CITY OF LaVonne Griffin-Valade, City Auditor 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Room 3100 PORTLAND, OREGON Portland, Oregon 97201 Telephone: (503) 823-7307 OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR Fax: (503) 823-4347
Hearings Office TDD: (503) 823-6868 www.portlandonline.com/auditor/hearings
DECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
File No.: LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017)
Applicant: Lewis And Clark College Carl Vance, Vice-President for Business & Finance/Treasurer 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd. Portland, OR 97219
Applicant’s Lee Leighton Representative: Westlake Consultants 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy., #150 Tigard OR 97224
Hearings Officer: Gregory J. Frank
Bureau of Development Services (BDS) Staff Representative: Sheila Frugoli
Site Address: Lewis & Clark College – 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd.
Legal Description: W 1/2 OF LOT 31, HUDDLESON HMS; E 180' OF LOT 31 LOT 32&33, HUDDLESON HMS; W 10' OF E 190' OF LOT 31, HUDDLESON HMS; TL 300 LOT 1-3, MAPLECREST; LOT 33, MAPLECREST; TL 100 LOT 59&60, PALATINE HILL; TL 4100 BLOCK 90&95, PALATINE HILL 3; TL 4000 BLOCK 90, PALATINE HILL 3; TL 4200 LOT 1-20 BLOCK 95, PALATINE HILL 3; INC PT VAC STS LOT 9&10 BLOCK 99, PALATINE HILL 3; LOT 1, PARTITION PLAT 1997-220; TL 1002 LOT 2, PARTITION PLAT 1997-220; BLOCK 19 TL 800 SPLIT LEVY R330624 (R991270260), RIVERSIDE & SUB; TL 1800 LOT 21&24, SOUTH RIDGE; TL 1900 LOT 24, SOUTH RIDGE; TL 200 0.16 ACRES, SECTION 26 1S 1E; TL 300 0.40 ACRES, SECTION 26 1S 1E; TL 100 0.10 ACRES, SECTION 26 1S 1E; CANCEL ACCOUNT INTO R64977- 8780 (R239944), SECTION 27 1S 1E; TL 100 85.50 ACRES SPLIT LEVY (R709301280, SECTION 27 1S 1E; TL 300 29.79 ACRES, SECTION 27 1S 1E; TL 4600 1.52 ACRES, SECTION 28 1S 1E; TL 4400 0.42 ACRES, SECTION 28 1S 1E; TL 4500 0.60 ACRES, SECTION 28 1S 1E Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 2
Tax Account No.: R406902150, R406902190, R406902196, R533700130, R533701350, R638803550, R639001270, R639001280, R639001800, R639002530, R649778770, R649778780, R709301280, R778801570, R778801790, R991260010, R991260220, R991260270, R991270080, R991270260, R991270590, R991280270, R991280530, R991280540
State ID No.: 1S1E28DD 00300, 1S1E28DD 00100, 1S1E28DD 00200, 1S1E28DA 00300, 1S1E28DA 04300, 1S1E34BA 00100, 1S1E34AB 04100, 1S1E34AB 04000, 1S1E34AB 04200, 1S1E27D 00200, 1S1E27CD 01001, 1S1E27CD 01002, 1S1E27D 00800, 1S1E27CB 01800, 1S1E27CB 01900, 1S1E26CB 00200, 1S1E26CB 00300, 1S1E26CB 00100, 1S1E27CD 00900, 1S1E27D 00100, 1S1E27 00300, 1S1E28DA 04600, 1S1E28DA 04400, 1S1E28DA 04500
Quarter Section: 3928,4028,4029,4030,4031, 4129, 4130
Neighborhood: Collins View
Business District: None
District Coalition: Southwest Neighborhoods
Plan District: None
Zoning: IR, Institutional Residential zone and R20, Single Dwelling Residential 20,000 zone, with c, Environmental Conservation; d, Design; p, Environmental Protection; and s, Scenic Overlay zoning
Land Use Review: Type III, CUMS, Conditional Use Master Plan Review
BDS Staff Recommendation to Hearings Officer:
Denial of the request to remove previous conditions so that lighting and public address systems can be installed at Huston Field.
Approval of a Conditional Use Master Plan amendment and update which incorporates proposed improvements subject to conditions.
Public Hearing: The hearing was opened at 9:00 a.m. on August 19, 2009 in the 3rd floor hearing room, 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Portland OR, and was closed at 1:08 p.m. The record was held open until 4:30 p.m. on September 16, 2009 for new evidence and until 4:30 p.m. on September 23, 2009 for applicant’s final argument. An Interim Order was issued by the Hearings Officer on September 17, 2009 extending the open record period for new evidence until 4:30 p.m. on Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 3
September 30, 2009 and until 4:30 p.m. on October 7, 2009 for applicant’s final argument. A Second Interim Order was issued by the Hearings Officer on October 1, 2009 further extending the open record period for new evidence until 4:30 p.m. on November 2, 2009 and until 4:30 p.m. on November 16, 2009 for the applicant’s final argument. The record was closed at that time.
Testified at the Hearing: Sheila Frugoli, BDS Staff Representative Ronda Fast, BDS Staff Representative Carl Vance, Vice President Business & Finance, Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland OR 97219 Sue Ann Higgens, Riverdale High School Principal, 9727 SW Terwilliger Blvd., Portland OR 97219 Clark Yeager, Director of Physical Ed., Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland OR 97219 Lee Leighton, Westlake Consultants, 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy., #150, Tigard OR 97224 Jane Atkinson, Interim President, Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland OR 97219 Holly Rudolph, 9050 SW Washington Sq. Rd.,#108, Tigard OR 97223 Megan Telleria, 1610 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Jim Bray, 1410 SW 23rd Ct., Gresham OR 97080 Tucker Laurence, 8316 SW 2nd Ave., Portland OR 97219 Meredith Pamp, Student Treasurer, c/o Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland OR 97219 Dave Johnston, Collins View Neighborhood Assn.,0550 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland OR 97219 Dixie Johnston, Collins View Neighborhood Assn.,0550 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland OR 97219 James Peale, 616 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Prakash Joshi - Collins View Neighborhood Assn. Transportation Chair, 648 SW Maplecrest Ct., Portland OR 97219 Gene Lynard, 0107 SW Brugger St., Portland OR 97219 Rayona Horkolic, 706 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Walter Lamberti, 10610 SW Terwilliger Pl., Portland OR 97219 Barry Joe Stull, PO Box 11008, Portland OR 97211 Thomas Jones, 0531 SW Riverside St., Portland OR 97219 Sam Dana, 1020 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 John DeLance, 1355 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 DeeAnn Troutman, 530 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Johnette Majury, 10409 SW 4th Ave., Portland OR 97219 James Vandomelen, 1000 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Pablo Izquierdo, 6219 N. Detroit Ave., Portland OR 97217 Astriea Bercs, 934 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Edward Dobson, 1272 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Samantha Walker, 743 SW Maplecrest Ct., Portland OR 97219 Andrea Danehower, 1321 SW Maplecrest Dr., Portland OR 97219 Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 4
Karen Bersack, Marshall Park Neighborhood Assn. Land Use Chair, 2025 SW Broadleaf Dr., Portland OR 97219 Don Blackburn, 10806 SW 4th Ave., Portland OR 97219 Michael Ford, Associate Vice President, Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland OR 97219
Proposal: Lewis and Clark College/Applicant (“College”) wishes to update its current Master Plan, which was reviewed and approved in 1998 and amended since that time. Specifically, the Master Plan was amended to include the addition and site planning of the South Campus and sports field lighting at Griswold Stadium. Many approved projects have not been implemented at this time, but remain relevant and planned for eventual completion. This Master Plan update, which will guide changes over the next ten years, includes previously approved projects as well as the following:
• Master Plan Boundary Expansion: Expand the existing master plan boundary on the west side of SW Boones Ferry Rd. (4.39 acres). • Law Student Housing, 168 unit project: Develop, within the 4.39 acres expansion site, housing for law and graduate students. • Performing Arts Building: Rather than construct new larger buildings as previously approved, expand existing Evans Music by 65,400 sq. ft and Fir Acres Theatre by 37,940 sq. ft. • Olin Science Addition and Science Building Expansion: Demolish existing Biology/Psychology and Bodine buildings to construct new 137,000 sq. ft. facility. • Campus Center: Demolish Akin Hall, replace with 96,000 sq. ft. campus center—a student activity center adjacent to SW Palatine Hill Rd. • Templeton Building: Renovate and expand for administrative functions, meeting rooms, classrooms, or undergraduate housing. • On-Campus Undergraduate Housing: The previous Master Plan approved proposal to replace existing residence halls with new larger buildings. The current proposal specifies the number and size of residential buildings. The new residential buildings will house 1,500 students, an increase of 250 beds from current inventory.
The College is also requesting changes to conditions of the approved Master Plan, as follows:
• Griswold Stadium: Amend previous conditions of approval to: (1) Impose limit of seven major public evening events per year only on events with anticipated or actual attendance of 1,000 or more (participants and spectators); Smaller evening events, including football games, would not be subject to that limit. (2) Remove requirement of routine sound monitoring for events held after 7:30 p.m. (3) Extend lighting restriction from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4) Extend game ending time from 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Sunday –Thursday, and 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. (5) Modify the event and lighting schedule consistent with Exhibit A.24.
• Huston Field: Install field lighting and public address (PA) system, similar to those at Griswold. Construct grandstands, dugouts, batting cage, scoreboard and accessory structures. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 5
The field will be used only for College-sponsored activities - baseball, softball, soccer and intramural sports as well as Riverdale High School games and practices. Adding lighting and a PA system requires the removal of previous conditions of approval.
• Conditions Q & T (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): Amend conditions Q (TDMP reporting requirements) and T (parking supply/ratio). Condition Q would be modified to allow Lewis and Clark to provide Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) reports on a three-year cycle. Condition T would be modified to distinguish between campus shared parking and the proposed law school residence parking.
• Condition A.7 (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): Modify the definition of “enrollment” to take into consideration overseas students and distance learning students.
• Conditions U, V, W (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): Delete conditions U, V, W related to stormwater.
The College is proposing, in all, an increase from approximately 1.24 million sq. ft. of building floor area to just over two million sq. ft. The new buildings and expansion are intended to better accommodate its students and academic programs. The College does not intend to increase its enrollment. With a current average enrollment of 3,400 students, the College anticipates fluctuations of no more than ten percent at any given time within a year; not to exceed 3,740 students.
Approval Criteria: A Conditional Use Master Plan proposal, including amendments to an existing Master Plan, will be approved if found to be in compliance with Portland City Code (“PCC”) Section 33.820.050, (Master Plan) Approval Criteria. In turn, these criteria require compliance with PCC Section 33.820.070, Components of a Master Plan, and PCC Section 33.815.105, Institutional and Other Uses in R Zones.
II. ANALYSIS
Site and Vicinity: The College campus currently encompasses approximately 140 acres in southwest Portland. The campus consists of three schools—the College of Arts and Science, Graduate School of Professional Studies and the Law School. The campus is organized into four areas - Fir Acres Campus, South Campus, the Law School Campus and the Huston Field area. The heart of the institution is the Fir Acres Campus where most of the College academic buildings, student center, undergraduate student housing, Pamplin Sports Complex and Griswold Stadium are located. The South Campus was added in 2001 when the College purchased the Franciscan Renewal Center and converted it to the Graduate School of Education and Counseling (approved through LUR 01-001136 CU MS and LUR 03-145203 CU MS AD). The Law School is located west of the Fir Acres Campus on the southwest side of SW Terwilliger Blvd. The fourth area is located further west near the intersection of SW Boones Ferry Rd. and SW Terwilliger Blvd. This area contains the Huston Field athletic facilities and five lots owned by the College that are Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 6
proposed for inclusion in the Master Plan boundary. Three of the lots are currently developed as single-dwelling residences, one is developed with a residential duplex, and one of the lots is vacant. Development of student housing and accessory parking is planned on these five lots.
The College also owns numerous other lots, as shown on the attached zoning map. The lots are outside of the Master Plan boundary and are shown as ‘also owned.’ The College indicated that it intends to maintain these additional properties in residential uses. Any changes of the use with these properties will require a Conditional Use review and Master Plan Amendment. Off-site, the College owns and operates a boat dock and storage facility on a riverfront site on the Willamette River, east of Willamette Drive (Highway 43).
Southwest Terwilliger Blvd. and Riverview Cemetery generally bound the College on the far north, SW 4th Ave. and Tryon Creek State Park define the western boundary. This area is comprised of mostly single-dwelling residential development and natural open space. On the east and south, the campus abuts the Dunthorpe residential area. The Dunthorpe area is developed primarily with low- density single-dwelling residences and is located outside of the City boundary, in unincorporated Multnomah County. It is a designated unincorporated county pocket which receives land use and building permit review services from the City of Portland. The Maplecrest area (adjacent to and generally to the south, west and north of the proposed boundary expansion area) is characterized by sloping topography, single-family residences and forested land.
The topography and the wooded areas define the character of the area within the current Master Plan boundary (the “Campus”). Most of the Campus is thickly wooded and of varied terrain. Major forested areas, the Riverview Cemetery property, which is located north of the South Campus and Tryon Creek State Park, which is south of the Law School, create natural barriers that insolate the campus from surrounding uses. These large open spaces as well as forested ravines and branches of Tryon Creek State Park are designated with Environmental Overlay zoning.
Zoning: Given the relatively large area of the Campus, the College lies within two base zones—IR, Institutional Residential and the R20, Single Dwelling Residential 20,000 zones. Approximately 95 percent of the campus lies within the IR zone. Multitudes of Overlay zones extend within the campus encompassing segments of the site. The Overlay zones include the ‘c’ and ‘p’ Environmental Conservation and Protection Overlay, the ‘s’ Scenic overlay and ‘d’, Design Overlay.
The Institutional Residential, IR zone is a multi-dwelling zone that provides for the establishment and growth of large institutional campuses as well as higher density residential development. The IR zone recognizes the valuable role of institutional uses in the community. However, these institutions are generally in residential areas where the level of public services is scaled to a less intense level of development. Institutional uses are often of a significantly different scale and character than the areas in which they are located. Intensity and density are regulated by the maximum number of dwelling units per acre and the maximum size of buildings permitted. Some commercial and light industrial uses are allowed, along with major event entertainment facilities and other uses associated with institutions. Residential development allowed includes all structure Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 7
types. Mixed use projects including both residential development and institutions are allowed as well as single use projects that are entirely residential or institutional. IR zones are located near one or more streets that are designated as District Collector streets, Transit Access Streets, or streets of higher classification. IR zone is always accompanied by the ‘d’ Design Review Overlay zone.
The Single Dwelling Residential 20,000, R20 zone is a low density single-dwelling zones. The single-dwelling zones are intended to preserve land for housing and to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zones implement the Comprehensive Plan policies and designations for single-dwelling housing.
Colleges are reviewed as Conditional Uses in the single-dwelling zones. Colleges may be reviewed either as an Impact Mitigation Plan or a Conditional Use in the IR zone. The College has elected to be reviewed through the Conditional Use Master Plan Review. The use/development [will be approved if found to meet all of the applicable approval criteria of PCC 33.820.050 and PCC 33.815.105, Institutional Uses in Residential zones.
The Design Overlay Zone (“d”) promotes the conservation, enhancement, and continued vitality of areas of the City with special scenic, architectural, or cultural value. This is achieved through the creation of design districts and applying the Design Overlay zone as part of community planning projects, development of design guidelines for each district, and by requiring design review or compliance with the Community Design Standards. In addition, design review or compliance with Community Design Standards ensures that certain types of infill development will be compatible with the neighborhood and enhance the area. This Overlay zone is applied with the IR zone. Specific design guidelines and/or standards may be implemented through an approved Conditional Use Master Plan.
The Scenic Resource Overlay Zone (“s”) is intended to protect Portland’s significant scenic resources as identified in the Scenic Resources Protection Plan, to enhance the appearance of Portland to make it a better place to live and work, to create attractive entrance ways to Portland and its districts, to improve Portland’s economic vitality by enhancing the City’s attractiveness to its citizens and to visitors, and to implement the scenic resource policies and objectives of Portland’s Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Zoning: Environmental zones protect environmental resources and functional values that have been identified by the City as providing benefits to the public. The environmental regulations encourage flexibility and innovation in site planning and provide for development that is carefully designed to be sensitive to the site’s protected resources. The environmental regulations also carry out Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives.
The Environmental Protection Overlay Zone provides the highest level of protection to the most important resources and functional values. These resources and functional values are identified and assigned value in the inventory and economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis for each specific study area. Development will be approved in the Environmental Protection Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 8
Overlay zone only in rare and unusual circumstances. This zone is designated with the letter "p" on the official zoning maps. The Environmental Conservation Overlay Zone conserves important resources and functional values in areas where the resources and functional values can be protected while allowing environmentally sensitive urban development. This zone is designated with the letter “c” on the official zoning maps. The site is located within the Southwest Hills Resource Protection Plan. There are three designated resource site: (1) Site Number 17 - Stephens Creek/Riverview Cemetery), (2) Site # 120 - Marshall Park/Capitol Hill and (3) Site #123 - Tryon Creek State Park.
Land Use History: City records indicate that the College has an extensive land use history. Lewis and Clark College was established at its current location in 1942.
The College included in the application a summary of all previous land use cases for the campus, which are identified as “Exhibit O” of the submitted application (Exhibit A.11). This section includes a discussion of previous conditions of approval applied through land use decisions.
