SEPTEMBER 11, 2006


The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob Drake in the Forrest C. Soth Council Chamber, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton, Oregon, on Monday, September 11, 2006, at 6:45 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Catherine Arnold, Betty Bode, Bruce S. 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, Principal Planner Hal Bergsma, Senior Planner Margaret Middleton, and City Recorder Sue Nelson.


Mayor Drake proclaimed September 11, 2006, as Patriot Day to honor the innocent victims who lost their lives as a result of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Mayor Drake proclaimed September 16, 2006 as Murrayhill Little League Baseball All Star Team Day and Murrayhill Junior Girls Softball Team Day. He noted the Little League Team won third place in the Little League World Series competition and the Junior Girls Softball Team won sixth place in the Girls Softball World Series. He congratulated both teams and said they would be special guests in the Beaverton Celebration Parade on September 16, 2006.


06138 Transportation Funding (Rescheduled from August 14, 2006 meeting)

Public Works Director Gary Brentano introduced Senior Planner Margaret Middleton. He said staff would present an update of the City's Transportation System Element of the Comprehensive Plan to review what has been done and to seek direction from Council on future projects.

Senior Planner Margaret Middleton reviewed transportation funding. She said the costs for transportation improvements have increased dramatically and it was getting increasingly difficult to provide public facilities and services to the rapidly growing population with the limited funding available. She said the cities, counties, State and Federal government were all dealing with this issue.

Middleton said the Transportation System Plan (TSP) was required by the State. The TSP assesses the City's transportation needs and funding requirements for a 20-year period. She reviewed how the TSP was developed. She said a portion of the TSP was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan as Chapter 6 - Transportation Element. She reviewed the functions and maps in the Transportation Element (in the record). She said the TSP identifies improvement needs through the Year 2020. She said $1.5 billion (in 2006 dollars) was needed to construct all needed improvements to the Year 2020. She said of the $1.5 billion, 40% was needed for improvements to State roads (Oregon Department of Transportation - ODOT), 35% was for Washington County roads and 25% was for local (City) Beaverton roads ($375,000,000).

Council Stanton said she heard $9 billion was needed for region-wide transportation improvements. She said while the City needs $1.5 billion for needed improvements, the entire region is in a similar situation.

Middleton said that was correct. She said the TSP anticipated revenues to the City from Federal, State, County and City sources was around $160 million between the Years 2000 and 2020. She reviewed average revenue dollars that the City receives annually (in the record) which totaled approximately $8 million per year; this would equal $160 million over the next 20 years. She said improvement needs total $375 million, the City's projected revenue is $160 million; that leaves a funding gap of $215 million over the 20-year period. She said the City was considering how to reduce the funding gap in light of increased right-of-way and construction costs, decreased Federal and State gas tax revenues, and the current Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program policy.

Middleton said the TSP also identified potential funding sources. She said the City was reviewing the types of projects it would fund in the future; whether or not the funding options were doable; what would be the project priorities; and how the City could influence the upcoming update of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).She said previously with the 2015 Transportation System Plan and the 2020 Update of that Plan, the City was able to get ahead of the RTP Update of 2000. She said all projects and costs were identified and they were able to include them in the RTP so they could be funded by Federal dollars if funding became available. She said currently the City was participating in the update of Metro's Regional Transportation Plan. She said the City now needs to look at its next steps.

Mayor Drake said the region's needs for the next 20 years were identified at $10 billion and about $4 billion in funding has been identified. He said Washington County has done well because of the MSTIP measures and their continuing levy. He said the City has been active in promoting multi-modal transportation, but the next steps will have to be creative to get the City where it wants to go.

Coun. Stanton asked when the TSP was enacted by the State.

Middleton replied that occurred in 1991.

Coun. Stanton referred to page 4 of the presentation (Street Improvement Master Plan Figure 6.5) and asked what the blue dots indicated.

Middleton replied the blue dots showed proposed roadway.

Coun. Stanton thanked staff for noting that $1.5 billion was needed city wide, and that included improvements to the State and County roads that run through Beaverton. She stressed that the City's portion for local street improvements was $375 million. She said this was important because many people drive through Beaverton on County and State roads but the City is not responsible for these roads.

Middleton clarified that the $375 million was for street improvements only.

Coun. Bode asked if Beaverton was at the point of build out.

Middleton replied that Beaverton was quite highly built out.

Coun. Bode said as infill areas are developed into residential neighborhoods, there will be more use of neighborhood roads by people who are passing through Beaverton to get to other areas of the County. She said while the City has to be a keen partner with other agencies to safeguard the region's transportation system, it also has to protect the community's neighborhood road systems that are becoming pass-through routes for other areas outside of the City. She said while the Council has to work regionally, it also has to work to protect Beaverton's residential road system which is vital to the quality of life in the community.

Coun. Doyle referred to page 8 of the presentation which showed the Local Connectivity Maps. He asked if there was a process to involve the public in the planning as these connections start to develop.

