting)

Coun. Dalrymple MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council continue the public hearing on the Biggi Investment Partnership Measure 37 Claim to July 17, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. Couns. Arnold, Dalrymple and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (3:0)

06107 Capital Improvements Plan for Fiscal Years 2006/07 through 2009/10 for Transportation, Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Projects

Coun. Stanton asked if there were any changes to the Capital Improvement Plan since it was considered at the budget hearings.

Project Engineer James Brink replied there were no changes.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing.

There was no one present who wished to testify.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Stanton said two years ago she voted no on the Capital Improvement Plan because she was not happy with the lack of progress on the 125th Avenue Extension Project. She said this year she would support the Plan.

Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Arnold that Council approve the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2009-19 for Transportation, Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Projects.

Coun. Stanton said that staff does a good job in maintaining diligence and knowing what needs to be done in water, sewer and storm drain facilities. She said she hoped next year with MTIP and sources of funding being made available that the City may be able to move faster with the 125th Avenue Extension Project. She said the City should proceed with the Rose Biggi transportation project and the extension of Murray Boulevard onto Barrows Road. She said these were important projects.

Mayor Drake said Coun. Dalrymple had questions earlier today regarding road projects. He said a work session has been scheduled for August and he asked the Public Works Director to address that issue.

Public Works Director Gary Brentano said he asked the City Transportation Engineer to review the Transportation Systems Plan to determine the priority rating system the City should have for future transportation improvements. He said staff would then determine how to best spend the City's resources to address those concerns. He said the intention was to come back to Council on August 14, 2006, to review the staff recommendations and obtain Council input on the rating system and the priority for road improvements throughout the City.

Coun. Dalrymple said he felt it would be important to see if the City could find extra dollars from remaining balances in other accounts. He said he wondered if there were less expensive ways to make progress on transportation needs, such as providing turn lanes to reduce congestion on some streets. He said in August he would be interested to see what other options there are to think outside the box from where the project base has been delineated at this point, to see what more could be done.

Coun. Stanton asked if these would be capacity improvements or maintenance, using the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) three tiers of preservation, modernization and new facilities.

Brentano said he thought staff would suggest a rating system that was similar to that but also included other nuances such as connecting economic activity to the infrastructure, and other improvements such as cueing systems and turn lanes. He said they would also review the City's work with the County to deal with the signal timing on Murray Boulevard, which has lead to discussions on other possible low-cost improvements to mitigate the congestion.

There was no further discussion.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Arnold, Dalrymple and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (3:0)

Second Reading:

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

06093 An Ordinance Relating to the Building Code Amending Beaverton Code Section 8.02.015(a) (Ordinance No. 4393)

Coun. Arnold MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that the ordinance embodied in

Agenda Bill 06093 now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Arnold, Dalrymple and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (3:0)


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


Cathy Jansen, Deputy City Recorder




Approved this 10th day of July, 2006.

Rob Drake, Mayor