The land use history of the College’s Master Plan includes Case File No. LUR 92-00053 MS, which granted approval to the original Master Plan in 1992. Prior to this Case File, there were a number of Conditional Use reviews [Case File Numbers PC 5009, PC 5244, PC 6070, PC 6651, PC 6679, PC 6825, PC 7406, V 23-67, CU 41-54, CU 61-67, CU 24-68, CU 96-68, CU102-68, CU 21-69, CU 6- 71, CU 66-71, CU 56-73, CU 28-75, CU 59-75, CU 64-75, CU 70-75, CU 85-75, CU 11-76, Cu 13- 76, CU 18-76, CU 40-76, CU 87-76, CU 55-77, CU 42-78, CU 77-78, GP 6-80, CU 67-80, CU 56- 90, CU 99-90], which approved various development projects on the campus including new buildings, parking lot additions, the construction of sports fields, and other similar proposals. All of the prior conditions of approval associated with these reviews are ‘sunset,’ and therefore, no longer apply, per PCC 33.700.110 A, because the reviews were processed prior to 1981.
The College has been the subject of several dozen relevant land use reviews since the adoption of the original Master Plan in 1992, as described below. Significant conditions of approval are cited with their respective cases.
LUR 92-00053 CU: A Conditional Use Master Plan was approved allowing construction of Academic Hall I and Academic Hall II, the Garden Houses and World House, the removal of Peebles and Bodine Halls, Appalachia II, the Biology/Psychology Building, and a faculty/office complex, and the construction of landscaping and pedestrian improvements. The Master Plan also approved construction of a 50-space visitor parking lot and the 880-space Pamplin parking structure, in conjunction with the removal of 150 spaces near the Manor House, and 170 spaces at Griswold Stadium. The City Council decision included conditions related to activities and development at the Huston Sports Complex. LUR 92-00873 CU: Conditional Use review addressing conditions of approval from LUR 92- 00053 CU. LUR 97-00074 CU MS EN AD: A Conditional Use Master Plan amendment was approved Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 9
revising conditions of approval from LUR 92-00053 CU and allowing construction of Academic Halls III, IV, and V, a Visitor Information Center, an amphitheater, student residence buildings and mixed-use facilities, and renovation/expansion of the greenhouse, Agnes Flanagan Chapel, the Gate House, and the Law School; in addition to projects previously approved by the 1992 Master Plan. The Amendment also approved temporary office and classroom space on both the main campus and Law School campus, and additional parking on the main campus and near the Huston Sports Complex. The approved Master Plan is effective through May 2008, unless superseded before that time. The Conditional Use Master Plan amendment included a restriction on hosting high school graduation events (Condition U, City Council Decision, affirmed by LUBA, 98-108).
LUR 00-00087 EN: Approval of an Environmental Review for construction of a stormwater system within the Environmental Protection, Conservation, and Scenic Resource Overlay zones on the Law School campus. LUR 01-00136 CUMS: Approval of an amendment to the Master Plan, expanding the boundaries to include the Franciscan Renewal Center property (called the South Campus). The decision included a condition requiring a bicycle/pedestrian path connecting the South Campus to the main campus. LUR 01-00439 AD: Denial of an Adjustment request to waive required upgrades to landscaping for nine existing parking lots. This review was denied because the application did not include any evidence to show that the purpose of the regulation would be met. Additionally, an analysis of the potential impacts of the adjustment were not provided. LU 02-156503 CU AD: A Conditional Use review allowing installation of lights at Griswold Stadium, with conditions limiting the time of activities and requiring implementation of a noise monitoring program. LU 03-145203 CUMS AD: Approval with conditions to allow development for College uses at the South Campus and an Adjustment to transit street setbacks for the Law School campus, the Main Campus and the South Campus. The decision included a condition of approval allowing a maximum of 181,000 sq. feet of building floor area, and a schedule for phasing street improvements in conjunction with development on the South Campus. LU 08-128068 AD: Approval, with conditions, of Adjustments to perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping requirements in three parking lots--Lower Pamplin, Fir Acres, and the Facilities Yard.
The College notes in the current application, in “Exhibit O” all of the conditions of approval that remain applicable to the site which were imposed via previous reviews. BDS staff reviewed and analyzed the conditions of approval and has brought all pertinent conditions forward as well as deleted those that have been met or have become moot over time. BDS, in its staff report to the Hearings Officer (Exhibit H.4) reference conditions that it felt remained relevant at this time.
Agency Review: A “Request for Response” was mailed May 21, 2009. After the applicant requested a revised hearing date, a second Request for Response was mailed on June 5, 2009. The following Bureaus responded to BDS staff with no issues or concerns:
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 10
• Fire Bureau (Exhibit E.5) • Bureau of Parks-Forestry Division (Exhibit E.9) • Life Safety Plans Examiner, BDS (Exhibit E.10)
The following agencies responded to BDS staff (see Exhibit H.4 for a summary of the agencies’ comments): • Water Bureau: (Exhibit E.4) • Police Bureau: (Exhibit E.6) • Bureau of Environmental Services (BES): (Exhibits E.1 and H.47) • Site Development Section of BDS: (Exhibits E.7, E.8 and H.48) • Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT): (Exhibits E.2, E.3, H.5,H.103 and H.104)
Neighborhood Review: A “Notice of a Public Hearing on a Proposal in Your Neighborhood” was mailed on July 29, 2009.
Hearing and Open Record Periods: A hearing was held on August 19, 2009. The record remained open after the hearing until 4:30 p.m. on September 16, 2009 for new evidence and until 4:30 p.m. on September 23, 2009 for applicant’s final argument. A request was received on September 16, 2009 from applicant’s attorney, Steven Abel, (Exhibit H.75) requesting an extension to the open record periods. The Hearings Officer issued an Interim Order mailed on September 17, 2009 extending the open record period for new evidence until 4:30 p.m. on September 30, 2009, and until 4:30 p.m. on October 7, 2009 for applicant’s final argument. Additional requests were received on September 30, 2009 from participants (Exhibits H.105, H.106, and H.107) to again extend the open record periods. The Hearings Officer issued a Second Interim Order mailed on October 1, 2009 further extending the open record period for new evidence until 4:30 p.m. on November 2, 2009, and until 4:30 p.m. on November 16, 2009 for the applicant’s final argument. The record was closed at that time.
This case generated extensive interest from persons and organizations. The Hearings Officer reviewed all oral testimony given at the public hearing and read and reviewed each and every written submission. Although the Hearings Officer references a limited number of persons who testified and documents submitted into the record, the Hearings Officer did consider all evidence in making this decision.
BDS staff summarized many of the comments made in objection to the proposal in this case in the BDS staff report (Exhibit H.4, pages 9 and 10). The Hearings Officer considered, in the findings below, those objections expressed by opponents related to relevant approval criteria.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 11
ZONING CODE APPROVAL CRITERIA
General Findings:
The Hearings Officer debated on a presentation format that would both meet the technical “approval criteria” needs and the “readability” of the document for those interested in the decision. The Hearings Officer decided that a hybrid decision format would best meet the stated goals of “approval criteria” and “readability.” To that end the Hearings Officer presents “General Findings” related to the various requests made by the applicant (i.e. law/graduate school housing request, boundary expansion request, Huston Field lighting/PA request, Griswold requests, etc.) The Hearings Officer also included, after the General Findings, abbreviated findings for each of the relevant approval criteria.
The General Findings are organized by the following headings: • Law/Graduate School Housing Request • Boundary Expansion Request • Huston Field Requests • Griswold Field Requests • Modify Parking Conditions (Q & T from LUR 97-00074 CU MS) • Modify Enrollment Condition (A.7 from LUR 97-00074 CU MS) • Delete Identified Stormwater Conditions (U., V., and W. from LUR 97-00074 CU MS)
Law/Grad School Housing Request
The College requests, to the best understanding of the Hearings Officer, a boundary expansion (discussed in the next General Findings section) to allow the construction of up to 160,000 square feet of residential housing (250 beds) for law/graduate school students. (Exhibit A.13 page 21 and Exhibit A.14 – note Exhibit A.13 page 21 references 240 bedrooms, and A.14 references 250 bedrooms). The law/graduate school housing is proposed to be constructed west of SW Boones Ferry Road on property now bisected by SW Maplecrest Drive.
A number of issues were raised by opponents related to the proposed law/graduate school housing. The Hearings Officer finds the most relevant issue, which created the most controversy in this case, relates to transportation impacts. The critical relevant approval criteria, therefore, is Portland City Code (“PCC”) 33.815.105 D.2. The remainder of this General Findings section related to the proposed law/graduate school housing relates to whether or not the applicant’s proposal meets/satisfies PCC 33.815.105 D.2.
Language virtually identical to that of PCC 33.815.105 D.2 was the subject of an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision arising from a City of Portland case. In Bauer v. City of Portland, 47 Or LUBA 459 (2004) LUBA held that the City of Portland must consider all of the enumerated factors (street capacity, level-of-service, etc.). Factors particularly relevant to opponents in this case included, but were not limited to, access to SW Terwilliger Blvd., Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 12
neighborhood impacts, impacts on pedestrians and bicycles and safety for all modes. The College, in this case, argued that no single factor is determinative when deciding if PCC 33.815.105 D.2 is met/satisfied. (Exhibit H.118, page 2 of legal counsel letter). The Hearings Officer disagrees with this argument made by College. The Hearings Officer finds that if, for example, the evidence in the record indicates that a proposal is not safe, for all modes, then PCC 33.815.105 D.2 is not met. It would be nonsensical to find PCC 33.815.105 D.2 satisfied if an application was approved with a transportation system that was not “safe.” The Hearings Officer will proceed with the analysis utilizing the approach that it is possible to find PCC 33.815.105 D.2 not met if a single evaluation factor results in the transportation system not being able to support the proposal.
The College provided a number of professionally prepared reports related to traffic impacts if the boundary expansion and law/graduate school housing proposals were approved. (See, for example, Exhibits H.92, H.95 and H.121). Opponents, although without the submission of a professionally prepared traffic study/report, raised issues with the accuracy and/or correctness of College’s assumptions, calculations and conclusions.
The Hearings Officer finds that the focus of the traffic-related opposition relates to the College traffic studies/reports. The Hearings Officer finds the College traffic studies/reports formed the basis of the City of Portland’s recommendation of approval for the College boundary expansion and law/graduate school housing requests.
The Hearings Officer notes that in a typical land use case professionally prepared studies/reports are seldom challenged. The Hearings Officer also notes that in the few cases where professionally prepared studies/reports are challenged they are done so by opponents making unsupported arguments; often times by opponents expressing opinions and relating isolated occurrences of problems. In this case, despite opponents of the boundary expansion and law/graduate school housing proposals not having employed their own professional traffic engineering firm, they did raise issues that the Hearings Officer felt must be considered. The Hearings Officer, therefore, did take a close look at the College traffic studies/reports, including the underlying assumptions, to determine if the studies/reports represented credible evidence of the type that could be relied upon to find PCC 33.815.105 D.2 was satisfied.
The Hearings Officer relied upon the September 25, 2009 (Exhibit H.95), September 30, 2009 (Exhibit H.118) and October 15, 2009 (Exhibit H.121) reports to set forth the College traffic analysis. The Hearings Officer considered a large number of comments from opponents regarding traffic matters, including oral testimony at the hearing and written evidence submitted into the record, but, for the purpose of this finding relied most heavily upon Exhibits H.96, H.128, H.131, and H.135.
Arguments made by opponents, related to the College traffic studies/reports, can generally be summarized as follows: • Traffic counts taken by the College’s professional traffic experts were conducted on days not reflective of typical heavy usage; and Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 13
• Trip generation from law/graduate school students residing at the proposed law/graduate school housing are not adequately supported by credible evidence; and • Traffic generated by “law school interns” is not adequately supported by credible evidence; and • Law/graduate school student “family” traffic is not adequately supported by credible evidence; and • Maplecrest and other local street “cut through” analysis performed by the College’s professional traffic experts is flawed; and • Safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic was not given adequate consideration by the College’s professional traffic experts; and • Proposed realignment of Maplecrest will increase safety risks associated with entry to SW Terwilliger from Maplecrest contrary to the College’s professional traffic experts opinion.
These assertions by opponents, in this case, must be considered because they affect the underlying credibility of the conclusions drawn in the College traffic studies/reports. As stated above, normally the Hearings Officer would simply accept the traffic studies/reports because they were prepared by professional traffic personnel. In this case, simply accepting the reports is not an appropriate option.
Traffic Counts.
College’s traffic experts stated that “traffic counts were conducted during the a.m. and p.m. peak period at the Terwilliger/Maplecrest intersection on Thursday, August 20, 2009 and at the Terwilliger/Boones Ferry and Terwilliger/Taylors Ferry intersections on Tuesday, September 1, 2009. The volumes at the Maplecrest intersection were adjusted to match the volumes at the Taylors Ferry and Boones Ferry intersections, thereby reflecting September conditions for all intersections. The peak hour on Terwilliger Boulevard in this section occurs at 7:55-8:55 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Lewis & Clark College and Riverdale High School were both at full operation at this time.” (Exhibit H.118, page 3 of traffic study/report)
An opponent stated that “it should be abundantly clear that neither one of those dates falls during a typical heavy-use period, i.e., when both LC and Riverdale High School are holding a full schedule of classes and work traffic through this area from outlying districts has fully resumed after taking a summer hiatus.” (Exhibit H.128)
The Hearings Officer takes official notice that September 1, 2009 represented the first day of school for Riverdale High School. The Hearings Officer also takes note that Lewis and Clark Law School started class on August 24, 2009, undergraduates started class on August 31, 2009, and graduate students started class on September 8, 2009. The Hearings Officer finds that Riverdale was in “full Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 14
operation” (per Exhibit H.118) on September 1, 2009, but not on August 20, 2009. 1 The Hearings Officer finds that the College was not in “full operation” on either September 1, 2009 or August 20, 2009; the Hearings Officer acknowledges that all but the “grad” program at the College were in operation on September 1, 2009, but no classes had begun on August 20, 2009.
The Hearings Officer finds that the College’s traffic experts, per Exhibit H.118, did “adjust” the August 20, 2009 traffic counts at the SW Maplecrest Dr. intersection to reflect the September 1, 2009 traffic conditions. However, the Hearings Officer finds no evidence in the record to document the methodology of this “adjustment” process. The Hearings Officer finds no logical explanation in the record by the College’s traffic experts as to why the August 20, 2009 date was selected (neither the College nor Riverdale were in full operation).
As noted above, the traffic counts for the relevant intersections are paramount to arriving at a conclusion as to whether the transportation system is capable of supporting the proposed use; particularly the law/graduate school housing. The Hearings Officer concurs with the opponents that the traffic count process used by the College’s experts raises some concern about the credibility of the results and conclusions drawn from the estimated traffic counts.
Trip Generation from Law School Housing.
It appeared to the Hearings Officer that the College’s traffic experts, in arriving at estimates of trip generation for the law/graduate school housing, relied heavily upon a survey (“Law School Survey” – See Exhibit H.92c.) conducted by the Northwestern School of Law (“Law School”). A representative of the Collins View Neighborhood Association (“CVNA”) questioned the underlying validity of the Law School Survey as only summary charts were made part of the public record. The Hearings Officer has no way to assess if the Law School Survey generated conclusions based upon fundamentally sound evidence. (Exhibit H.96). Considering the importance of the Law School Survey to the expert’s conclusions of traffic to be generated by the law/graduate school housing project it seems appropriate that interested persons should have access, in the public record, to critically examine the Law School Survey methodology and data.
As important as the traffic count methodology is to establishing existing traffic conditions (as discussed above) the validity of the Law School Survey is equally important and necessary to making an estimate of trip generation from the law/graduate school housing project. The Hearings Officer concurs with the opponents that the lack of Law School Survey methodology and data in the record of this case raises some concern about the credibility of the results and conclusions related to law/graduate school housing trip generation.
Opponents also challenged the College’s traffic experts opinion that there will be a net reduction in traffic if the law/graduate school housing is approved. (Exhibit H.128). The College’s experts state “For the 240 law school students that would reside in the proposed student housing, an estimated 100 vehicular trips would be eliminated from the arterial system.” The College’s traffic experts
1 source: official websites for Riverdale School District and Lewis and Clark College Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 15
arrived at the 100 trip reduction as follows: “240 students x 55% by car x 75% traveling during peak hour – 100 peak hour vehicle trips.” (Exhibit H.118, page 6 of September 30, 2009 report).
The Hearings Officer finds the traffic expert’s methodology, or the application of evidence to the methodology, to be suspect. The Hearings Officer notes that in the same traffic report (Exhibit H.118, page 1 of September 30, 2009 report) that “Lewis Clark plans to construct 168 residential units for law school students” including “96 one-bedroom and 72 two-bedroom units providing accommodations for a total 240 residents.” Later in the traffic expert’s report, based upon the Law School Housing Survey, it states “Given that there are 240 beds, this amounts to 86 significant others.” (Exhibit H.118, page 9 of September 30, 2009 report). See Exhibit A.14 which states there will be 250 beds.