Middleton explained work sessions were held when each of the maps was developed. She said these maps were "snapshots in time" and staff often receives calls from citizens when they see barricades at the end of their streets to find out what is planned for the road. She said this was part of the TSP and the Comprehensive Plan so it is always before the public.

Coun. Doyle said he wanted to be sure that as these projects begin, that the neighborhoods are kept informed and involved in what is happening.

Public Works Director Gary Brentano said that staff was hoping to get direction from Council on how to proceed. He suggested that they begin to prepare a list of projects and priorities, and use traditional methods of safety, capacity and connectivity to develop that list. He said funding will also have to be considered. He said once a list and plan is developed, then the public and neighborhoods will be brought in for public input.

Mayor Drake said it was important for people to recognize that no process is ever done. He said State law requires a plan twenty years out and the City does that. He said the plan is amendable when changes are needed. He said funding is a strong factor as the project evolves. He said because the community is always in a state of flux, the City's transportation plans are always perpetual; they always need to be amended and improved as the community grows. He asked the Council what its transportation priorities were for the City.

Coun. Arnold said the staff did a great job in involving the public with the last update of the TSP. She said since it was known the City would only have about 40% of the funding needed for the next 20 years, was there a way to measure what the ramifications would be in terms of slowing traffic and how that would affect police and fire protection, and emergency traffic.

Middle replied that they had seen travel times increase by a few minutes and that analysis was in the TSP. She said consultants looking at the TSP would see the increased travel times and would have to deal with how that would affect emergency responders.

Coun. Arnold asked if the emergency responders are involved in the process.

Middleton said both Police and Tualatin Valley Fire District are involved whenever an update of the TSP is done.

Coun. Dalrymple said he had heard that Washington County retains about 10% of the gas tax and disperses the rest to the State, who reallocates the tax out to various projects. He asked if that was correct and said he wanted to be sure the City has a clear understanding of how that works. He said if the City needs to lobby for a greater share to come back to this region, where a greater percentage of the metropolitan area is, then so be it.

Middleton said the State Highway Trust Fund is funded by the gas tax, vehicle registration and truck taxes. She said of that Fund, 60% goes to ODOT, 24% goes to counties and 16% goes to the cities.

Coun. Doyle said the County gas tax was one cent per gallon. He said he thought between 30 and 46 cents per gallon was levied at the State level. He confirmed that Middleton was only speaking about the one cent County tax.

Coun. Dalrymple said he would like to see a larger share of that tax stay in this region.

Coun. Bode said there was a formula the County uses to determine how the funds are allocated; the formula is based on population.

Brentano said ODOT's apportionment of the State gas tax revenue was based on population.

Coun. Bode said she was trying to clarify that the prescriptive distribution is brought about by the State and it is based on population.

Brentano said the County's one-cent tax is allocated differently by the County.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if staff could provide information on the amount in the County's tax fund and a clear definition of the process.

Mayor Drake said the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) was evaluating potential additional resources to close the huge funding gap throughout the County. He said the City of Tigard was talking about having its own gas tax and the WCCC is saying if cities are considering that option, it should be sought as a County-wide tax increase so that an individual city does not put its own gas stations at a disadvantage by increasing the tax.

Coun. Stanton said she thought once a city reached 50,000 in population, its gas tax would be allocated from the State.

Finance Director Patrick O'Claire explained that the gas tax has always been allocated from the State; whether the city is small or large; the State disperses the funds.

Coun. Stanton said that every two years when the Legislature meets, the State could do away with State Revenue Sharing. She said while the cities were currently getting gas and alcohol tax, that is not always guaranteed. She referred to page 13 where it was noted that the Master Street Transportation Improvement Plan (MSTIP) was $3 million per year; she noted it was now showing no revenue received annually. She asked if that meant the City would not be receiving MSTIP funds for City roads.

Middleton replied that was correct.

Coun. Stanton said she hoped the County would come back with another MSTIP funding program in the future as that was a good resource to improve specific roads in the County. She referred to the local connectivity maps on page 11 and asked if all of the maps and the Comprehensive Plan were available on the City's Web site.

Middleton confirmed they were available on the Web site.

Coun. Doyle asked what direction staff was seeking from the Council.

Brentano said staff was requesting either a confirmation or a redirection of what has been broadly proposed. He said the next step would be to pick the projects that meet specific criteria and rate them at priority improvement levels. He said they would look at the priority projects and identify safety, connectivity and livability issues, and the costs associated with those improvements. He said they would then look at scheduling the projects over the next several years and how funding would be addressed.

Coun. Arnold asked how that was different from the current CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) and budget process.

Brentano said over the last few years the CIP has endorsed projects that were funded by grants; since funding was available, those projects moved to the top of the list. He said staff was seeking active confirmation from Council on the proposed projects and that this was headed on the right track. He said this was the Council's and public's opportunity to provide input on the priority of the projects. He said this would provide a framework for discussing funding and dealing with regional issues.