At a minimum, 70 employed significant others (Exhibit H.118, page 9 of the September 30, 2009 report) should not be included in the formula used by the traffic expert to estimate the number of trips eliminated. Using the traffic expert’s formula the trips eliminated would, using 70 less persons (not students), be as follows: 170 students x 55% by car x 75% traveling during peak hour = 70 peak hour vehicle trips eliminated. The Hearings Officer is not professing to be a traffic engineer or expert. Using the traffic expert’s own formula, but correcting the traffic expert’s mistaken number of students the end result is approximately 30% different. Such discrepancy leads the Hearings Officer to find that the trip elimination estimate by the College’s traffic engineer suffers from credibility problems.
Finally, a review of the Hearings Officer notes that the “Law School Housing Lease” (“Form Lease”) included as an exhibit (Exhibit H.92, tab 6) contains language which could throw additional doubt on the credibility of the College traffic estimates. First, in Article 1 of the Form Lease the student lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Premises will be leased to up to 5 persons each of who shall be joint and severally obligated for the maintenance of the Premises and its return to the College at the end of this lease term…” BDS staff recommended approval of the proposed boundary expansion and law/graduate school housing project as identified on Exhibit A.14. Exhibit A.14 indicates the law/graduate school housing to be 160,000 square feet, and 250 beds. The Form Lease and Exhibit A.14 are not in sync. Further, the proposed BDS approval is for 250 beds and the College’s traffic experts used 240 residents. The Form Lease, Exhibit A.14 and BDS approval language is simply not consistent.
The Form Lease does not appear, to the Hearings Officer to limit residents of the law/graduate school housing to “full-time day students.” The Hearings Officer takes notice that Northwestern School of Law has a “full-time day program” and a “part-time evening program.” The Hearings Officer could find no allocation of law/graduate school housing units between “full-time day program” and “part-time evening program” students. Depending on such allocation between “day” and “evening” students the generation of weekday peak trip generation could be significantly altered. Again, these inconsistencies translate into a potential lack of credibility in the traffic expert’s conclusions related to traffic generation estimates for the law/graduate school housing.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 16
Traffic generated by “law school interns”.
Opponents questioned the trip generation estimates made by the College’s traffic experts for “law school interns.” (Exhibits H.96, H.128 and H.131). The College’s traffic experts state that “Many of the vehicular trips that are made by law school housing residents during the peak hours would be related to students with off-campus internships” (Exhibit H.118, page 8 of September 30, 2009 report). The Hearings Officer notes that the College’s traffic experts discussed “law interns”, but did not discuss graduate student’s internships. In fact, the Hearings Officer could find no reference to traffic generation by graduate students at all.
The College’s traffic experts state that “Many interns, a maximum of 75%, work on Fridays all day. (Classes are not held on Fridays at the law school).” The Hearings Officer finds this last statement “classes are not held on Fridays at the law school” not to be true. The Hearings Officer takes notice that the Northwestern School of Law fall calendar lists close to 20 separate classes are held on Fridays. 2 The Hearings Officer finds that the traffic expert’s statement that the “majority of internship activity occurs on Friday” may not be credible.
Although the Hearings Officer is not certain, the Hearings Officer believes the 20-hour work limitation noted by the College’s traffic experts (Exhibit H.118, page 8 of September 30, 2009 report) only applies to “full-time” students. If that is the case, the Hearings Officer would expect the College’s traffic experts to incorporate the “part-time” students work trips into its traffic generation estimates.
Law school student “family” traffic.
The Hearings Officer first problem with the numbers used by the College’s traffic expert used 240 beds in its calculations of family trips when Exhibit A.14 (document prepared by the College) states the law/graduate school housing project will have 250 beds. The Hearings Officer could find no written request by the College to modify its requests, per Exhibit A.14, to reflect only 240 beds. As such, it is possible that using 250 beds would have resulted in different law/graduate school “family” traffic estimates.
The Hearings Officer finds the College’s assumptions (Exhibit H.118, page 9 of September 30, 2009 report) are many and not well supported. The College’s traffic expert makes the following assumptions on just page 9 of the report: • students with children will not choose to live in the student housing; and • 80% of the “significant others” will have jobs; and • 75% of the estimated “significant others” are assumed to travel to work during peak hours; and • 55% of employed “significant others” drive to work; and • 70% of employed “significant others” work in downtown Portland; and
2 Source: Official website for Northwestern School of Law Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 17
• 75% of employed “significant others” will travel to work via non-auto modes (primarily transit); and • 70% of employed “significant others” would travel to work using Terwilliger/Taylors Ferry intersection; and • 25% of employed “significant others” would travel to work towards Lake Oswego; and • 5% of employed “significant others” would travel to work on the eastside of Portland.
The Hearings Officer finds that the list of assumptions above, for the most part without supporting evidence and or documentation, renders the final conclusion that there will be 13 weekday peak trips generated by family members of law/graduate school students is not credible.
“Cut through” traffic analysis.
The College’s traffic experts conducted a supplemental study related to the issue of “cut-through” traffic on SW Maplecrest Dr. in the event the law/graduate school housing proposal is approved. (Exhibit H.121). Southwest Maplecrest Dr. residents, and neighborhood organizations, took issue with the College’s “cut through” traffic analysis (See, Exhibits H.96, H.98, H.112c and H.128 for representative comments regarding the College’s “cut-through” analysis).
The College’s traffic experts compared a “neighborhood” (“cut-through”) route to an “arterial” (“Terwilliger”) route to access Interstate 5 (I-5) (Exhibit H.121a). The College’s traffic experts show the “cut-through” route and “arterial” route on a diagram included in Exhibit H.121.a. (Figure A). The College’s traffic experts compared the “cut-through” route and “arterial” route during peak hours for travel times and distances. The route comparison study was conducted in response to a CVNA letter.
The Hearings Officer finds that the College’s traffic experts submission of its memorandum (Exhibit H.121) utilized, for the dates represented (10/6/09 and 10/7/09 during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods) a methodology that is clear and credible. Opponents take issue with the data produced by the College’s traffic expert “travel time runs.” One opponent stated that “we in the neighborhood have measured actual times of 15 to 16 minutes during heavy congestion for that same direct route.” (Exhibit H.128). Another opponent stated that the comparison made by the College’s traffic expert may not even be relevant as some of the “cut-through” traffic is for the purpose of driving to locations other than I-5 and Spring Garden Street. (Exhibit H.96).
Typically, the Hearings Officer would rely most heavily upon a professional traffic engineering firm’s analysis as compared to primarily anecdotal evidence provided by neighbors and neighborhood organizations. However, in this case the Hearings Officer takes note of Exhibit H.135; a notebook and DVD submitted by an opponent. Although not conducted by a professional traffic engineer the submission of Exhibit H.135 does provide a strong indication that the morning peak travel time from SW Maplecrest Dr. to I.5, via the “arterial” route would take more than the time estimated made by the College’s traffic expert; 4 minutes, 35 seconds (4:35). Viewing the Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 18
DVD (Exhibit H.135) suggests that entering onto SW Terwilliger Blvd., during the morning peak hour, is based upon the courtesy of traffic on SW Terwilliger Blvd. and good fortune. Viewing the DVD and reviewing the narrative/pictures in Exhibit H.135 leads the Hearings Officer to find that it is unlikely that a person leaving SW Maplecrest Dr., accessing SW Terwilliger Blvd., and negotiating the SW Taylors Ferry Rd. intersection could access I.5 in 4:35 (average time estimate of College’s traffic expert) during the height of the morning peak. The Hearings Officer, based upon a review of H.121 and H.135/H.128, believes that a reasonable I.5 access time, during the morning peak traffic hour, from SW Maplecrest Dr. is somewhere between the College’s 4:35 estimate and the neighborhood’s 15 to 16 minute estimate. If the Hearings Officer splits the difference between 4:35 (College estimate) and 15 minutes (lower end of neighborhood estimate), the resulting travel time is approximately 9 minutes and 45 seconds. Nine minutes (+) “cut-through” travel time changes the perspective of a law/graduate school student resident making a decision whether to take the neighborhood “cut-through” route or the “arterial” route. The Hearings Officer simply lacks confidence in the College’s traffic expert analysis as set forth in its “cut-through” memorandum (Exhibit H.121).
Proposed realignment of SW Maplecrest Dr. - safety risks.
The College’s traffic experts state that the “traffic to and from Maplecrest Drive will increase.” (Exhibit H.118, page 12 of September 30, 2009 report). The College’s traffic experts, in Exhibit H.118, state that the vehicular operations at the Terwilliger/Maplecrest intersection are “most affected by the law school housing traffic.” (Exhibit H.118, page 12 of September 30, 2009 report). The College’s traffic experts state that the “proposed improvements to Maplecrest Drive will have a two-fold affect in improving traffic operations from this approach: 1) Realigning the intersection 165 {corrected to 155 feet} feet northward will result in outbound Maplecrest motorists being blocked by southbound Terwilliger queues (spilling back from the Boones Ferry signal) 80-90 percent less frequently, and 2) wider approach on Maplecrest will facilitate right turning motorists to proceed without being blocked by left turners.” (See Exhibit H.118, Figure 7 of September 30, 2009 report).
Opponents do not seem, to the Hearings Officer, to be contesting the queuing benefits of relocating SW Maplecrest Dr. Opponents do seem, to the Hearings Officer, to be concerned with sight lines and safety issues related to the realignment of SW Maplecrest Dr. (Exhibits H.128 and H.135). The College’s traffic experts discuss sight distances in Exhibit H.118, page 17 of the September 30, 2009 report.
Opponents provided no evidence of sight line distances at the proposed location of realigned SW Maplecrest Dr. The College’s traffic expert provided a methodology and data to support its sight line distance estimates. Opponents raised the issue of the slope of the realigned SW Maplecrest Dr. access point to SW Terwilliger Blvd.; indicating that the realigned SW Maplecrest Dr. would be on a slope. Opponents stated that the slope of SW Terwilliger Blvd. at the new SW Maplecrest Dr. intersection, in conjunction with the slope of SW Maplecrest Dr. at the intersection, would exacerbate sight line problems. The College’s traffic expert stated that the “Maplecrest approach to Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 19
Terwilliger should be constructed to provide a level landing.” (Exhibit H.118, page 19 of September 30, 2009 report).
The Hearings Officer finds, in this instance, that the College’s traffic expert provided a supportable methodology and objective data to support the conclusion that the sight line for the proposed realignment of SW Maplecrest Dr. meets accepted traffic standards. The Hearings Officer makes this finding based upon a condition of approval that the realigned SW Maplecrest Dr. be constructed with a level landing area at the intersection.
Safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Opponents raised the issue of safety for pedestrians and other non-motorized traffic if the law/graduate school housing proposal were approved. (Exhibit H.135). The proposed realignment of SW Maplecrest Dr. would result in widening of SW Maplecrest Dr. to include sidewalk corridors on both sides of the street. The Hearings Officer finds that widening of SW Maplecrest Dr., along the property owned by the College, would benefit pedestrian and bicycle traffic in that limited area.
BDS staff, in proposed Condition F.3 (Exhibit H.4, page 43), addresses pedestrian safety by requiring “improvements to the existing pedestrian island at the intersection of SW Boones Ferry and Terwilliger Boulevard. The details of the island improvements can be addressed at the (infrastructure-wide) pre-design meeting that will be triggered by this right of this right-of-way improvement.”
A review of the DVD in Exhibit H.135 makes it clear that the pedestrian crossings at SW Boones Ferry Rd. and Terwilliger Blvd. are problematic. Pedestrians walking to/from the student housing and the Law School will increase the use of pedestrian facilities significantly. (See College’s discussion in Exhibit H.118, page 6 of September 30, 2009 report).
The Hearings Officer finds that the College did not provide a comprehensive analysis of pedestrian safety. Considering the effort the College made to demonstrate the reduction of vehicle trips, which translates into a corresponding increase in pedestrian trips, the Hearings Officer finds the College failed to adequately address the safety of the pedestrian evaluation factor. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that there is no description, in the BDS proposed condition (Exhibit H.4, page 43, Condition F.3) of the “improvements to the pedestrian island” and how those improvements will translate into pedestrian safety.
Summary of Hearings Officer findings related to PCC 33.815.105 D.2 – Proposed Law School Housing
To find that this approval criterion is satisfied/met the Hearings Officer must find, at a minimum, that each of the evaluation factors listed in PCC 33.815.105 D.2 are considered. The Hearings Officer finds that each of the evaluation factors was “considered” but, as will be discussed below, the consideration resulted in the Hearings Officer determining that the transportation system is not Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 20
capable (considering the evidence in the record) of supporting the proposal in addition to existing uses.
The Hearings Officer finds that the underlying traffic analysis used by the College’s traffic experts lacks sufficient credibility to allow the Hearings Officer to assess the traffic impacts created in the event the law/graduate school housing is approved. The Hearings Officer found reason to question the basic traffic count estimates, trip generation estimates from the proposed law/graduate school housing, traffic generation estimates by “law school interns”, and the law/graduate school “family traffic” estimates. The Hearings Officer is not saying that the information is “wrong.” However, the Hearings Officer is saying that unexplained methodologies (i.e. adjustment of a non-school session day traffic counts, August 20th, to reflect a school session day, September 1st, traffic conditions), mistakes (i.e. using 240 “students” to calculate reduction in vehicle trips, representing the Law School was not in session on Fridays), and lack of consistency of information (i.e. using 240 Law School housing beds when application, Exhibit H.14, references 250 beds) render the College’s traffic expert’s data and conclusions unreliable.
The Hearings Officer finds that the “cut-through” analysis conducted by the College’s traffic engineers simply is not satisfactory in light of evidence provided by opponents (primarily Exhibit H.135). Finally, the Hearings Officer finds the College did not adequately address pedestrian safety.
Summary of Hearings Officer findings related to the College proposal in addition to law/graduate school student housing.
The Hearings Officer finds that the College, PBOT and BDS staff conclusion that all College proposals, other than the law/graduate school housing proposal, meet PCC 33.815.105 D.2 is supported by evidence in the record. The Hearings Officer adopts the findings (as they are related to the College proposals other than law/graduate school student housing) as set forth in Exhibit H.4, pages 28 – 35 modified, where there are inconsistencies, by Exhibit H.104 pages 4 – 10.
Boundary Expansion
The College proposes to expand the boundary of the current Master Plan to include land (4.39 acres) west of SW Boones Ferry Rd. for a the purpose of constructing/operating law/graduate school student housing (structured parking originally included in the proposal is no longer included in the College’s request – Exhibit 137, page 10). The proposed use of the boundary expansion parcel is residential in both appearance and function. The Hearings Officer finds that there will be no increase in the proportion of non-household uses. (PCC 33.815.105 A.). The Hearings Officer agrees with BDS staff (Exhibit H.4, page 26) and the College (Exhibit H.137, pages 8 and 9), that the Terwilliger scenic corridor will not be negatively impacted; it will preserve the City-designated scenic resource. (PCC 33.815.105 A.). The Hearings Officer, based upon a review of Exhibit H.92j (Neighborhood Map and Photographic Survey) finds that existing residential uses, if the law/graduate school housing were constructed, would be adequately buffered. (PCC 33.815.105 B.). Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 21
A number of opponents to the boundary expansion indicated that the proposed law/graduate student housing would create noise, late-night operations, litter, privacy and safety issues. The Hearings Officer finds that there is no credible substantive evidence, in the record of this case, to support a finding that the boundary expansion would increase noise, late-night operations, litter or impact the privacy/safety of the neighborhood.
The Hearings Officer, in a detailed discussion, addressed the proposed law/graduate school housing and PCC 33.815.105 D.2 (transportation). In those findings, the Hearings Officer found that the underlying methodology and/or data supplied by the College was not sufficiently credible to find that PCC 33.815.105 D.2 was satisfied. The Hearings Officer adopts those findings as part of the findings for this boundary expansion request. As such, the Hearings Officer finds that the request for the boundary expansion, which is inextricably tied together with the law/graduate school housing, fails to satisfy PCC 33.815.105 D.2 and PCC 33.820.050 B.
Huston Field
Huston Fields is subject to a number of current Master Plan conditions. Condition Y states that the “use of a public address system at Huston Fields is prohibited.” Condition Z states “use of lighting of Huston Fields is prohibited. Lighting of the Huston parking lot and pedestrian paths between the parking lot and Law School must be extinguished at 12:15 a.m. Gates to the parking lot will be open only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:15 a.m.” Condition CC states that “only Lewis and Clark College sponsored sports activities will be allowed on the Huston Fields. Only Lewis and Clark College-sponsored players will be allowed to use the batting practices cages.” Additional conditions have been imposed related to Huston Fields construction and parking activities.
Opponents raised a number of concerns related to the College proposal to add lights and a PA system at Huston Field. (See, for example, Exhibits H.89a, H.91, H.100, H.107, H.111 and H.120) The concerns ranged from additional traffic generated on SW 4th and SW Boones Ferry Rd., additional parking on SW 4th, impacts of the lights and noise on wildlife in Tryon Creek State Park and impacts of the lights and noise on nearby residences.
BDS staff, in its report to the Hearings Officer, stated that the proposal to add lights and a PA system at Huston Field would “increase intensity of the College use” and anticipated “more college athletes, intra-mural student athletes, spectators at the site” and that “similar concerns were raised in 1992. (Exhibit H.4, page 25). BDS staff concluded that “the proposal does not set adequate parameters to controlling its intensity.” (Exhibit H.4, page 25).
The College, in its “final argument,” stated that “although Staff determined that it could not make a finding of compliance with sub-criterion (A)(2) based on the evidence in the record when the Staff Report was prepared, the College has since agreed to very specific programmatic limits.” The College submitted a “Summary of Light and Sound Usage at Huston Field” as its response to BDS staff concerns that the College had failed to set forth “specific programmatic limits.” (Exhibit H.92k). The Hearings Officer reviewed Exhibit H.92.k in the context of the PCC 33.815.105 approval criterion. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 22
Exhibit H.92.k is a chart that sets forth the days of week and general times that the light and PA systems would be used. A simplified summary, by the Hearings Officer, of Exhibit H.92k. follows: Lights: • Will not be used during the months of January, May, June, July, August, September, November and December (total of eight months) • February – weekdays 4:30-8 p.m. • March – weekdays 5:30-8 p.m. and two weekends/month 5:30-8 p.m. • April – weekdays 6-8 p.m. excepting one weekday/week 5-9 p.m. and all weekends 6-8 p.m. • October – Monday – Thursday 6-8 p.m. PA (sound) System: • Will not be used during the months of January, September, October, November, and December (total of five months) • February and March – no weekdays but two weekends/month noon-8 p.m. • April – “typically no weekday sound” except one weekday/week 5-9 p.m. and weekends noon-8 p.m. • May, June, July and August – two days/week “daytime only”
Exhibit H.92k. also included a “complaint” process which would be communicated to nearby residences with consequences of receipt of a noise complaint by the College, being that noise monitoring would be required for the next event of the type to ensure that sound levels are within required parameters.
The Hearings Officer finds that, with respect to the issues related to the adjacent residential uses, PCC 33.815.105 A, B, C, D. and E apply. The Hearings Officer finds that issues related to Tryon Creek State Park only PCC 33.815.105 E. applies. The Hearings Officer notes that PCC 33.815.105 looks to impacts upon adjacent/surrounding residential areas and not to land designated Open Space (OS). PCC 33.815.105 E requires consideration of “Area Plans” and, in this case, the Southwest Community Plan includes references to Tryon Creek State Park.
Impacts on the appearance and function of the surrounding residential area.
The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed use (lighting and PA system at Huston Field) will increase the intensity and scale of activity at Huston Field. The consequences of the increased intensity are more noise and artificial light in the residential area and potentially additional traffic/parking on SW 4th.
The issue presented to the Hearings Officer is whether or not, the College’s proposed use of the lights and PA system, as set forth in Exhibit H.9k, will “significantly conflict with the appearance and function of the residential area” and have “significant adverse impacts on the livability of nearby residential zoned lands” (primarily a PCC 33.815.105 C.1 and C.2 analysis). “Significant” is defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, as “having meaning” and “having or likely to have influence or effect.” The Hearings Officer, for the purpose of this analysis, will use the Webster’s definitions. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 23
The Hearings Officer finds, per Exhibit H.92k that there will be no impact on the surrounding residential area, from either noise or artificial lighting emanating from Huston Field, during the months of January, September, November and December. The Hearings Officer finds the greatest impact from noise and lighting at Huston Field will be during the months of February, March and April (both lights and PA system will be used). Other months will have either the lights operating or the PA system operating, but not both.
The Hearings Officer finds that, this analysis cannot be conducted without considering the entire operation of Huston Field. The Hearings Officer must find that the operation, holistically, of Huston Field does not have significant adverse impacts on the livability of nearby residential zoned lands. The Hearings Officer finds Huston Fields to impact the livability of the neighborhood by vehicle parking, athletic activities that take place on the sports fields, and if approved sports field lighting and a PA system for the sports fields. The vehicle parking and athletic activities were approved, in the past, and therefore found not by themselves considered to create a significant adverse impact on the livability of the nearby residentially zoned land.
This analysis boils down to whether or not the Hearings Officer believes that the proposed lights and sound system at Huston Field, during the months of February, March, April, May, June, July and October, along with other currently permitted activities, significantly impact livability of nearby residentially zoned lands. The Hearings Officer notes that a prior request by the College to have a PA system at Huston Field was denied in 1992. That Hearings Officer stated:
“In light of potential impacts, this seems to be just one more irritant for the neighbors and could have impacts on both wildlife and human users of the park (Tryon Creek State Park). The neighbors and park users will still be tolerating other impacts from the use of these facilities that cannot be totally removed.”
BDS staff, in Exhibit H.4, agreed with the Hearings Officer’s language quoted above and opined that the lighting and PA request for Huston Field was in conflict of Objective 8a.
The Hearings Officer finds that even if the lighting is “properly installed and oriented” and has “steep cutoff angles to prevent glare or light spill” and the “sound equipment will be a low-volume system with multiple speakers distributed in the bleachers which will minimize PA noise” (See Exhibit H.92a, page 3) nearby residentially zone land, particularly along SW 4th, will suffer additional negative impacts. Opponents at the public hearing in this case (such as Troutman, Joshi, Delance and Izquirdo) noted the existing negative impacts include traffic parking on SW 4th (including busses), noise from the crack of bats, noise from spectators and participants, and games on weekends going on all day.
The Hearings Officer acknowledges that the College, to its credit, did establish “programmatic limits.” (Exhibit H.92k). However, the “programmatic limits” during the months of March and April will have lights on and the sound system operating all weekdays and at least two weekend days; most days until 8:00 p.m. During the remaining spring months and during the summer, although the lights will not be in operation, the sound system will be operating on two days during Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 24
the daytime. Finally, the light system is proposed to be used Monday through Thursday from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 pm during the entire month of October. In addition, traffic and parking on SW 4th can be reasonably expected to increase for more hours of the day (during the times the lighting system is operating). The Hearings Officer finds that the addition to the current uses of Huston Field, the proposed “programmatic limits”, the balance is swung to a finding that the lights and PA systems will create significant adverse impacts to the nearby residentially zoned lands.
Impacts on Tryon Creek State Park.
PCC 33.815.105 E requires a proposed Conditional Use to be consistent with any area plans adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan, such as neighborhood or community plans. In this case, the Southwest Community Plan, adopted by the Portland City Council in July 2000, applies. The Hearings Officer adopts BDS Staff findings set forth on pages 39 and 40 related to the Southwest Community Plan objectives # 7 (Land Use and Urban Form, Community-wide Objective) and #2 (Economic Development), and #5 (Transportation Objective). The Hearings Officer adopts the BDS Staff findings for #5 subject to the PBOT comments and recommendations referenced in Exhibit H.76.
The College submitted a supplemental memorandum responding to claims by opposing neighbors and others’ claims (See, for example, Exhibits H.89a and H.91), that the lighting and PA noise would negatively impact the ecosystem/wildlife in Tryon Creek State Park. (Exhibit H.92a). The memo (Exhibit H.92a) includes comments made by persons working at Tryon Creek State Park that so long as the lighting systems are properly installed and oriented, and the sound equipment is a low-volume system, the impacts of the lighting and PA noise would be minimal. (See Exhibit H.92b). The Hearings Officer finds that the information in the memo (Exhibit H.92a) and from a Natural Resource Specialist with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (Exhibit H.92b) are credible. The Hearings Officer finds that so long as conditions of approval insure the lighting is “properly installed and oriented” and the sound equipment is “low-volume,” the proposed lighting and PA system is “low-volume”, the Southwest Community Plan objective 8a is met. The Hearings Officer finds the arguments made by opponents, related to noise and light impacts from Huston Field, are more speculative and less credible.
Development Projects
The College seeks approval for several building improvements, expansions, and new buildings built throughout the campus of and within the currently approved boundary (not including lighting/sound for Houston). The Hearings Officer notes that there were extremely few opposition comments related to this part of the application. The Hearings Officer, having reviewed the application (Exhibits A.13, pages 16 to 20 and Exhibit A.14), the BDS staff report (Exhibit H.4), and the College’s final argument (H.137) finds that all relevant approval criteria are met. In particular, the Hearings Officer adopts, as findings for this decision, the College’s final argument for the development projects within the currently approved boundary.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 25
Parking
The College is seeking to change Conditions Q and T to permit the College to make its TDMP reports on a three-year cycle (Condition Q) and distinguish between shared parking and the proposed law/graduate school housing parking (Condition T). The Hearings Officer notes that earlier in this decision findings were entered that the boundary expansion and law/graduate school housing (with parking) did not meet the transportation approval criteria (PCC 33.815.105 D.2). Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds no need to discuss distinguishing the shared parking and proposed boundary expansion area law/graduate school housing parking, and no change need be made to Condition T.
The Hearings Officer finds that there was no credible testimony entered into the record of this case to dispute the BDS Staff findings (Exhibit H.4) and the College’s final argument (Exhibit H.137) related to the College’s request to permit reporting on a three-year cycle. The Hearings Officer adopts the findings on pages 32 and 33 of Exhibit H.4 and portions of the College’s final argument related to TDMP reporting requirements. The references to law/graduate school housing in both H.4 and H.137 are not incorporated into these findings.
Griswold Stadium
The College seeks to amend previous conditions of approval related to Griswold Stadium (“Griswold”) as summarized below: • Impose the limit of seven major public evening events per year only on events with anticipated or actual attendance of 1,000 or more (smaller evening events, including football games, would not be subject to that limit); and • Remove the requirement of noise monitoring for events held after 7:30 p.m.; and • Revise the lighting hours as described in A-24; and • Extend the game ending time from 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 9:30 to 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
The College, during the hearing, explained that the requested lighting changes would result in 14 less hours of field lighting during a calendar year. (Mr. ClarkYeager). The College stated, at the hearing, that the request to turn off the lights one hour (11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday) later was only for the Fall semester and no contests, external users (non-L&C groups) and no amplified sound would be used at Griswold. (Mr. Clark Yeager and Ms. Jane Atkinson).
The Riverdale High School Principal testified that Riverdale football games typically involve 100 to 200 spectators and 50 participants, and that shutting off lights at 9:30 p.m., for the 3 to 6 home games, does not allow for safe exit of the spectators/participants.
Opposition testimony, at the hearing, appeared to the Hearings Officer to be primarily related to larger events involving non-College events (i.e. Portland Track Fest and cheerleader camp). (Mr. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 26
Dave Johnston and Mr. Thomas Jones). (See also Exhibit H.88). The Hearings Officer recognizes that all activities at Griswold Stadium may have some impact upon the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Hearings Officer in this case also heard the 2002 Master Plan case and in the 2002 decision placed serious and stringent restrictions on the use of Griswold Stadium. The Hearings Officer attempted to be sensitive to neighborhood impacts arising from the use of Griswold Stadium in 2002 and will attempt to do so again in this case.
Limit of seven major public evening events per year only on events with anticipated or actual attendance of 1,000 or more; eliminate Riverdale football games.
The Hearings Officer, in 2002, agonized long and hard over proposed uses for Griswold Stadium and the impacts from those uses. The decision in the 2002 case represented an acknowledgment by the Hearings Officer that the surrounding residential neighborhood would experience some negative impacts, thereby permitting the lights and PA system requests, but placed limits on the use of Griswold Stadium. The Hearings Officer included Riverdale football games, in part because at the time, the Hearings Officer anticipated larger crowds than reported in this case, but to large degree because of the nature of the event; a football game. The Hearings Officer anticipated noise to be generated by the participants (players), officials (whistles), spectators (cheering and jeering), and possible bands and/or cheerleaders. These noise impacts would occur whether or not a crowd of 100, 500 or 1000 are in attendance. The Hearings Officer appreciates that the larger the crowd the greater the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood (includes noise, litter, traffic, parking, etc), but the nature of a football game creates, in the opinion of the Hearings Officer, noise impacts which far exceed a College soccer practice, ultimate Frisbee game, or students using the track.
The Hearings Officer finds there is no compelling reason to modify the 2002 decision regarding the classification of Riverdale football games as “Evening Major Public Events.”
Remove the requirement of noise monitoring for events held after 7:30 p.m.
The Hearings Officer, in 2002, imposed the required noise monitoring for events held after 7:30 p.m. because of the uncertainty of the effectiveness of the proposed sound system. The College submitted acoustical reports (Exhibit A.8) related to the Griswold Stadium sound system. The Hearings Officer finds that the uncertainty that existed at the time the 2002 decision was rendered is less of a concern today. The Hearings Officer finds the Griswold Stadium sound system is currently operating as hoped for and that a mandatory, every event, noise monitoring requirement is no longer required. However, an absolute removal of noise monitoring would also not be appropriate. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that a condition of approval is required to assure that neighbors impacted by sound emanating from Griswold Stadium have an opportunity to “complain” to the College and any such complaint will result in the next three events being required to monitor and report noise levels.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 27
Revise the lighting hours as described in A-24.
Exhibit A.24 sets forth the College’s request for modifying conditions related to the days/times that Griswold Stadium lights may be on and operating. The College emphasized, in their testimony at the hearing (Yeager), and in written submissions (Exhibit H.137, pages 5-7) that the requested modification would result in an approximately 14 hour/year reduction of lighted hours. The College represented that the additional hour of lighting, during Fall term, would not be used for “College practice and recreational activities that do not draw significant crowds (no contests and no external groups)” and “no amplified sound will be permitted.” (Exhibit H.137, page 7).
The Hearings Officer struggled, once again, with the lighting hours issue. The overall (annual basis) reduction of the number of hours that the lights can be operated at Griswold Stadium must be considered a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. On the other hand, from mid-August to Thanksgiving (Sunday through Thursday) the lights at Griswold Stadium will be on and creating activity within the stadium, and impacts on the neighborhood for an additional hour. If it were only a question of balancing an annual net reduction of 14 hours against one more hour for a few months, the Hearings Officer would likely find the requested modification is appropriate; no significant adverse impact on the livability of nearby residential land.
The Hearings Officer, with this part of College proposal, must also take into consideration the time of day in which the requested one additional hour falls; 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Looking back to the 2002 decision the Hearings Officer felt comfortable with the 10:00 p.m. period, in part, because the 10:00 p.m. time matched the end of “day hours” and the beginning of “night hours” under the City of Portland Noise Code (PCC 18.10.010). The Hearings Officer, in utilizing PCC 18.10.010, was attempting to define the term “late” in the context of a residential neighborhood. For a college student 10:00 p.m. and even 11:00 p.m. may not seem “late” in the evening. However, the Hearings Officer finds that in a residential neighborhood 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, may be reasonably considered to be “late”, and such “late” hours should not be interfered with by lights and Griswold Stadium activity. The Hearings Officer notes that Griswold Stadium is immediately across the street from the impacted residential neighborhood and permitting “late” evening activities at Griswold Stadium, would have a significant adverse impact on the residences.
Extend the game ending time from 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 9:30 to 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
The Riverdale High School Principal (Higgens) testified that football games played at Griswold Stadium typically start at 7:00 p.m. and end about 9:00 p.m. The Principal stated, at the hearing, that shutting off the lighting system at 9:30 p.m. created an unsafe condition. Under the current condition (Condition N) events are to end by 9:00 p.m., no post-game activities are to occur after 9:30 p.m., and the lights are to be extinguished by 10:00 p.m. (Friday and Saturday nights). The Hearings Officer acknowledges that if the football game does occur on a day other than Friday or Saturday, the game must end at 9:00 p.m.; even then the lighting is permitted to stay on until 10:00 p.m. The Hearings Officer finds no conflict between the current restrictions and the Principal’s recounting of typical football events. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 28
The Hearings Officer finds there is no persuasive testimony or written comments in support of ending games, other than Riverdale High School football games, at 9:30 p.m. instead of 9:00 p.m. The Hearings Officer, therefore, finds extending the game ending times, in general, from 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 (Sunday through Thursday) or 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Friday and Saturday) should not be approved.
The Hearings Officer finds no compelling reason to modify Condition N.
Modification of Conditions Q and T (transportation related conditions in LUR 97-00074 CU MS).
The College is requesting a change to Conditions Q and T that were required by the decision in LUR 97-0074 CU MS. (See Exhibit A.25). Condition Q relates to reporting requirements of the TDMP. The College desires the reporting requirement to be on a three-year cycle. Condition T proposed revisions related to allocating parking ratios between “campus shared parking” (Huston Field, Law School, Fir Acres, and South Campus) and the proposed law/graduate school housing.
The Hearings Officer finds the request to place the College on a three-year reporting cycle for the TDMP is reasonable and appropriate. The Hearings Officer, as the boundary expansion and law/graduate school housing portion of the application is being denied in this decision, finds no reason to consider the request to modify Condition T.
Deletion of Conditions U., V, and W (stormwater related conditions in LUR 97-00074 CU MS).
The College requested that Conditions U, V, and W in LUR 97-00074 CU MS be deleted. BDS Staff supported this request because all new development must address the City of Portland Stormwater Manual requirements. No evidence is in the record in opposition to this request. The Hearings Officer finds this request, by the College, to be reasonable and supportable.
Modification of Conditions A.7 (condition related to enrollment calculation method in LUR 97-00074 CU MS).
The College requested Condition A.7 in LUR 97-00074 CU MS be modified to reflect students who do not come to campus, and therefore do not impact traffic and parking, because they are studying overseas or take classes via “distance learning” (via the computer and not in a college classroom). BDS Staff indicated no objection to this request. No evidence is in the record opposing this request. The Hearings Officer finds this request, by the College, to be reasonable and supportable.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 29
Summary of Approval Criteria Findings
PCC 33.820.050 Approval Criteria Requests for conditional use Master Plans will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that all of the following approval criteria are met:
A. The Master Plan contains the components required by PCC 33.820.070;
Findings: The Master Plan includes discussion of all the components required by PCC 33.820.070, components of a Master Plan, as addressed later in this report. This criterion is met.