Coun. Arnold said she was still not clear on what was needed.

Brentano replied that the CIP was not always reflective of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). He said the CIP includes projects from the TSP but those projects that were funded through grants may or may not have been applicable to the TSP. He said the CIP projects were largely driven by external realities. He said he was suggesting that they change the way the projects are selected. He said historically they were selected in a variety of ways and he was suggesting developing a consistent plan that reflects the broad priorities and that would affect the project-selection process.

Coun. Stanton noted for the public that the CIP was the Capital Improvement Plan and she explained the purpose of the CIP. She said she wanted to add traffic congestion to the criteria, to raise the priority for the development on the 125th Avenue Extension project. She said traffic congestion and safety would increase priorities on several projects because people were aggravated about the current traffic situation. She suggested using the CCI (Committee for Citizen Involvement) to obtain citizen input and involvement. She said there was value in matching dollars to get a project done sooner, even if it meant delaying another project for a few years.

 Coun. Bode asked if staff was seeking Council direction on how to prioritize, or for Council to choose specific priorities such as safety, capacity and connectivity.

Mayor Drake said they were having the same discussion at the regional level. He said they fought every year for pieces of bread rather than the whole loaf. He said this was a broader discussion on whether or not to continue doing things the same way or how will the cities look at the many needs and the fewer dollars.

Brentano said there was not sufficient information for the Council to make a motion. He said he was hoping for consensus in the future when staff returns with a series of projects and proposed criteria; at that time Council could indicate if it feels the City is headed on the right track.

Coun. Bode asked staff to repeat the five criteria.

Brentano said the criteria were capacity, congestion, safety, connectivity and livability (not in any order of priority).

Coun. Dalrymple said it was not good enough to keep doing things as they have been done in the past. He said they need to figure out a way, on the regional level, to change this and look at a whole new way to approach this issue because the funding gap is too large and today's methods will not work.

Coun. Arnold said as the Council Liaison to the CCI, she would like this information shared with the CCI and the neighborhoods as it progresses.

Coun. Stanton explained for the public that gas tax revenues are increasing but the purchasing power is down because of higher costs. She said cars are more fuel efficient and do not generate the revenue they used to in the past. She said discussions were occurring around the country on having a mileage tax instead of a gas tax. She said the gas tax has not been increased since 1993. She summarized there was less funding available for roads and yet there are more roads that need to be maintained.

Coun. Doyle said he concurred with the statement that a fresh approach is needed to solve this problem. He said if staff discovers a new variable that should be considered, it should be put into the mix.

Brentano said he agreed.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:50 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m.


Mayor Drake said as a courtesy during the Visitor Comment Period, Council would permit Mr. San Soucie to comment on the proposed ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan, being considered at the work session.

Marc San Soucie, Beaverton, said he was concerned that two phrases were dropped from the Comprehensive Plan document. He said the two phrases were related to City-initiated amendments; they were: "and in such a manner as will be most beneficial to the citizens of Beaverton" and "other such notice as the Planning Commission or City Council may deem in the public interest." He said these phrases make it explicit in the Comprehensive Plan that the Council has these elements of discretion in how City-initiated amendments come forth and how noticing takes place. He said while consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Code was laudable in most instances, there are enough City-initiated amendments where that discretion may be valuable. He said these phrases also speak to the attitude that Comprehensive Plan amendments are a bit different from Development Code amendments. He said he would hate to lose these statements from the Plan.

Mayor Drake said during the work session he would ask staff to comment on San Soucie's concern.

San Soucie said the first phrase was from Section 1.1.1 (City-initiated amendments) and the second phrase was (forms of notice for legislative amendments).

David O’Guinn, representing Meadow Neighborhood Association, Portland, said he resided off of 91st Avenue. He said the Association was organized in response to a development plan (at the County level) to locate a huge car wash at the corner of 91st Avenue and Beaverton Hillsdale Highway. He said they had hired an attorney and transportation engineer to represent the Association. He said there were transportation problems at this intersection. He said the Association was objecting to Agenda Bill 06155, to Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Annexation Agreement for 4500 SW 91st Avenue ANX 2006-0002. He said they were objecting to the agreement because the developer was planning to rezone the property and that was why they were annexing to the City. He said the intent was to annex to the City and change the zoning to R2 to allow eight units on that property.

O'Guinn said the density and traffic in that area was already intense with the Jesuit High School traffic. He said automobile and pedestrian safety was already a problem and that intersection cannot handle the current traffic. He said he wanted to go on record that it would be unwise for the City to enter into this agreement for there would be opposition from the neighborhood and possibly from Jesuit High School. He said he knew the neighborhood and High School were already opposing the proposed car wash. He said 91st Avenue was unique because of the traffic from Jesuit High School and cars queue up from Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway up to Madia. He said cars cut through the neighborhood and parking lots to avoid the wait at the three lights. He said this was not the place to put high density development.

Coun. Stanton asked where the car wash would be located.