B. The proposed uses and possible future uses in the Master Plan comply with the applicable Conditional Use approval criteria; and
Findings: Compliance with applicable Conditional Use was not shown, by the College, for its request for law/graduate school housing, the boundary expansion, a portion of the Griswold Stadium requests (remove Riverdale football games from certain restrictions, revision of lighting hours per Exhibit A.24, and extension of game ending times), and Huston Field lighting/PA systems. The development projects (Exhibit A.13, pages 16 through and including 19 – not including Huston Field lighting and PA system), located within the existing Master Plan boundary, are found to meet the College’s Conditional Use approval criteria. The findings for meeting, or not, the applicable Conditional Use approval criteria are set forth in General Findings above and incorporated by this reference herein.
C. The proposed uses and possible future uses will be able to comply with the applicable requirements of this Title, except where Adjustments are being approved as part of the Master Plan.
Findings: The proposed uses and identified future uses of the current application, that otherwise meet applicable Conditional Use approval criteria (see B. above), are anticipated to meet all of the requirements of Title 33, including all development standards. All of the proposed uses and possible future uses are expected to comply with all applicable regulations of Title 33. Therefore, for those uses meeting B. above, this criterion is met.
PCC 33.820.060 Duration of the Master Plan The Master Plan must include proposed uses and possible future uses that might be proposed for at least three years and up to ten years. An approved Master Plan remains in effect until development allowed by the Plan has been completed, or the Plan is amended or superseded.
Findings: The College proposes to amend and update the existing approved Master Plan, and proposes program improvements and development, which would take place over the next ten years as funding becomes available. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that the duration of the Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 30
amended Master Plan should extend a full ten years from the date of the final decision of this land use review, or until the approved Master Plan is superseded by a request to further amend and update the Master Plan.
PCC 33.820.070 Components of a Master Plan The College must submit a Master Plan with all of the following components. The review body may modify the proposal, especially those portions dealing with development standards and review procedures. The greater the level of detail in the Plan, the less need for extensive reviews of subsequent phases. Conversely, the more general the details, the greater the level of review that will be required for subsequent phases.
A. Boundaries of the use. The Master Plan must show the current boundaries and possible future boundaries of the use for the duration of the Master Plan.
Findings: The College has specifically requested an expansion of the prior approved Master Plan boundary to include additional properties acquired since the last Master Plan update. Included in the application is a map (Exhibit C.12), depicting both the currently approved Master Plan boundary and the proposed expansion of the boundary.
Specifically the College requests to include the following properties within the expanded Master Plan Boundary:
• 425 SW Maplecrest Drive [1S1E28DA 300] • 9919 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4300] • 10015 N/ SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4400] • 10015 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4500] • 10025 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4600]
Three of the above listed properties are developed with residential structures. A residential duplex structure is located at 9919 SW Boones Ferry Rd. and Tax Lot 1S1E28DA-4400 is vacant. The College is proposing the lots be redeveloped with student housing and accessory parking. The College also owns a number of residentially zoned lots near the College. These other lots are not proposed for inclusion in the boundary. The lots contain residential structures and are used as residences.
The required Master Plan component is satisfied due to submittal of the necessary information. Approvability of the specific request to expand the boundary is discussed below as part of the Conditional Use criteria. This element of the required Master Plan components is satisfied.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 31
B. General statement. The Master Plan must include a narrative that addresses the following items: 1. A description in general terms of the use's expansion plans for the duration of the Master Plan; 2. An explanation of how the proposed uses and possible future uses comply with the Conditional Use approval criteria; and 3. An explanation of how the use will limit impacts on any adjacent residentially zoned areas. The impacts of the removal of housing units must also be addressed.
Findings: The College has submitted, as part of their application, a bound document updating the Conditional Use Master Plan that was approved in 1992. The Portland City Council approved an update to the Master Plan on May 13, 1998. The format of the document contains most of the same elements of the 1997-98 update, but is configured differently. Many of the proposed uses and development projects are carried over from previous Master Plan submittals. The College notes that many of the needs of the College have been long identified, but the priority of development may change over time depending on funding, need, or the reprioritization of projects based on changing circumstances within the three schools. Therefore, many proposed projects are longstanding and have been reviewed before, while others are new or updated. The list of potential new building, additions and alterations on campus has been updated with a project description and square footage on Chart A.14 and illustrated on revised maps, found in Exhibits C.1-C.5. New or revised development proposals included in the Master Plan for which Conditional Use approval is requested are described on Pages 9-21 of the written narrative (Exhibit A.13). Maps depicting the proposed projects and potential building sites are attached to this decision.
The General Findings, above, provide detailed findings related to whether or not the law/graduate school housing request, boundary expansion request, Huston Field lighting/PA request, and Griswold Stadium requests meet applicable Conditional Use approval criteria. The Hearings Officer incorporates the General Findings by this reference, which are made a part of the finding for this approval criterion.
C. Uses and functions. The Master Plan must include a description of present uses, affiliated uses, proposed uses, and possible future uses. The description must include information as to the general amount and type of functions of the use such as office, classroom, recreation area, housing, etc. The likely hours of operation, and such things as the approximate number of members, employees, visitors, special events must be included. Other uses within the Master Plan boundary, but not part of the Conditional Use must be shown.
Findings: The application submittal includes a description of the existing College campus, a description of the proposed physical improvements and changes to some operational aspects of College facilities. Detailed information on the existing and proposed building areas and uses is included in Exhibit A.14. Information on the number of students and employees is summarized in the Transportation reports, prepared by Kittelson and Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 32
Associates (Exhibits A.6.a, A.26, H.118 and H.121a,). As the Master Plan documents contain sufficient information describing existing and proposed uses and functions, this element of the required Master Plan components is satisfied.
D. Site plan. The Master Plan must include a site plan, showing to the appropriate level of detail, buildings and other structures, the pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation system, vehicle and bicycle parking areas, open areas, and other required items. This information must cover the following:
1. All existing improvements that will remain after development of the proposed use; 2. All improvements planned in conjunction with the proposed use; and 3. Conceptual plans for possible future uses.
Findings: An overall site plan, included in “Exhibit SE-1” of the Master Plan application [and attached to this decision as Exhibit C.1], identifies existing improvements on Campus and areas for proposed and possible future improvements. Area-specific comparisons of current conditions and proposed new buildings and renovations are identified on separate site plans (Exhibits C.2 – C.5). A narrative describing the major projects and a chart identifying all the changes, by use and square footage is also included in the Master Plan application. Maps identifying pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation systems and existing parking areas are also included. Therefore, this criterion is met.
4. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities including pedestrian and bicycle circulation between: a. Major buildings, activity areas, and transit stops within the Master Plan boundaries and adjacent streets and adjacent transit stops; and b. Adjacent developments and the proposed development.
Findings: Maps identifying the current and planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation system improvements on campus are included in the application (Exhibit C.6). All maps submitted include footprints of structures and the public rights-of-way immediately adjacent to the campus, and all lands proposed to be included within the proposed expanded Master Plan boundary. The required elements of the Master Plan have been provided.
E. Development standards. The Master Plan may propose standards that will control development of the possible future uses that are in addition to or substitute for the base zone requirements and the requirements of PCC 32.32 and PCC 32.34 of the Sign Code. These may be such things as height limits, setbacks, FAR limits, landscaping requirements, parking requirements, sign programs, view corridors, or façade treatments. Standards more liberal than those of the Code require adjustments.
Findings: The College proposes to continue to follow the Design Standards that were approved through the 1998 Master Plan (Pages 6-7 of the College’s written narrative). Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 33
These standards include a requirement that the height of buildings is limited to 30 feet if located within 50 feet of the perimeter of the Master Plan boundary. The College anticipates that all of the proposed improvements will meet all applicable development standards at the time of permitting. No substitute standards are proposed. This element of the required Master Plan components is satisfied.
F. Phasing of development. The Master Plan must include the proposed development phases, probable sequence for proposed developments, estimated dates, and interim uses of property awaiting development. In addition the plan should address any proposed temporary uses or locations of uses during construction periods.
Findings: The submitted Master Plan update does not establish priorities or a phasing scheme for the proposed improvements. The ability of the College to undertake a project is dependent upon a number of financial factors, including fundraising on a project-by- project basis. Hence, identified projects will be developed over the next ten years as funding becomes available.
The College notes that one of the lots included in the boundary expansion area has in the past, and will likely be used in the future for construction staging. Zoning Code Chapter 33.296, Temporary Activities, allows construction staging for projects such as public utility installation and transportation improvements. The provisions of this Chapter will apply if the residentially zoned property is used.
This element of the required Master Plan components is satisfied.
G. Transportation and parking. The Master Plan must include information on the following items for each phase.
1. Projected transportation impacts. These include the expected number of trips (peak, events, and daily), an analysis of the impact of those trips on the adjacent street system, and proposed mitigation measures to limit any projected negative impacts. Mitigation measures may include improvements to the street system or specific programs, and strategies to reduce traffic impacts such as encouraging the use of public transit, carpools, vanpools, and other alternatives to single occupant vehicles. 2. Projected parking impacts. These include projected peak parking demand, an analysis of this demand compared to proposed on-site and off-site supply, potential impacts to the on-street parking system and adjacent land uses, and mitigation measures.
Findings: The College included Transportation Analysis reports to update the 1997-98 Master Plan information (Exhibit A.5 and A.6). The College submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by a professional transportation engineering and planning firm. The study includes information on projected traffic generation and analyses of the impact to the surrounding street network. The consultant, Kittelson & Associates, also prepared an Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 34
evaluation of possible right-of-way improvements needed to support the proposed law/graduate school housing project. A parking inventory has also been submitted (Exhibit C.8). The College implemented a TDMP for a number of years. Kittleson and Associates submitted additional studies/documents during the open record period (Exhibts H.95, H.118 and H.121).
The College is requesting a change to Conditions Q and T that were required through the last major Master Plan update, LUR 97-00074 CU MS (Exhibit A.25). See the section related to Conditions Q and T in the General Findings. The Hearings Officer incorporates, by this reference, the General Findings related to conditions Q and T, into the findings for this approval criteria.
This element of the approval criteria is satisfied to the extent the College provided information, but as seen in the findings for PCC 33.815.105 D.2, the information was not adequate to satisfy PCC 33.815.105 D.2.
H. Street vacations. The Master Plan must show any street vacations being requested in conjunction with the proposed use, and any possible street vacations that might be requested in conjunction with future development (street vacations are under the jurisdiction of the City Engineer. Approval of the Master Plan does not prejudice City action on the actual street vacation request.)
Findings: The College submitted various options in addressing vehicle access and traffic safety issues for the proposed law/graduate school housing project. In order to create a safer intersection, Options 5 and 6 (Exhibit A.6.a), showed the College’s proposed realignment of SW Maplecrest Dr. PBOT, with a recommended condition, recommended approval of the College’s proposed realignment. (See Exhibit H.104). The realignment will result in a portion of SW Maplecrest Dr. to be vacated. The College will be required to initiate the street vacation process. This approval criterion is met.
I. Adjustments. The Master Plan must specifically list any Adjustments being requested in conjunction with the proposed use or overall development standards, and explain how each adjustment complies with the Adjustment approval criteria.
Findings: The College is not requesting any Adjustments at this time. This criterion is not applicable.
J. Other discretionary reviews. When design review or other required reviews are also being requested, the Master Plan must specifically state which phases or proposals the reviews apply to. The required reviews for all phases may be done as part of the initial Master Plan review, or may be done separately at the time of each new phase of development. The Plan must explain and provide enough detail on how the proposals comply with the approval criteria for the review.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 35
Findings: The College has not requested any other concurrent, discretionary reviews at this time. However, some of the proposed future development and improvement projects identified in the College Master Plan update application are within or near Environmental zoned areas. As noted earlier in this decision, there are designated environmental resources on the campus. Given these resources, BDS Staff recommended adding Condition I to specifically state, that any development of projects conceptually approved in this Master Plan, but located within the ‘c’ Environmental Overlay zones will be subject to a Type II Environmental Review, unless the project can meet all applicable standards of PCC 33.430.140 through PCC 33.430.170. The Hearings Officer finds this BDS Staff request to be reasonable.
The prior approved Master Plan also established alternative review procedures and specific approval criteria for those projects that require a Type II Conditional Use Review, under Condition A.1- 5 of LUR 97-00074 CU MS AD. This condition will remain in effect.
This element of the required Master Plan components is satisfied.
K. Review procedures. The Master Plan must state the procedures for review of possible future uses if the Plan does not contain adequate details for those uses to be allowed without a Conditional Use review.
Findings: The New Master Plan for the campus is based on projected needs for the next ten years. The College discusses the need for the College Master Plan to remain flexible without phasing or timelines.
The previous Master Plan approved conditions that set appropriate and identified thresholds for updating and amending the Plan. Such milestones and thresholds as embodied in the prior conditions of approval provide certainty to the surrounding neighbors of the College as to when additional reviews are required. Therefore, with the continuation of prior condition of approval that establishes review thresholds and procedures, this element of the required Master Plan components is satisfied.
PCC 33.815.010 Purpose of Conditional Uses Certain uses are Conditional Uses instead of being allowed outright, although they may have beneficial effects and serve important public interests. They are subject to the Conditional Use regulations because they may, but do not necessarily, have significant adverse effects on the environment, overburden public services, change the desired character of an area, or create major nuisances. A review of these uses is necessary due to the potential individual or cumulative impacts they may have on the surrounding area or neighborhood. The Conditional Use review provides an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts, to allow the use but impose mitigation measures to address identified concerns, or to deny the use if the concerns cannot be resolved.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 36
PCC 33.815.105 Institutional and Other Uses in R Zones These approval criteria apply to all Conditional Uses in R zones except those specifically listed in sections below. The approval criteria allow institutions and other non-Household Living uses in a residential zone that maintain or do not significantly conflict with the appearance and function of residential areas. The approval criteria are:
A. Proportion of Household Living uses. The overall residential appearance and function of the area will not be significantly lessened due to the increased proportion of uses not in the Household Living category in the residential area. Consideration includes the proposal by itself and in combination with other uses in the area not in the Household Living category and is specifically based on:
1. The number, size, and location of other uses not in the Household Living category in the residential area; and
Findings: The College has operated at this location for over 65 years. It is expanded its campus throughout the years. The largest expansion occurred around 2001 when the Franciscan Retreat Center was purchased by the College. That approximate 18 acre facility is now identified as the South Campus.
This Master Plan update requests approval to expand the Master Plan boundary to include the following lots:
• 425 SW Maplecrest Drive [1S1E28DA 300] • 9919 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4300] • 10015 N/ SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4400] • 10015 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4500] • 10025 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4600]
Three of the above listed properties are developed with residential structures and uses. A duplex is located at 9919 SW Boones Ferry Rd. and Tax Lot 1S1E28DA-4400 is vacant. The College is proposing the lots be redeveloped with student housing and accessory parking. The College owns a number of residentially zoned lots near the College. The lots are not proposed for inclusion in the boundary. The lots contain residential structures that are used as residences.
For purposes of analysis of this criterion, the residential area is defined as property that is within an R zone, and is within 500 feet of the boundaries of the proposed Master Plan Boundary and expansion area. Within this area, the College abuts the Open Space zone Riverview Cemetery, which is directly north of the main campus. Tryon Creek State Park, a large Open Space zone facility is adjacent to the southern edge of Huston Field and the Law School. The Riverdale High School site, also within the Open Space zone, is adjacent to the proposed expansion area that is identified for accessory parking to serve the proposed law/graduate school housing project. Within the 500-foot area is St. Mark Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 37
Presbyterian Church, which is located on the north side of SW Terwilliger Blvd., directly across the street from the proposed expansion area. Another religious institution, the Mt. Carmel Lutheran Church, abuts the southern boundary of the Riverdale High School site and the western edge of the requested expansion area. The church sites are residentially zoned. The remaining R-zoned lots, including those outside of the City of Portland boundary, in the Dunthorpe urban pocket area, are developed with residences or are vacant. The College owns numerous lots within the residential area. These lots are not included in the campus boundary and are developed for residential use.
The College is requesting Conditional Use approval for, among other things, the following five major changes:
Boundary Expansion to accommodate Law/Graduate Student housing and accessory parking
The proposed expansion of 4.39 acres to the Master Plan boundary will add five residentially zoned properties, expanding the boundary to the west side of SW Boones Ferry Rd. where it intersects SW Terwilliger Blvd. The Hearings Officer finds that the request for law/graduate school housing does not increase the proportion of non- household uses in the residential area; the proposal itself is for a residential development. This approval criterion is met.
Development Projects for Academic Uses/Buildings and Student Housing
The Master Plan update identifies several building improvements, expansions and new buildings throughout the campus. See Exhibit A.13, Pages 16-20. The College is proposing, in all, an increase from approximately 1.24 million sq. ft. of building floor area to just over 2 million sq. ft. Included in the Plan is replacing Akin Hall with a 96,000 sq. ft. campus center near SW Palatine Hill Rd. New residential buildings for undergraduate housing will be located near SW Palatine Hill Rd.
The Hearings Officer finds that the above described projects do not increase the proportion of non-household uses in the area; the College existed before this application as a large institutional use and will remain a large institutional use. The above proposed uses are already within the previously approved Master Plan boundary.
Modify Method of Counting On-Site Parking and Applying Student to Parking Space Ratio
The College does not intend to increase its enrollment. With a current average enrollment of 3,400 students, the College anticipates fluctuations of no more than ten percent at any given time within a year. A ten percent increase would result in a maximum of 3,740 students. A condition, carried forward from the previous Master Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 38
Plan approval, requires a Type III Conditional Use review if the enrollment increases by more than ten percent. The College is not requesting a change to this threshold, nor has the College requested that the definition of student enrollment be modified or clarified.
However, in response to on-site parking restrictions, the College is requesting changes to other conditions, specifically Conditions Q and T. Discussion of the merits of these requests are discussed in the General Findings and by the reference are incorporated into this finding. The Hearings Officer found it appropriate to modify Condition Q but not Condition T.
BDS staff recommended an amendment to Condition A.7 as well. The BDS Staff recommended change would clarify that the College is allowed a ten percent fluctuation in enrollment from its average enrollment of 3,400 students. If the College exceeds 3,740 students, it must complete a transportation impact analysis.
The change in conditions satisfy this approval criterion.
Griswold Stadium: Revise Event and Lighting Limitations
This Master Plan update includes a request to change conditions set forth under LU 02- 156503 CU. The Hearings Officer finds this request does increase the intensity and scale of uses at Griswold Stadium.
In 2002, the College requested Conditional Use approval to install stadium lights to expand use of the facility hours at Griswold Stadium. Also requested was removal of a condition that prohibited Riverdale High School graduation ceremonies on the College campus. At that time, the application generated considerable opposition from many residents and the Neighborhood Association. A set of approximately 15 recommended conditions/limitations were requested from the opponents of the proposal.
In response to the testimony received (see below for full analysis of approval criterion PCC 33.815.105.C), this Hearings Officer approved the requested stadium lighting and the High School graduation ceremonies, but with numerous conditions.
This Hearings Officer’s decision limited the number of “Evening Major Public Events” to seven per calendar year. These events were defined as those events that are expected to end after 6:00 p.m. with 1,000 or more spectators, and that utilize the PA system. The Hearings Officer concluded that football games have a higher probability of creating noise impacts - crowd, PA, end-of-quarter horns, and bands. Therefore, all football games held in the evening would be classified as an Evening Major Public Event. Further, the decision set specific days and times the lighting must be turned off. For those seven Major Public Events, the lights would be allowed to stay on until 9:00 p.m. when held on Sunday-Thursday nights (“school nights”), and on Friday and Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 39
Saturday nights the lights would be turned off at 9:30 p.m. For other uses, such as practices and intra-mural games, the lights could be left on until 10:00 p.m. The decision allowed the Riverdale High School graduation ceremonies to be held on campus if limited to a maximum of 1,000 in attendance. If held at night in the stadium, the ceremony would count as one of the allowed seven events. The decision required improvements to the PA system to meet City standards and noise monitoring via an approved “Noise Monitoring and Response Program” (adopted as part of LU 02-156503 CU).
The College’s current Master Plan update includes a request to amend previous conditions of approval to: (1) Impose limit of seven Evening Major Public Events per year only on events with anticipated or actual attendance of 1,000 or more (participants and spectators), smaller evening events, including football games, would not be subject to that limit; (2) Remove requirement of routine sound monitoring for events held after 7:30 p.m.; (3) Extend lighting restriction from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m; (4) Extend Evening Major Public Events ending time from 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Sunday – Thursday, and 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
The General Findings include a description of the rationale dealing with the Griswold Stadium requests. The Hearings Officer, by this reference, incorporates the General Findings as they relate to Griswold Stadium into these findings.
The Hearings Officer finds that the elimination of Riverdale football games from major evening entertainment category would create a significant adverse impact on the nearby residential area. The Hearings Officer finds the College’s request to revise lighting hours at Griswold Stadium, per Exhibit A.24, would create significant adverse impacts on the livability of the nearby residences. The Hearings Officer finds that extending the end time for games is (1) not necessary based upon the Riverdale Principal’s comments at the public hearing, and (2) if approved would create a significant adverse impact on the nearby neighborhood. The Hearings Officer finds that removal of the requirement for mandatory noise monitoring, so long as an additional condition of approval is included, will not create significant adverse impacts.
Huston Field - Install Field Lighting and Public Address Systems
The College is requesting to allow lighting and PA systems to be installed at the Huston Field, which were prohibited under LUR 92-00053 CU (and were carried forward in the current Master Plan decision LU 97-00074 CU MS AD). The Hearings Officer, in the General Findings, determined that approval of the field lighting and sound amplification request would create significant adverse impacts on the nearby neighborhood. The Hearings Officer incorporates the General Findings, by this reference, as they relate to Huston Field, into these findings. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 40
2. The intensity and scale of the proposed use and of existing Household Living uses and other uses.
Findings: The requested amendments/updates to the Master Plan respond to this approval criterion as follows:
Boundary Expansion to accommodate Law/Graduate Student housing and accessory parking
As the proposed boundary expansion is for the purposes of addition of a household use this approval criteria does not apply. There will be no increase in the proportion of non-household uses.
Development Projects for Academic Uses/Buildings and Student Housing
The proposed projects (Exhibit A.13, pages 16-19, Exhibit 14) will, if all constructed, increase the number of square feet of non-household uses on the Campus. As such, the approval of the development projects will create the possibility that the non-household uses will increase in intensity (i.e. more students living on campus) and scale (net gain in square footage of buildings).
However, most of the proposed improvements embodied in the Master Plan update will occur within the interior of the campus and therefore, will result in no significant change in the intensity or scale of this non-residential use, relative to the residential uses in the immediately surrounding area. Future buildings and alterations that occur within 100 feet of the campus boundary and adjacent to residentially zoned property are required to comply with approved Design Standards. Many of the design standards provide architectural requirements that reduce the “institutional character” of the College-related buildings. One of the standards requires changes in planes, canopies, arcades, and fascias for walls that are more than 1,500 sq. ft. Another standard requires building elevations to include windows in 25 percent of the wall area.
The Master Plan addresses the scale of development along its boundary. The Hearings Officer does not find that the appearance and function of the nearby residential area will be significantly lessened if the development projects (Exhibit A.13, pages 16-19, Exhibit 14) are approved.
Modify Method of Counting On-Site Parking and Applying Student-to Parking- Space Ratio
The revisions here are intended to help the College provide adequate on-site parking while addressing fluctuations in enrollment and changes in the number of on-site Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 41
parking spaces during construction phases. The Hearings Officer finds the requested change to these conditions will not increase the intensity and scale of the College use, and will not significantly lessen the overall appearance and function of the surrounding residential area. Adequate on-campus parking helps reduce or eliminate spill-over parking in the residential area. Maintaining a sufficient parking supply even during construction phases will result in an overall improvement to the residential function of the surrounding neighborhood.
Griswold Stadium: Revise Event and Lighting Limitations
The Hearings Officer finds the requested revisions to events and lighting limitations would increase the intensity of use of Griswold Stadium. As stated by the College, the purpose of making this request is to allow students (and Riverdale’s request for later game ending time) more time, during the evening hours, to be on the field. The Hearings Officer, in the General Findings, determined that granting (all but the noise monitoring request) the College’s Griswold Stadium requests would increase the impacts on the nearby residential area significantly. Under this approval criteria, the Hearings Officer finds that the granting of the Griswold Stadium requests (all but the noise monitoring request) would lessen the overall appearance and function of the nearby residential area.
The Hearings Officer incorporates, by this reference, the General Findings as they relate to the Griswold Stadium requests, into these findings.
Huston Field - Install field lighting and public address systems
The addition of lights and a sound system will increase the intensity of use of Huston Field. The Hearings Officer incorporates, by this reference, General Findings related to these findings.
B. Physical compatibility.
1. The proposal will preserve any City-designated scenic resources; and
Findings: The City has designated portions of the College Campus, with frontage on SW Terwilliger Blvd. as a scenic corridor resource (SD 38-27). The Main Campus, South Campus, and Huston Field are not designated with the “s” Overlay zone. The College proposal to construct housing and accessory parking on the proposed expansion area will not have a negative impact on this scenic resource. In addition to base zone standards and conditions of the Master Plan that apply Design Standards, the Scenic Resource Overlay zone development standards (PCC Section 33.480.040.B) will apply.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 42
2. The proposal will be compatible with adjacent residential developments based on characteristics such as the site size, building scale and style, setbacks, and landscaping; or
Findings: The proposed development improvements on Campus (Exhibit A.14, pages 16-19, Exhibit A.14) will be compatible both with the existing development on campus, and via setbacks, scale, etc. The College states it intends to address all applicable Zoning Code development standards and when applicable meet the College Design Standards and height limit set forth in the previous Master Plan approval. With a continuation of these prior conditions of approval, this criterion is met.
3. The proposal will mitigate differences in appearance or scale through such means as setbacks, screening, landscaping, and other design features.
Findings: The existing and proposed development at the Main (Fir Acres) Campus, South Campus, and Law School are setback from the adjacent streets. Dense natural areas and ornamental landscaping separated the College from residential uses. Landscaping and setbacks will provide sufficient mitigation for any difference in appearance or scale for those projects anticipated to be developed within the interior of the campus. For those new buildings that will be located within 50 feet of the boundary of the campus and residential zoned properties, the height of the buildings cannot be taller than 30 feet. Furthermore, for development within 100 feet of the edge of Campus boundary, Design Standards must be met. As noted above, many of the standards are intended to reduce the scale of the building walls. Also, as noted above, the College anticipates each future improvement to meet all of the applicable development standards. This criterion is met.
C. Livability.
The proposal will not have significant adverse impacts on the livability of nearby residential zoned lands due to:
1. Noise, glare from lights, late-night operations, odors, and litter; and
Findings: The key elements of the Master Plan update address this criterion as follows:
Boundary Expansion to accommodate Law/Graduate Student housing and accessory parking
The Campus boundary expansion for the purpose of developing additional housing to serve College law and graduate students is not anticipated create impacts such as noise, late night operations, litter or odors that are generally associated with non- Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 43
residential uses. There were opponents who complained about current student residents of the single-family houses on the boundary expansion land. However, the Hearings Officer finds that the College will have significantly more control of the law/graduate students because of the uniform lease and (for noise) peer pressure.
Development Projects for Academic Uses/Buildings and Student Housing
There are no anticipated adverse impacts associated with the proposed on Campus improvements. Setbacks and landscaping and wooded areas insulate the campus from adjacent residentially zoned sites.
Modify Method of Counting On-Site Parking and Applying Student-to Parking-Space Ratio
Modifying the method of counting students and parking spaces to determine compliance with mandated parking ratios will not create off-site impacts that will adversely impact livability. This criterion is met.
Griswold Stadium: Revise event and lighting limitations
Excepting for the request to modify noise monitoring requirements, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed revisions to the use of Griswold Stadium will have significant adverse impacts on the livability of nearby residential lands. The Hearings Officer incorporates, by this reference, the General Findings as they relate to requested Griswold Stadium modifications.
Huston Field - Install field lighting and Public Address systems
The Hearings Officer found that the request to install lighting and a PA system at Huston Field would result in significant adverse impacts on the livability of the nearby (primarily residences on SW 4th) residential area. The Hearings Officer incorporates, by this reference, the General Findings as they relate to requested Huston Field modifications.
2. Privacy and safety issues.
Findings: The Police Bureau has recommended (Exhibit E.6) actions be taken to improve the safety on the Campus. These recommendations are also discussed in the findings for PCC 33.815.105.D.3. The Police Bureau recommendations are reasonable and appropriate.
Implicit in the statements of opposition regarding impacts of noise and light are impacts to residents’ privacy. The intrusion of additional noise and light into homes is perceived as adversely impacting the residents’ privacy. To that end, the Hearings Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 44
Officer finds that requests related to Griswold (excepting noise monitoring) and Huston will impact privacy of nearby residents.
Concerns regarding traffic safety are discussed in the findings for 33.815.105 D.2 (General Findings) and are incorporated, by this reference, into these findings.
D. Public services.
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the street designations of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The transportation system is capable of supporting the proposed use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity, level-of-service, and other performance measures; access to arterials; connectivity; transit availability; on-street parking impacts; access restrictions; neighborhood impacts; impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation; safety for all modes; and adequate transportation demand management strategies;
Findings: The Hearings Officer finds, based upon the College’s traffic studies and PBOT’s responses that PCC 33.815.105 D.1 is likely satisfied. However, the Hearings Officer’s General Findings regarding the law/graduate student housing proposal demonstrates that PCC 33.815.105 D.2 is not satisfied with respect to neighborhood impacts, impacts on pedestrians, bicyclists, and safety for all modes. The Hearings Officer finds the balance of evaluation factors were satisfied; although the Hearings Officer, based upon the traffic count estimates and trip generation estimates provided by the College’s traffic experts, is uncertain as to whether or not the “other performance measures” evaluation factor was satisfied. The Hearings Officer incorporates, by this reference, the General Findings related to law/graduate school housing into these findings.
3. Public services for water supply, police and fire protection are capable of serving the proposed use, and proposed sanitary waste disposal and stormwater disposal systems are acceptable to the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES).
Findings: Bureau responses were submitted to BDS Staff prior to the preparation of the BDS Staff report or were submitted to the Hearings Officer during the open-record periods (H.47 and H.122). The Hearings Officer finds, based upon the BDS staff review of the Bureau responses the public services are capable of serving the proposed uses and that BES found the preliminary proposed sanitary waste disposal and stormwater disposal systems acceptable. The Hearings Officer incorporates the BDS Staff Report (Exhibit H.4, pages 37-39), as supplemented by H.47 and H.122, into these findings.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 45
E. Area plans. The proposal is consistent with any area plans adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan, such as neighborhood or community plans.
Findings: The Campus is located within the boundaries of the Southwest Community Plan, adopted by City Council in July 2000. The College provided responses to the following applicable policies and objectives of the plan, included here:
Land Use and Urban Form, Community-wide Objective #7: Encourage medical and educational institutions to appropriately house students and work cooperatively with affected neighborhood associations to minimize negative livability impacts on adjacent residents.
Comment: The current and proposed Master Plan does not conflict with this objective for reasons, as follows. The College has constructed numerous upgrades to streets and intersections to facilitate safety and connectivity for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians within the neighborhood. The College believes it has a solid record of working effectively with the CVNA. The Neighborhood Association has a permanent position for a representative from the College. Since 2004, the College and Neighborhood Association have worked together to address a number of issues. The College has been working with the neighborhood to eliminate problems associated with campus visitors parking in the neighborhood.
Economic Development, Objective #2: Support educational and medical institutions in enhancing the quality of education they provide and research they conduct.
Comment: The Master Plan is designed to enhance the quality of education provided by the College by facilitating a long-term Capital Investment Plan in the educational facilities and associated programs and activities.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Objective #8a: Protect Tryon Creek State Park as a regionally significant natural and recreational resource.
Comment: The Hearings Officer prepared findings with respect to the Huston lights/PA system that discuss Objective 8a. The Hearings Officer incorporates, by this reference, the General Findings related to area plans, into these findings.
Transportation Objective #5: Support major institutions in neighborhoods, including Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland Community College, and Lewis and Clark College, by encouraging the provision of high-quality transit service and facilities to serve them; requiring transportation demand management programs to mitigate impacts on neighborhoods; and improving the adjacent and internal pedestrian facilities surrounding and within to enhance access.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 46
Comment: The Master Plan is consistent with this objective. The College has implemented a TDMP that has been effective in reducing overall vehicle trips since 1998. As upgrades to the Campus occur, the College will continue to implement pedestrian safety and accessibility improvements. The College offers a chartered private shuttle services for students and employees. The shuttle serves routes during key hours to supplement limited TriMet service in the area. The College has placed a bus stop and shelter on SW Palatine Hill Rd. on the north side of the South Campus to increase transit accessibility to the campus.
Summary: Except for the College’s response to objective 8a, the Hearings Officer finds that the application meets the Southwest Community Plan applicable policies and objectives.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Unless specifically required in the approval criteria listed above, this proposal does not have to meet the development standards in order to be approved during this review process. The plans submitted for a building or zoning permit must demonstrate that all development standards of Title 33 can be met, or have received an Adjustment or Modification via a land use review prior to the approval of a building or zoning permit.
III. CONCLUSIONS
This application generated a large and aggressive group of opponents. The volume or number of opponents does not determine a decision by this Hearings Officer. This Hearings Officer, having been the decision maker in the College’s prior request for amendments (LUR 92-00074 CU MS), is aware that there is a grey area when it comes making a decision with respect to a number of the College’s requests (i.e. Griswold Stadium operations and Huston Field lights/PA); those decisions involve an exercise of discretion as to whether adverse impacts are significant. It is that grey area of discretion that must be defined by the Hearings Officer, and if there is an appeal of this decision, by City Council. The Hearings Officer exercised his best judgment with respect to the College’s requests for amendments to the Griswold Stadium operations and the request to install lights and a PA system at Huston Field.
In exercising this judgment the Hearings Officer always keeps in mind the purpose statement for Conditional Uses found in PCC 33.815.010. PCC 33.815.010 states, in full, the following: “Certain uses are condition uses instead of being allowed outright, although they may have beneficial effects and serve important public interests. They are subject to the conditional use regulations because they may, but do not necessarily, have significant adverse effects on the environment, overburden public services, change the desired character of an area, or create major nuisances. A review of these uses is necessary due to the potential individual or cumulative impacts they may have on the surrounding area or neighborhood. The condition use Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 47
review provides an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts, to allow the use but impose mitigation measures to address identified concerns, or to deny the use if the concerns cannot be resolved.”