O’Guinn said the gas station building would be torn down, the canopy and pumps would be left, and the vacant lot would be used to build a 110 lineal foot car wash tunnel that would be 20 feet tall along 91st Avenue. He said that was being processed through the County and they have a contested case currently before the County. He said the hearing was held August 31 and the ruling would be made around October 26, 2006. He said the rezoning of this site was already scheduled before the Beaverton Planning Commission on October 25, 2006.

Coun. Stanton explained that while the Council could do the annexation, any rezoning would go through the Planning Commission and a public hearing would be held for the public.

O'Guinn said his point was that it was unwise for the Council to consider the agreement at this time because of the circumstances he just related.

Planning Services Manager Hal Bergsma explained that the annexation agreement specifies that if the Council approves the agreement, the rezoning will go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. He said the Commission's decision could be appealed to the City Council. He said if the City chose to not approve the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments, then the annexation ordinance would not become effective and it would remain outside of the City limits.

Mayor Drake said this subject was only about an annexation agreement and there were several steps along the way. He suggested this was a Jesuit High School problem and not just a problem with an isolated piece of property.

O'Guinn said his point was that this was already a serious traffic problem and the proposed action only puts salt in the wound and intensifies the problem.

Mayor Drake asked O'Guinn if they had discussed this with Jesuit High School and asked if their traffic could be rerouted to avoid the problem he had described.

O'Guinn said there has been long-term dialogue between the Citizen Participation Organization and Jesuit High School over the years.

Coun. Dalrymple asked to pull Agenda Bill 06155 from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


Coun. Doyle thanked the Councilors and citizens who participated in the Walk for Unity yesterday. He said the event was well done; it was a three-mile walk and the weather was warm. He said he appreciated everyone's efforts.

Coun. Arnold said this Saturday, September 16, 2006, was the Beaverton Celebration Parade. She invited everyone to attend.

Coun. Stanton said in reading the July 17, 2006 Minutes regarding the Biggi Measure 37 Claim, she realized that during the discussion the Tualatin Basin Resource Study (Goal 5 Issues) was not mentioned. She asked where that would weigh-in on the Biggi Claim regarding the buffer.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea said this issue was in litigation and is currently pending before court, so he would prefer not to discuss this in public session.


There were none.


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

Minutes of the Regular Meetings of July 17, August 7, and August 14, 2006

06153 Liquor Licenses: New Outlet - Chipotle Mexican Grill, Ruby Tuesday, DéCor International, and King’s Restaurant

06154 Authorize the Mayor to Execute a One Year Extension to the Intergovernmental Agreement Amongst Local Government Agencies for the Shared Use of a Public Communication Network

06155 PULLED for separate consideration - Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Annexation Agreement for 4500 SW 91st Avenue ANX 2006-0002

06156 Compensation Changes

Contract Review Board:

06157 Waiver of Sealed Bidding - Purchase of Mobile Data Terminals from the State of Oregon Contract #4416-PA

06158 Waiver of Sealed Bidding - Purchase Five Vehicles from the State of Oregon Price Agreement

06159 Waiver of Sealed Bidding, Authorization for Rental of Copy Machines from Oregon State University Bid Award

06160 Exemption From Competitive Solicitation - Award Personal Services Contract for the Operation and Maintenance of the Beaverton Central Plant

06161 Exemption From Competitive Solicitation - Award Personal Services Contract for the Construction Management of the Beaverton Central Plant

06162 Authorization for the Mayor to Award a Contract for Construction of Piping and Mechanical Room Connection to Extend the Beaverton Central Plant Services to Building "E" and Submitting to Council for Ratification of the Award at a Later Date

06163 Authorization for the Mayor to Award a Contract for Construction of Piping and Mechanical Room Connection to Extend the Beaverton Central Plant Services to Building "F" and Submitting to Council for Ratification of the Award at a Later Date

Coun. Arnold said she had a change to the August 7, 2006 Minutes, page 7, regarding her comments that "the Council could choose to follow the policies." She said she meant that the Council must follow the policies but there is room for interpretation.

Coun. Stanton said she had a revision to the July 17, 2006 Minutes which she gave to the City Recorder.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0) Coun. Stanton abstained from voting on the August 14, 2006 Minutes as she was not at that meeting.

06155 PULLED for separate consideration - Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Annexation Agreement for 4500 SW 91st Avenue ANX 2006-0002

Bergsma said this property is located in Washington County. He said the property owner petitioned Washington County for Measure 37 Claim approval to be allowed to build five units on the property. He said the property was presently zoned County R5 and with the Claim that would equal R15 (five residential dwelling units per acre). He said the County approved that Claim but Measure 37 still has some legal uncertainties, one of which is the transferability. He said the property owner decided instead to pursue annexation to the City in hopes that the City would rezone the property to a zone that would allow them to build the five units. He said County's R15 Zone density (allows five units) does not transfer equally to the City's R2 Zone density (allows eight units). He said the property owner has agreed to stipulate in the agreement that they would develop at the minimum required by the City, which is 80% of the maximum; that would be about six or seven units. He said this issue is tied to the annexation because the property owner has stated that she does not want to be annexed to the City unless she gets the zoning she wants. He said the annexation ordinance (also on the agenda for this meeting) was written to say that the City would initiate the rezoning and if it is denied then the annexation ordinance would never become effective and the property would stay outside the City limits. He said it would be up to the Planning Commission and the Council if there was an appeal, to decide how the property would be zoned.

Coun. Stanton asked for the property's current zoning and what the surrounding properties were zoned.

Bergsma explained it was currently zoned County R5 (five units per acre) and with the Measure 37 Claim that would equate to County R15 (15 units per acre). He said the properties north of that area were zoned R5, the properties to the south were zoned Office-Commercial (office and retail).

Coun. Dalrymple asked if the City R2 Zone was the closest match to the County R5 Zone.

Bergsma said R2 was the closest match to the Measure 37 density of County R15. He said if the property was just zoned R5, the equivalent City zoning would be City R7.

Coun. Dalrymple said in looking at the process, first you annex, then you get an equivalent zone and third you seek an up-zone. He said he was objecting to trying to make a deal for the up-zone.

Coun. Stanton said she did not recall approving an annexation and rezoning to a higher use at the same time.

Bergsma said he did not think the City had done this before. He said in the past the City had processed non-discretionary Plan amendments and rezonings in conjunction with annexation, where the crosswalk is clear. He said if the City were to do this as suggested by Coun. Dalrymple, he did not think the owner would want to proceed with the annexation. He said the owner wants some certainty that if they come into the City they will retain their Measure 37 claim rights.

Coun. Arnold said the surrounding properties were developed into residential homes at R7. She said what they were being asked to consider is what she does not like about Measure 37; it is being used to allow one owner to put greater density on their property to their advantage and at the disadvantage of their neighbors. She said she could not support the recommendation for that reason.

Mayor Drake asked if the property owner stayed in the County, or if the Council approved the annexation but the property up-zone was not approved, the current property owner could put five units on this site because of the Measure 37 claim.

Bergsma said that was correct but the question of transferability still remains, so they may not be able to sell those units. He said they could be developed as apartments and be rented.

Mayor Drake asked if a five-unit development would generate about 50 car trips per day, according to the Transportation Manual.

Bergsma replied it might be a bit less if it were apartments.

Mayor Drake said to keep perspective, the traffic count would be about ten car trips per day per unit based on the national average. He said the concern that was expressed about increased traffic generated by development under the proposed zoning, while legitimate, should be kept in perspective relative to the total amount of traffic on 91st Avenue, much of which is generated by trips to and from Jesuit High School.

Coun. Stanton said that was only if they built at 80%; if they built at 100% it would be 80 cars, if the rate is ten cars per unit.

Coun. Doyle said if the annexation was approved the land owner has certainty that they can build up to eight units. He said if they stay in the County, and something happens to the Measure 37 claim, would that prohibit them from getting the five units.

Bergsma said they have the ability to build the five units, but the question is can they sell the five units or can they sell the property so it can be developed by someone else. Bergsma said he did not believe their rights to build the five units could be rescinded.

Mayor Drake reiterated the request that was before the Council and stressed this was requested by the property owner not by the City.

Coun. Dalrymple stressed he was objecting to the path for approval not the density.

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Arnold to deny Agenda Bill 06155, Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Annexation Agreement for 4500 SW 91st Avenue ANX 2006-0002.

Mayor Drake noted that if this motion passed the first reading of the ordinance under Agenda Bill 06168 (Annexation of 4500 SW 91st Avenue) would need to be pulled.

Coun. Stanton said she would support the motion as she agreed with Coun. Dalrymple and the path was important.

Coun. Bode said she would support the motion as there were legal uncertainties on the Measure 37 Claim and she felt the County had to do its own work.

Coun. Doyle said he would support the motion because of the process issue and because of the attitude of "if I don't get what I want, I don't want to be part of the City."

Coun. Dalrymple said he wanted to be sure that the process was the same for everyone; he did not want to treat one property owner differently than another.

Coun. Bode thanked O'Guinn for the citizen participation on this issue. She noted that Council's decisions are based on the information presented by staff and the input received from citizens. She said the additional citizen information brought forth by this process affects the quality of the Council's decision.

Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)


06148 CPA 2006-0001 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Chapters 1 and 2 and the Glossary (Rescheduled from August 14, 2006 meeting)

Bergsma said the purpose of this work session was to review the proposed amendments to Chapters 1, 2 and the Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the objective of these amendments was to make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the City Code and other agencies' codes where applicable. He said since the last update in the mid 1990's, there have been changes in definitions, processes and issues that need to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the process used to develop and review the proposed amendments. He reviewed the proposed amendments in detail (in the record). He said the proposed amendments were reviewed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) and some of the CCI's recommended revisions were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan (in the record). He said at its March 15, 2006, public hearing, the Planning Commission concurred with the proposed amendments except the Commissioners wished to retain some of the deleted definitions (mobile home, pedestrian scale) and they wished to define adverse impact. He said staff concurred with those changes and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. He said the next step was the first reading of the ordinance, which is on the agenda for this meeting; the second reading would be September 18 and the ordinance would become effective 30 days after adoption.