The Hearings Officer also keeps in mind PCC 33.800.050 which sets forth the function of the relevant approval criteria. This section of the Code, paraphrased, says that if a proposal “can” comply with the criteria with conditions it should be approved with conditions. Finally, the Hearings Officer must keep in mind the PCC 33.800.060, which places the burden of proof to show that the approval criteria are met upon the College.
The Hearings Officer decided that the cumulative impacts, arising from the College’s requested amendments for Griswold Stadium (excepting for the noise monitoring request) and the lights/PA system at Huston Field tipped the scale to the side of the adverse impacts being considered as significant. The Hearings Officer, in the LUR 92-00074 case, did approve with conditions the use of Griswold Stadium with lights and a PA system. The 1998 Master Plan review permitted the use of Huston Field, with conditions. The Hearings Officer notes that requests to use Griswold Stadium and Huston Field were approved. However, those approvals were with conditions to assure that the adverse impacts to the neighborhood did not become significant.
The College’s request for the boundary expansion and law/graduate school student housing, in the opinion of the Hearings Officer, was simply not approvable by the evidence in the record. The Hearings Officer found what he believed to be serious deficiencies in the underlying traffic analysis submitted by the College; so serious as to render the College’s traffic based conclusions unreliable. It is the opinion of the Hearings Officer until the methodology/data gaps are adequately and credibly filled in the approval criteria set forth in PCC 33.815.105 D.2 cannot be satisfied/met.
The Hearings Officer found the “development proposals” within the existing Master Plan boundaries (excepting the Huston Field request) to meet all relevant approval criteria. The Hearings Officer found that the mandatory noise monitoring requirement for Griswold could be modified with an additional condition. The Hearings Officer found the approval criteria were met for the requested modification to LUR 97-0074 CU MS Condition Q, but modification was not necessary to Condition T. The Hearings Officer agreed with the College’s request to exclude, from student counts, persons who are studying overseas or off-campus. The Hearings Officer found that LUR 97-0074 CU MS Conditions U. V. and W. are no longer necessary.
IV. DECISION
Denial of the request to expand the boundary of the Master Plan to include the following properties: • 425 SW Maplecrest Drive [1S1E28DA 300] • 9919 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4300] • 10015 N/ SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4400] • 10015 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4500] • 10025 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4600] Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 48
Denial of the request to approve law/graduate school housing on the boundary expansion land west of SW Boones Ferry Road (boundary expansion area).
Denial of the request to remove previous conditions so that lighting and public address systems can be installed at Huston Field.
Denial of a request to modify operational conditions related to Griswold Field, excepting the request to modify the noise reporting condition is Approved.
Approval of a Conditional Use Master Plan amendment and update, which incorporates the following proposed improvements:
• The development of new academic buildings, student housing and other alterations/additions/improvements as identified on Exhibit A.14 (not including requested law/graduate student housing project and lights/PA system at Huston Field).
Approval of requested modifications to conditions • Condition Q (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): clarify TDMP reporting requirements. • Conditions U, V, and W (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): these conditions deleted. • Condition A.7 (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): omit students studying overseas and taking distance learning classes from calculation of enrollment. subject to the following conditions:
A. Within three months of the final decision on this current Master Plan (LU 08-180498 CU MS), Lewis and Clark College must submit to the Bureau of Development Services six copies of the approved Master Plan, updating and amending the Master Plan Amendment document dated November 1998 (CU 97-00074 CU MS). The Master Plan must include an updated/current Transportation Demand Management Plan and Event Management Policy, incorporating all changes and conditions of approval.
B. The duration of the amended Master Plan will extend a full ten years from the date of the final decision of this land use review, or until the approved Master Plan is superseded by a request to further amend and update the Master Plan.
C. Lewis and Clark College shall continue to utilize its current Transportation Demand Management Plan as a means to manage transportation-related issues associated with past Master Plan issues. Lewis and Clark College should provide copies of an updated (certain measures have been completed) TDMP to reflect any ongoing and continuing programs and measures that the Lewis and Clark College will be undertaking.
D. Parking at Huston Field is limited to 28 spaces and is limited to students during non-event hours and to event participants, maintenance, and handicap users. Appropriate use of Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 49
Huston Field signage and schedules and any other appropriate educational opportunities to restrict use of the Huston Field parking shall be incorporated into the Transportation Demand Management Plan.
E. At the time that permits are requested for improvements at Huston Field, including the construction or reconfiguration of grandstands and reconfiguration and/or expansion of parking, the College will be required to construct a sidewalk corridor to City standards along the east-side of SW Boones Ferry Road. This improvement shall be constructed from the southerly edge of the existing driveway of the Huston Field parking lot to the intersection with SW Terwilliger Boulevard. The details of the frontage improvements and any necessary property dedication can be addressed at the (infrastructure-wide) pre- design meeting that will be triggered by this right-of-way improvement.
F. To address existing stormwater management requirements for existing facilities, as identified in Exhibits A.21 and A.22, the College must:
1. Fully repair and/or replace outfalls ranked as “Urgent” and “Important” (Exhibit A.23). The permits, with inspections, must be completed by October 1, 2010. Outfall repairs will require grading and plumbing permits and may require subsequent land use reviews or other City permits. Outfall repairs should include installation of energy dissipation measures to minimize erosion and protect stream bank stability. Any replaced outfalls must be designed in accordance with City’s Stormwater Management Manual.
2. Annually evaluate Outfalls ranked as “Low Priority” or “Not Located” (Exhibit A.23). A geotechnical engineering report must be submitted to the Land Use Services section of Development Services by May 1st of each year. The annual report must update the outfall ranking, identify if the outfall condition will cause erosion or detrimentally affect slope stability, and provide corrective action for any outfall subsequently ranked as “Urgent” or “Important”. Any year an outfall ranking changes to “Urgent” or “Important”, it must be fully repaired and all inspections approved by October 1st of the same year.
3. For new development that will direct stormwater to an existing outfall, a specific basin analysis must be submitted at the time of Building Permit review for the proposed development. The basin analysis must determine whether additional flow will require upgrading of the outfall or mitigation measure fore the existing or anticipated erosion. All related permits and land use reviews triggered by the required repairs are the responsibility of the applicant and must be completed within the prescribed timelines. Outfall repairs will require grading and plumbing permits and may require subsequent land use reviews or other City permits.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 50
4. Any stormwater treatment on campus that includes an outfall within the Environmental Overlay zones will be subject to a Type II Environmental Review, unless the project can meet all applicable standards of PCC 33.430.140 through PCC 33.430.170.
G. Any development of projects conceptually approved in this Master Plan, but located within the Environmental Overlay zone must comply with all applicable Environmental zone development standards or be reviewed through an Environmental Review.
H. Projects identified in Exhibit A.14 of the submitted Master Plan are subject to prior conditions of approval establishing review thresholds and procedures for new development on campus.
AMENDED PRIOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT REMAIN IN EFFECT, WITH MODIFICATIONS: The following Conditions of Approval from prior approved Master Plan and Conditional Use reviews require amendment as follows. [Note: The original condition number or letter is identified in parenthesis.]
LU 02-156503 CU (Griswold Stadium Lighting and Events) conditions:
I. (Condition D) The College will amend the Event Management Policy (Exhibit A.7) to reflect the change of conditions approved through this Master Plan review. The Event Management Policy will be added to and supplement (and control if there is a conflict) the College’s existing Special Event Policy. The College will provide six copies of the updated Special Events Policy, which has been made consistent with the Event Management Policy to the City of Portland Bureau of Development Services to be added to reference copies of the Lewis and Clark Master Plan (CUMP).
J. In particular, the Event Management Policy must contain the definitions of “evening event” and “evening major public event” found in the “Griswold Stadium Lights and Evening Events” and the “Campus Parking Management – Griswold Stadium Events” and “Related Policies for Evening Events at Griswold Stadium” and “Table 2, Pro Forma Annual Event Calendar for Griswold Stadium” and “Evening Noise Monitoring and Response Program” and the “Campus Parking Management – Cumulative Strategies.”
1. The College may revise the Events Management Policy at any time without the need to submit an application to revise the CUMP or this decision so long as the obligations to the neighborhood and community, as set forth in the Events Management Policy, are not reduced or diminished.
2. The College’s Evening Noise Monitoring and Response Program for Griswold Stadium may be amended to not require real-time noise monitoring of all Type A events that continue after 8:30 pm. If the College replaces or alters the public address system (installed in 2003), noise monitoring must be conducted to verify Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 51
compliance with City noise standards. Complaints related to sound/noise at Griswold Stadium should be made by telephone to (503) 768 7553 during business hours or to Campus Safety at 503 768 7855 after hours if it is an emergency contact 503 768 7777. The College shall respond as soon as possible. Complaints about sound will prompt noise monitoring for the next three successive major public events to ensure that sound levels are within required parameters. The College shall maintain a log of noise complaints that can be viewed by members of the public.
LUR 97-00074 CUMS AD (1997 Master Plan Amendment/Update) conditions:
K. (Condition A.7) Future development which occurs in conformance with the Master Plan will not necessitate additional transportation analysis, nor result in any transportation related conditions of approval beyond those adopted with this Master Plan. Exceeding enrollment of 3,740, beyond the allowed 10 percent fluctuation, will require the College to submit, to the Bureau of Traffic Management, a revised Traffic Study. If that study shows a negative impact to Level-of-service on surrounding streets, a Type II CU review will occur in order to address mitigation necessary to resolve those impacts associated with Lewis and Clark College. That review must determine that the transportation system is capable of supporting the increase in student enrollment. The evaluation factors include street capacity and level-of-service, access to arterials, transit availability, on-street parking impacts, access requirements, neighborhood impacts, and pedestrian safety.
L. (Condition Q) A report measuring the progress of the TDM plan must be submitted to the Transportation Planning Section of the Bureau of Transportation on the same schedule as the Employee Commute Options Assessment reports. The reports will document the following:
• The local on-and off-campus student, faculty and staff population. • The parking supply by type (e.g., carpool, handicapped, resident, faculty, staff, etc.) and location. • The utilization of the parking supply and alternative modes. • Public complaints received by the College about parking/travel behavior and the resolution of those complaints.
M. Campus parking supply will be managed to achieve a parking ratio not to exceed 0.475 spaces per capita by the year 2018. “Capita” is defined as students enrolled and physically attending classes at the College. Students who do not live at campus or who travel to and from the campus once a week or less (e.g., students studying abroad; distance students) are not counted for the purposes of parking ratio calculations. Parking supply is defined as the parking spaces at Huston Field, Law School, Fir Acres, and South Campus. The College will report the parking ratio as part of the periodic Travel Demand Management (TDM) report required by Condition Q. During the ten-year implementation period for this Master Plan Update, the parking ratio may temporarily exceed 0.475 spaces per capita due to fluctuations in local enrollment, campus construction projects, and other factors. Such variation shall not be deemed a violation of this Condition; however, if over two TDM reporting cycles the parking ratio exceeds 0.475 by an Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 52
increasing amount (e.g., goes from 0.48 in 2010 to 0.49 in 2012), the College will be required to submit to the Portland Bureau of Transportation a revised TDM program addressing parking demand and supply, including strategies for achieving compliance with this Condition as of 2018.
PRIOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT REMAIN IN EFFECT: The following Conditions of Approval from prior approved Master Plan and Conditional Use reviews remain in effect.
Prior conditions that remain in effect from LU 08-128068 AD (Adjustments to Parking Lot Landscaping): Exhibit references below are to those exhibits attached to 08-128068 AD.
N. (B) In the locations identified on Exhibits C.2 and C.3, nuisance vegetation must be removed and native plants must be planted as indicated.
Prior conditions that remain in effect from LU 03-145203 CUMS AD (South Campus Building Expansion):
O. (A) A maximum of 181,000 square feet of building floor area is allowed on South Campus site. P. (B) A maximum of 158 parking spaces are allowed on the South Campus site.
Prior conditions that remain in effect from LU 02-156503 CU (Griswold Stadium Lighting and Events): Exhibit references below are to those exhibits attached to 02-156503 CU
Q. (G) Events not considered major public events and not utilizing the PA system or end-of- quarter horn must end by 10:00 p.m. with stadium lights turned off at that time. Lights for these types of events are to be set at the lowest level which the field administrator determines will maintain safe playing/practicing/participating conditions.
R. (H) Events at Griswold Stadium will comply with Title 18 noise restrictions unless a Title 18 variance is approved by the Noise Control Office.
S. (J) The College will be limited to the size and type of events outlined in their Pro Forma Annual Event Calendar (Exhibit A.5) for Griswold Stadium. The College will provide six copies of the Pro Forma Annual Event Calendar to the City to be added to reference copies of the Lewis & Clark College Master Plan.
T. (K) The proposed Riverdale High School Graduation ceremonies will be subject to the Events Management Policy as modified in Conditions B, C, and D above. Riverdale graduation ceremonies, irrespective of where held on the College campus, is limited to a maximum of 1,000 attendees. If the graduation is held at Griswold Stadium with an Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 53
anticipated end time after 6 p.m. it shall be considered an Event Type A evening major public event and count against the annual limit of 7 evening major public events.
U. (L) The following language is included in the Events Management Policy: “Exceptions to these policies - Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the Office of the Vice President and Provost (or designate). The purpose of this exception provision is to allow the College to respond to special circumstances, which cannot be predicted in advance, as they may arise. Exceptions shall not relieve or reduce the College commitment to implement the Event Management Policy’s objective to avoid or mitigate impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, nor shall any exception be made that would cause the College to violate approval conditions imposed by the City of Portland under the College Conditional Use Master Plan (CUMP).”
In addition to the limitations contained in the above “waiver”, this condition specifically prohibits the use of this “waiver” to reduce the College obligations as they pertain to evening major public events in the following specified areas: 1. Number of evening major public events (limit of 7 per calendar year); and 2. Mandated end time for evening major public events (9:00 p.m. – Sunday through Thursday; and 9:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday); and 3. Implementation of the ENRMP; and 4. The College obligations regarding “litter” patrol; and 5. The College obligations regarding traffic and parking.
Prior conditions that remain in effect from LUR 01-00136 CUMS (Expanded boundary to include South Campus):
V. (B) The conditions and restrictions imposed on the Lewis and Clark College campus through LUR 97-00074 CU MS will apply to the Franciscan Renewal Center/South Campus site.
W. (C) Any future improvements must comply with the current requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual at the time building and/or public improvement plans are submitted.
X. (F) Future approvals for expansion of facilities on the FRC property will be conditioned on the completion of public street improvements to the site frontage on the FRC side of SW Palatine Hill Road. Those improvements may include construction of curb, paving, storm drainage facilities, striping for a bicycle land, sidewalk, and street lighting.
Prior conditions that remain in effect from LUR 00-00087 (Environmental Review for Law School stormwater facilities):
Y. Use of commercial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides shall not be permitted within the Environmental Protection zone.
Prior conditions that remain in effect from LUR 97-00074 CUMS AD (1997 Master Plan Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 54
Amendment/Update): Exhibit references below are to those exhibits attached to LUR 97-00074 CUMS AD
Z. (Condition A) Future Review Procedures. The following procedures will apply during the life of the Master Plan:
1. Those projects identified in Exhibit G.7 with the label "No further land use review required" may be implemented at the College’s discretion at any time during the life of the plan, except as subject to the Design Standards and Development standards, or as limited by other conditions in the Plan or conditions of approval. All other projects in the Master Plan need to have the type of review and approval criteria spelled out below.
2. All projects will comply with the Institutional Development standards in Single Dwelling zones for development on the campus, except that within 50 feet of the campus perimeter, building heights will not exceed 30 feet. These development standards are set out in PZC 33.110.254, Table 110-5. Any exception to these development standards must be approved through the Adjustment process, as set out in PZC 33.805.040.A-F. The College will also follow the Design Standards set out in Exhibit H-53(b) for development within 100 feet of the campus perimeter.
3. Type III Procedures. a. The following kinds of projects will be subject to a Type III procedure: i. Proposals which result in a cumulative increase in enrollment, building area, parking spaces, or site generated traffic, if the increase is more than 10 percent over what is approved in this Master Plan. ii. Expansion of Lewis and Clark’s property boundaries beyond the boundaries approved in this Master Plan. iii. Proposals not identified on the amended Campus Master Plan in the Master Plan Amendment Plan section in Section F: Development Projects; and iv. Proposed uses or development which were reviewed, but denied because they were found not to be in conformance with the Master Plan. b. Conditional Use approval criteria in PZC 33.815.105.A-E will be used for review of these proposals. The Design Standards approved through this review will also be approval criteria for development within 100 feet of the perimeter of the campus, as set out in Exhibit H-53(b). c. Under these requirements, future development of student housing at Huston Field and the development of ball fields or parking within the cemetery property will be reviewed in a Type III procedure, and will not require an IMP.
4. Type II. Development that includes increases in floor area within 50 feet of a street or within 50 feet of an adjacent residentially zoned property will be subject to a Type II review procedure. In addition to the Design Standards, such a project will be subject to the following approval criteria: Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 55
a. The proposal will be compatible with adjacent residential developments based on characteristics such as building scale and style, setbacks and landscaping. b. The proposal will mitigate differences in appearance or scale through such means as setbacks, screening, landscaping, and other design features. c. The proposal will not have significant adverse impacts on the livability of nearby residential zoned lands due to: noise, glare from lights, late-night operations, odors, litter, privacy and safety.