Mayor Drake asked for comments from staff concerning San Soucie’s comments.

Senior Planner Barbara Fryer referred to page 86 of the staff report, Section 1.1.1 City-initiated Amendments, the phrase "and in such a manner as will be most beneficial to the citizens of Beaverton" was deleted. She said San Soucie's concern regarding removing that phrase was presented to the Planning Commission and they unanimously decided to support staff's initial recommendation to remove the phrase.

Coun. Arnold asked if removing the phrase was discussed by the Planning Commission, and what the ramification would be of either retaining or removing the phrase.

Fryer explained that San Soucie's concerns were presented to the Commission; the Commission did not discuss removing the phrase but approved staff's recommendation.

Bergsma said regarding the ramifications, staff felt that the phrase did not provide a lot of guidance and it could be interpreted in a variety of ways. He said staff concluded that it was no help in determining whether or not to make a modification because it was too broad.

Fryer said San Soucie's second concern was on page 95, Item 6, and it was repeated in each section on noticing requirements; the phrase "By such other notice as the Planning Commission or City Council may deem in the public interest" was deleted. She said in her ten years as a planner with the City, neither the Council or the Planning Commission have asked for an alternative process other than the ones that staff has provided. She said in some cases staff sought additional public involvement beyond that required in the Code; she said staff anticipated participating in additional citizen involvement if necessary. She said this does not preclude the Council or Planning Commission from giving staff additional direction in terms of citizen involvement. She said the phrase on Item 6 was replaced with a new requirement to place notices on the City's Web site because that is currently done as practice.

Coun. Arnold asked if a future Council asked for something different in terms of notification, would staff say it "it's not in the Code, so we can't do it."

Fryer explained that staff would follow Council direction regarding noticing and that would include any extra noticing requested.

Mayor Drake noted any new Council could change the Code as they desired.

Coun. Stanton asked for the remand section.

Bergsma referred to the top of page 109 in the staff report, the second sentence notes that the procedures for noticing a remand hearing are found in sections 1.4.1(D) and 1.4.2 (D). It was noted these sections were on pages 94 and 96.

Coun. Stanton said she needed to know the notice requirements on remands.

Bergsma said that 1.4.1(D) says that the same information has to be provided as in 1.4.1(A) and (B), and in addition the following information in subsections 1.4.1(D)1, 2, 3 and 4 has to be included. He said this section states that on a remand there has to be a re-notice and it specifies the information to be included in that re-notice. He said remand public hearing notices would be a mailed between 20 and 40 days in advance of the hearing.

Coun. Stanton referred to Diagrams 1-1 and 1-2 and asked why there was no Facilities Review in the Legislative or Quasi-Judicial processes.

Fryer said typically the Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be taken to the Facilities Review Committee. She said zone changes and development applications go to Facilities Review.

Coun. Stanton referred to page 4 and said she needed to know the difference between Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs) and Zoning Map amendments. She said she understood that Measure 56 required that CPAs be noticed city wide.

Fryer said that for CPAs, Measure 56 required that the affected property owners be noticed 20 to 40 days in advance of the initial hearing and there has to be a statement at the top of the notice that states "This may affect the value of your property."

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea explained that Zoning Map Amendments (ZMA) only deal with one property and only that property owner would get a Measure 56 notice. He said a CPA would involve a whole city, so everyone in the City would be noticed.

Fryer referred to page 27, where it was noted that the notice required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) shall be provided when applicable. She said it was written this way to avoid having to rewrite the Comprehensive Plan if the statute would change.

Coun. Stanton referred to page 86 and asked why the process for an accelerated amendment was being deleted.

Fryer explained that one of the amendments was to remove the quarterly review, so having an accelerated process was irrelevant under this new proposal. She said it would not make sense to have criteria for an accelerated process, since there is no accelerated process.

Coun. Stanton asked if there was criteria for the regular process somewhere else in the Comprehensive Plan.

Fryer said there were City-initiated amendments at the top of page 86, where amendment requests shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for preparation and analysis.

Coun. Stanton asked if there was any language regarding doing amendments to protect the public health, safety and welfare, or to comply with Federal regulations.

Bergsma said that the criteria that refers to the public health, safety and welfare on page 86 was stricken as it only applies to the accelerated review process. He said it never related to approval.

Coun. Arnold asked for clarification of a statement at the bottom of page 88, "Consequently, the decision is not a land use decision as defined by Oregon Revised Statutes.”

Bergsma said this related to annexation-related Comprehensive Plan amendments. He said this section says that the City has an Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County and in that agreement there is a table that lists the County zones and what City zone would be applied to that County zone. He said that table does not cover all changes in zoning from County to City designations because the zoning has changed a bit since that agreement was approved, so for some properties there may be some flexibility; however, for properties that are covered by the table, there is no choice. He said in those cases where there is no discretion, there is no land use decision as defined by State law.

Coun. Arnold noted that Wal-Mart was an instance where there was a difference in the zoning requirements. She said she would like to see this table to get a better understanding of the zones.

Bergsma said the table was toward the end of Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan.

Coun. Dalrymple asked in regard to issues similar to Wal-Mart, was the Code text structured sufficiently so that an issue like this could not happen again. He clarified his question by noting if a property was annexed, a zone designation is applied and then someone can then file an application based on a City zone. He asked if that was clarified in the Comprehensive Plan.

Bergsma said that was not yet clarified. He said after the City entered into the Urban Planning Area Agreement with the County in the late 1980's, the County and City adopted new zones. He said the crosswalk between the new zones is not shown in that table. He said when those properties are annexed, there is discretion as to which City zone applies.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if it was correct that once a property annexed it is not stated that the City has to apply a City zone on that parcel before a land use application can be heard.

Bergsma said that was correct. He said the City would respond to whatever zoning was in place at the time the application is submitted. He said if City zoning has not been applied, then the City follows County zoning.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if the City wished to maintain that process or should a hold be placed on a property until a City zone is applied.

Rappleyea said there is a statute that describes what happens in those situations. He said until a City zone is applied to a property, the County zone is applied. He said the City cannot refuse to accept an application. He said what the City can do is to be sure it processes all its annexations concurrently with the zone amendments. He said this draft language makes it a non-discretionary decision where the zone is clear and would speed up the process. He said the situation could more likely be avoided under this proposal, so it does help address the problem to some degree.

Bergsma said the real solution would be to update the Urban Planning Area Agreement and the table, so that all zone exchanges are clear.

Coun. Dalrymple asked when that could happen.

Bergsma said they have wanted to do that for a long time. He said they have been discussing updating Chapter 20 of the Development Code and that is where they will look at the multiple use zones and make them more comparable to the City's transit oriented zones. He said the current problem is that they are not at all comparable.

Community Development Director Joe Grillo said that Coun. Dalrymple made a good point in that there is no one single initiative that would resolve the question he asked. He said staff would like to go back and clarify these changes in the Comprehensive Plan and they would like to have discussions with the County regarding updating the Urban Planning Area Agreement. He said staff was in the process of trying to move forward on a variety of fronts to deal with these annexed properties. He said he could not say that the City would not get another application that comes in as the City moves through all of the initiatives involved in the process.

Bergsma said he submitted a memorandum to the Council addressing a few additional changes to Chapter 1. He said most of those changes were in response to a question from Coun. Arnold about renumbering the items in sections 1.4.1B, 1.4.2.B, and 1.4.3B so that all the items are arranged in the same order. He said attached to his memo were the Comprehensive Plan pages that show how the items in those sections were re-arranged to be in the same order. He said the memorandum also included a few minor text changes to Chapter 1. He said if the Council chose to go ahead with the first reading, the City Attorney would read those changes into the record.

Rappleyea said the other alternative was to delay the first reading and bring back the ordinance with all the changes incorporated at a future meeting.

Mayor Drake suggested that staff bring this back with a complete ordinance that shows all the changes. He said these were good changes, but they were significant and since they were last minute changes it would be better to return with a revised ordinance.

Coun. Arnold referred to page 97, Section 1.4.3.A1, that requires newspaper publication of a notice for Non-Discretionary Map Amendments. She asked why this had to be done when this was not a land-use decision.

Rappleyea said it is always better to give notice because people then know what is going on and it cuts off appeal rights. He said it was still a Plan amendment, but it was a non-discretionary amendment. He recommended keeping that text.

Coun. Arnold said that the City does not send notices to the Neighborhood Association Committees (NACs). She said several other agencies and the neighborhoods are given 30-days notice.

 Fryer said that was correct. She said in the proposed amendment there was a 45-day notice to the Department of Land Use and Conservation (DLUC), Metro, the Neighborhood Office, the Chair of the CCI.

Coun. Arnold said she would prefer to see the 45 day notice go to the NACs rather than the Neighborhood Office, to ensure the NACs have sufficient time to review and respond.

Mayor Drake noted that some NACs do not meet regularly, or do not meet during the summer. He said regardless of the number of days in the notice, it was still incumbent upon the citizens to make a difference. He asked staff to comment to Coun. Arnold's suggestion.

Bergsma said staff would need guidance from Council. He said currently they rely on the Neighborhood Office to distribute information about the CPA and legislative amendments, rather than going to the neighborhoods.

Coun. Arnold said that was valuable and it is the job of the Neighborhoods Office to distribute this information. She said if they were not responsive in distributing the information right away, that is a procedural and staffing issue in the Neighborhoods Office.

 Chief of Staff Linda Arnold said that was not the function of the Neighborhoods Office. She said their function was to include development information in the packet that has the minutes and the agenda. She said they do not give notice to the NACs of anything. She said they share information as soon as they can, but it is just an information piece that goes with the packets.

Mayor Drake said he agreed with Adlard and he suggested including the Chairs of the NACs and the CCI Chair in the process. He said the NAC Chairs would then need to get notice out to their members.

Coun. Bode asked if staff had a record of people who did not feel they were given adequate notice.

Bergsma said they did not have such a list. He said they were proposing to change the notification period for quasi-judicial amendments where a NAC might be affected from 30 to 20 days. He said only the affected NAC would be notified.

Mayor Drake said he would agree about noticing those who are most directly impacted. He said regardless of how much notice is given, there will always be someone who says they did not get the notice. He said this was a concerted effort to cut a step in the process and go directly to those who are most interested in land use.

Coun. Stanton added the notice would also be placed on the Web site.

Coun. Bode said she would support a 30-day notice.

Bergsma said that was the current requirement. He said the recommendation is to go to 20 days because that is the Development Code requirement. He said the Code has a 20 to 40 day noticing limit; 20 days is the minimum and that is what is most often used.

Coun. Dalrymple asked why not just have one time limit for both the Plan and Code.

Bergsma explained that Measure 56 is the source of the 20-to-40 day requirement. He said it was thought that if the notice went out too early in the process, people would forget about it.

Coun. Arnold commented she still felt a 45-day notice requirement should be used.

Bergsma explained the current requirement is for 30 days and that is inconsistent with the Development Code that uses 20 days. He asked if the Council wanted to be inconsistent with the Code.

Mayor Drake said consistency was needed. He said 20-to-40 days, also deals with staff workload and the last two years this has stretched staff a great deal.

Bergsma clarified that the 45-day notice that went to the Neighborhood Office and CCI Chair was the DLUC notice. He asked if the Council wanted them to send the DLUC notice to the NAC Chairs.

Mayor Drake said that the DLUC notice was not as critical because the information on that notice was limited. He said the critical notice was the one that comes once the application is received. He suggested that the staff continue to have limited distribution of the DLUC notice.

Coun. Dalrymple complimented all staff involved in this process. He said from the development side, eliminating the quarterly review was great and there were many people who would be happy to learn that the City was looking at how to expedite the processing of these applications. He thanked them for this action.

Coun. Arnold complimented staff for doing a great job. She said clearing up the definitions was awesome and the citizen involvement process was done exceptionally well. She said as Council Liaison to the CCI, she heard that the CCI felt they were very well heard.

Mayor Drake noted that under the motion for first reading, the City Attorney would not be reading the ordinance under Agenda Bill 06115. He said the ordinance would be returned to Council for first reading at a future meeting. He also noted that the ordinance under Agenda Bill 06168 would not be read as it was denied under the action taken on Agenda Bill 06155 earlier in the meeting.


Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Bode, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 06164, 06165, 06166 and 06167 be read for the first time by title only at this meeting, and for the second time by title only at the next regular meeting of the Council. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

First Reading:

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

06115 An Ordinance Amending Comprehensive Plan Chapters 1, 2, and the Glossary (Ordinance No. 4187) Related to CPA 2006-0001(Ordinance No. 4395) - To be brought back for first reading at future meeting.

06164 TA 2006-0005 Facilities Review Text Amendment (Ordinance No. 4404)

06165 TA 2006-0006 ( Lot Line Adjustment/Consolidation) (Ordinance No. 4405)

06166 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located in South Beaverton; CPA 2006-0004/ZMA 2006-0003 (Ordinance No. 4406)

06167 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Two Properties in Northwest Beaverton; CPA 2006-0010/ZMA 2006-0013 (17200 & 17225 NW Corridor Court) (Ordinance No. 4407)

06168 PULLED - An Ordinance Annexing a Parcel Located at 4500 SW 91 st Avenue to the City of Beaverton: Expedited Annexation 2006-0002 (Ordinance No. 4408) - Ordinance did not receive first reading; was not approved per discussion under Agenda Bill 06155.

Second Reading:

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

06149 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Two Properties in Northwest Beaverton; CPA 2006-0007/ZMA 2006-0010 (11845 and 11915 SW Walker Road) (Ordinance No. 4401)

06150 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Two Properties in Northeast Beaverton; CPA 2006-0008/ZMA 2006-0011 (Tax Lots 1S1 10 DA 01800 and 01802) (Ordinance No. 4402)

06151 An Ordinance Amending Section 6.02.390 of the Beaverton Code Relating to the Downtown Permit Parking District (Ordinance No. 4403)

Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 06149, 06150 and 06151, now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Sue Nelson, City Recorder




Approved this 2nd day of October, 2006.

Rob Drake, Mayor