5. Type I. a. Development that is not described as subject to a Type III or Type II procedure, will require only a building permit. Except that development between 50 and 100 feet of the campus perimeter will also be subject to the Design Standards. These reviews will be subject to a Type I procedure. b. A project between 50 and 100 feet from a street or an adjacent residentially zoned property that does not meet the Design Standards may be reviewed through a Type II procedure, using the approval criteria for Type IIs set out above. c. The following types of projects tare subject to only building permit review whether or not they are listed in the Master Plan: i. Interior improvements; ii. Exterior improvements that do not add floor area to the building; iii. Exterior improvements that add no more than 10,000 square feet in area; iv. Installation of new or modification of existing mechanical or electrical equipment. v. Improvements required by previously approved conditions or mandated by new code changes; vi. Maintenance of existing facilities.6. Adjustments to development standards are reviewed through the Type II procedures, as set out in the City Code.
6. Adjustments to development standards are reviewed through the Type II procedures, as set out in the City Code.
AA. (Condition B) All cobblestones removed as part of the Master Plan improvements will be salvaged. If salvaged cobblestones can’t be re-used on campus, the applicant will make them available to the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission.
BB. (Condition C) Expansion of the dock facility to accommodate rowing facilities is allowed, subject to the Greenway review process as required in Chapter 33.440, and subject to compliance with any State of Oregon requirements. Dedication of a public trail easement may be required at the time of the Greenway review.
CC. (Condition H) Use of a public address system at Huston Fields is prohibited.
DD. (Condition I) Use of lighting at Huston Fields is prohibited. Lighting of the Huston parking lot and pedestrian paths between the parking lot and Law School must be extinguished at Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 56
12:15 a.m. Gates to the parking lot will be open only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:15 a.m.
EE. (Condition J) The play fields and the area used for stockpiling and composting yard debris must remain fenced to restrict unauthorized use of the site and minimize the chasing of balls that leave the site.
FF. (Condition K) The College must continue measures which prevent or remove mud, dirt or other debris left by maintenance vehicles on S.W. 4th Avenue. The gate will be kept closed and locked except when in use to prevent unauthorized use. Only maintenance vehicles will be allowed to use this gate and access. Access will be only from Boones Ferry Road.
GG. (Condition L) Only Lewis and Clark College-sponsored sports activities will be allowed on the Huston fields. Only Lewis and Clark College-sponsored players will be allowed to use the batting practice cages.
HH. (Condition M) The yard debris composting and stockpiling will be maintained in a manner that minimizes visual impacts on surround neighbors, and prevents any odor or pest problems.
II. (Condition N) The fields will be mowed, and other maintenance activities will occur only during normal business hours, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Saturday.
JJ. (Condition O) Use of the satellite parking facilities at Mt. Carmel and St. Mark’s Church will cease upon occupancy of the North Campus parking structure.
KK. (Condition R) Copies of all reports provided to DEQ or the City of Portland shall also be provided to the Collins View Neighborhood Association at the same time as they are provided to the government agency.
LL. (Condition S) A public record of all complaints regarding parking and travel behavior must be maintained and available for public inspection.
MM. (Condition U) The College will implement the Special Events Policy provided in Exhibit H- 6c. In addition, the College shall not conduct high school graduation ceremonies at the campus with the exception of Riverdale High School.
NN. (Condition V) The College shall conduct daily patrols of the neighborhood while classes are in session and enforce College parking policies. The College will keep a log of patrols showing the date and time of each patrol, the officer making the patrol, and any action taken as a result of the patrol. This log will be available to the public for inspection.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 57
OO. (Condition Y) The College must continue to regularly trim vegetation on Terwilliger Boulevard along their frontage as directed by the Bureau of Traffic Management and the City Forester, to increase the sight distance for pedestrians crossing S.W. Terwilliger Boulevard at S.W. Palater Street.
PP. (Condition BB) Upon completion of each phase of the half street improvements, any portion of the existing vegetative barrier removed shall be replaced with a barrier of similar density at maturity.
QQ. (Condition CC) Upon completion of the Huston parking lot, the Applicant will provide enhanced patrols of the pathway leading from the Law School to the Huston Lot such as bicycle patrols, especially at dusk and during the evening hours until the lot closes at 12:15 p.m.
RR. (Condition DD) Construction site grading, excavation, ground disturbance, or removal of native vegetation (“Construction activities”) for the Huston Lot may not occur between October 1 and April 30. No construction activities may occur east of the “transition area” indicated on the revised parking lot plan, Exhibit H.14.
SS. (Condition EE) At the completion of grading and excavation work, all exposed ground must be seeded with native groundcover or planted with permanent shrubs and trees. Any exposed ground not fully revegetated by November 1 must be covered with a layer of straw mulch until permanent vegetation is re-established. If grading and excavation work occurs between November 1 and April 30th, straw mulch must be applied at the close of each working day to cover all exposed soils not directly within the graded parking lot aisles and parking stalls. Mulch must be installed in conformance with the BES Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Technical Guidance Handbook. Staked jute netting over all exposed soils may substitute for the required mulch.
TT. (Condition FF) Temporary sediment barriers must be placed on the downhill side of all slopes to be disturbed, regraded or excavated. These barriers must be installed and maintained in conformance with the BES Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Technical Guidance Handbook. All required sediment barriers must be in place prior to the start of grading or excavation on the site and must be maintained until permanent vegetation is re-established within the graded or excavated area. Sediment barriers must be within identified (and approved) areas of disturbance.
UU. (Condition GG) The College and/or contractors constructing the proposed parking lot extension may not remove existing trees located more than 5 feet beyond the perimeter curb of the parking lot extension and within the Ec zone.
VV. (Condition HH) All vegetation planted in the resource area of the Ec zone must be native and listed on the Portland Plant List. Plants listed on the Portland Nuisance Plant List or Prohibited Plan List are prohibited. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 58
WW. (Condition II) Exterior lights placed within the Ec zone resource area must be spaced at least 25 feet apart, and must not exceed 200 watts (or the equivalent brightness of a 200-watt incandescent light if other types of lighting are used). Exterior lights placed within the Ec zone transition area must be spaced at least 25 feet apart, and must not exceed 200 watts (or the equivalent) if they shine into the resource area. Directional lighting within the transition area of the Ec zone may exceed 200 watts if it shines away from the resource area.
XX. (Condition JJ) Within the Ec zone, the College may not widen the existing pathways connecting the Law School with the Huston Field site without further Environmental Review. Upgrading those pathways without widening them is allowed by the Portland Zoning Code without Environmental Review.
YY. (Condition KK) Because landscape planting within the Ec zone resource area or within identified mitigation areas are intended for the purpose of environmental restoration, bark- mulch may not be installed surrounding these plantings. If necessary, straw mulch installed per the specification of the BES Erosion Prevention and Sediment control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook may be used to cover exposed soils surrounding new planting beds.
______Gregory J. Frank, Hearings Officer
______Date
Application Deemed Complete: May 18, 2009 Report to Hearings Officer: August 7, 2009 Decision Mailed: December 3, 2009 Last Date to Appeal: 4:30 p.m., December 17, 2009 Effective Date (if no appeal): December 18, 2009 Decision may be recorded on this date.
Conditions of Approval. This project may be subject to a number of specific conditions, listed above. Compliance with the applicable conditions of approval must be documented in all related permit applications. Plans and drawings submitted during the permitting process must illustrate how applicable conditions of approval are met. Any project elements that are specifically required by conditions of approval must be shown on the plans, and labeled as such.
These conditions of approval run with the land, unless modified by future land use reviews. As used in the conditions, the term “applicant” includes the applicant for this land use review, any person undertaking development pursuant to this land use review, the proprietor of the use or Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 59
development approved by this land use review, and the current owner and future owners of the property subject to this land use review.
Appeal of the decision. ANY APPEAL OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER’S DECISION MUST BE FILED AT 1900 SW 4TH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201 (823-7526). Until 3:00 p.m., Tuesday through Friday, file the appeal at the Development Services Center on the first floor. Between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., and on Monday, file the appeal at the Reception Desk on the fifth floor. An appeal fee of $9,066.50 will be charged (one-half of the application fee for this case). Information and assistance in filing an appeal can be obtained from the Bureau of Development Services at the Development Services Center.
Who can appeal: You may appeal the decision only if you wrote a letter which is received before the close of the record on hearing or if you testified at the hearing, or if you are the property owner or applicant. If you or anyone else appeals the decision of the Hearings Officer, City Council will hold an evidentiary hearing, one in which new evidence can be submitted to them. Upon submission of their application, the applicant for this land use review chose to waive the 120-day time frame in which the City must render a decision. This additional time allows for any appeal of this proposal to be held as an evidentiary hearing.
Appeal Fee Waivers: Neighborhood associations recognized by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement may qualify for a waiver of the appeal fee provided that the association has standing to appeal. The appeal must contain the signature of the Chair person or other person authorized by the association, confirming the vote to appeal was done in accordance with the organization’s bylaws.
Neighborhood associations, who wish to qualify for a fee waiver, must complete the Type III Appeal Fee Waiver Request for Organizations Form and submit it prior to the appeal deadline. The Type III Appeal Fee Waiver Request for Organizations Form contains instructions on how to apply for a fee waiver, including the required vote to appeal.
BDS may also grant fee waivers to low income applicants appealing a land use decision on their primary residence that they own in whole or in part. In addition, an appeal fee may be waived for a low income individual if the individual resides within the required notification area for the review, and the individual has resided at that address for at least 60 days. Individuals requesting fee waivers must submit documentation certifying their annual gross income and household size (copies of tax returns or documentation of public assistance is acceptable). Fee waivers for low-income individuals must be approved prior to filing your appeal; please allow three working days for fee waiver approval.
Recording the final decision. If this Land Use Review is approved the final decision must be recorded with the Multnomah County Recorder. A few days prior to the last day to appeal, the City will mail instructions to the applicant for recording the documents associated with their final land use decision. • Unless appealed, The final decision may be recorded on or after a date that will be clearly identified in the Hearings Officer’s Decision. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 60
• A building or zoning permit will be issued only after the final decision is recorded.
The applicant, builder, or a representative may record the final decision as follows:
• By Mail: Send the two recording sheets (sent in separate mailing) and the final Land Use Review decision with a check made payable to the Multnomah County Recorder to: Multnomah County Recorder, P.O. Box 5007, Portland OR 97208. The recording fee is identified on the recording sheet. Please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
• In Person: Bring the two recording sheets (sent in separate mailing) and the final Land Use Review decision with a check made payable to the Multnomah County Recorder to the County Recorder’s office located at 501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, #158, Portland OR 97214. The recording fee is identified on the recording sheet.
For further information on recording, please call the County Recorder at 503-988-3034 For further information on your recording documents please call the Bureau of Development Services Land Use Services Division at 503-823-0625.
Expiration of this approval. Conditional Use Master Plans and any concurrent reviews other than a Zone Change or Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment remain in effect until:
• All development allowed by the plan is completed; or • The plan is amended or superseded; or • As specified in the plan; or • As otherwise specified in the final decision.
Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment approvals do not expire.
Applying for your permits. A building permit, occupancy permit, or development permit may be required before carrying out an approved project. At the time they apply for a permit, permittees must demonstrate compliance with:
• All conditions imposed herein; • All applicable development standards, unless specifically exempted as part of this land use review; • All requirements of the building code; and • All provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Portland, and all other applicable ordinances, provisions and regulations of the City. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 61
EXHIBITS NOT ATTACHED UNLESS INDICATED
A. Applicant’s Statement 1. Narrative – Conditional Use Master Plan Submittal (November 24, 2008) – superseded by May 8, 2009 submittal (A-13) 2. Pre-Application Materials (Exhibit F – November 24, 2008) 3. Summary of Prior Permitting Actions (Exhibit G – November 24, 2008) 4. Neighborhood Meeting Materials (Exhibit H – November 24, 2008) 5. Transportation Analysis Reports (Exhibit I – November 24, 2008) a. Kittleson & Associates Memo: September 8, 2008 – Existing Conditions Due Diligence b. Kittleson & Associates Memo: June 16, 2008 – TDM review 6. Technical Reports/Memoranda re: proposed Law student housing (Exhibit J – November 24, 2008) a. Kittleson & Associates Memo: November 25, 2008 – Trip Generation Report for Proposed Law Student Housing and Boones Ferry Rd/Terwilliger Blvd Intersection Design b. HHPR Memo: September 22, 2008 – Comments on Road Re-alignment Options c. SWCA Environmental Consultants Memo: September 16, 2009 – Natural Resource Assessment for Proposed Law Student Housing Site 7. Events Management Policy (Exhibit K – November 24, 2008) 8. Griswold Stadium Sound Monitoring Reports (Exhibit L – November 24, 2008) 9. Griswold Stadium Scheduling Tables (Exhibit M – November 24, 2008) 10. SWCA Environmental Consultants Memo: September 29, 2008 – Huston Field Improvements Natural Resource Assessment (Exhibit N – November 24, 2008) 11. Summary of Conditions of Approval from previous land use reviews and proposed revisions (Exhibit O – November 24, 2008) 12. Minor edits to Master Plan Narrative: December 9, 2008 – superseded by May 8, 2009 submittal 13. Narrative – Conditional Use Master Plan Submittal (May 8, 2009) a. Supplemental narrative notice b. Project overview c. Overview of Current Proposal d. Transportation Demand Management e. Conditional Use Master Plan Review Criteria f. Conclusion 14. Building Program Table (Exhibit SE-4 – May 8, 2009) 15. HHPR Memo: May 7, 2009 - Updated Utility Memo & Storm Report for Law Student Housing (Exhibit SE-11 – May 8, 2009) 16. Westlake Consultants Memo: April 15, 2009 - Griswold Stadium Use Summary (Exhibit SE-12 – May 8, 2009) Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 62
17. Altermatt & Associates Memo: May 1, 2009 - Acoustical Observations: Existing Conditions at Huston Field (Exhibit SE-14 – May 8, 2009) 18. Additional written narrative: response to incomplete letter (May 11, 2009) 19. Westlake Consultants memo: June 9, 2009 – Utility Reports 1993-2003 (CD-ROM) 20. Additional written narrative: response to staff’s request for clarification (June 22, 2009) 21. HHPR Memo: July 1, 2009 – Storm System Master Plan a. Conceptual stormwater facility sizing table and hydrographs b. Boones Ferry Rd/Terwilliger West Properties Memo dated May 7, 2009 – conceptual stormwater facilities at proposed Law Student Housing c. GeoDesign Memo dated 7-1-09 - Geotechnical reconnaissance report and field reconnaissance photographs (CD-ROM) d. Conceptual storm facility map and utility inventory drawings 22. HHPR Memo: July 22, 2009 – output files using Presumptive Approach Calculator for conceptual storm water facilities at Law Student Housing 23. HHPR Memo: July 22, 2009 – Prioritization of the repair and maintenance of stormwater outfalls 24. Additional written narrative: July 24, 2009 – response to concerns regarding light proposal at Griswold Stadium 25. Westlake Consultants memo: July 30, 2009 – DRAFT proposed changes to Conditions Q and T of the 1998 CUMP 26. Kittelson & Associates memo: August 3, 2009 – Supplemental Intersection Design for Boones Ferry Rd/Terwilliger Blvd B. Zoning Map (attached) C. Plans & Drawings 1. Campus Map (attached) 2. Law School/Lower Boones Ferry Property (attached) 3. Fir Acres/Academic Core (attached) 4. Fir Acres/Student Housing (attached) 5. South Campus (attached) 6. Campus Existing and Proposed Vehicle/Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation (SE-5 – May 8, 2009) 7. Campus Master Plan and Environmental Zones (SE-6 – May 8, 2009) 8. Campus Parking Lots (SE-7 – May 8, 2009) 9. Water, Sanitary, and Storm System Infrastructure (SE-9 – May 8, 2009) 10. Law Student Conceptual Site Plan (SE-10 – May 8, 2009) 11. Tax Maps and Property Lists (Exhibit D – November 24, 2008) 12. Boundary Map (Exhibit C 1 – November 24, 2008) D. Notification information 1. Request for response 2. Request for response – revised with new hearing date 3. Posting letter sent to applicant 4. Revised posting letter sent to applicant with new hearing date 5. Notice to be posted Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 63
6. Revised notice to be posted with new hearing date 7. Applicant’s statement certifying posting 8. Mailing list 9. Mailed Notice E. Agency Responses 1. Bureau of Environmental Services Land Use Response 2. Bureau of Transportation Engineering and Development Review 3. Bureau of Transportation Engineering and Development Review Revised Conditions 4. Water Bureau 5. Fire Bureau – TRACS response 6. Police Bureau 7. Bureau of Development Services/Site Development 8. Bureau of Development Services/Site Development Addendum 9. Bureau of Parks, Forestry Division – TRACS response 10. Life Safety Plans Review Section of Bureau of Development Services F. Letters 1. Letter, 6-6-09, Josh Hinerfeld, 0600 SW Palatine Hill Rd, Portland, OR 97219 -Opposes of expanded use at Griswold 2. Email, 6-12-09, Joan O’Bannon, in opposition of expanded use at Griswold and Huston 3. Letter, 6-18-09, Robert & Johnette Majury, 10409 SW 4th Ave., Portland, OR 97219 - Opposes proposed use expansion at Huston 4. Letter, 6-24-09, Dave & Dixie Johnston – Collins View Neighborhood Association, 0550 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland, OR 97219 – Opposes expanded use at Griswold and Huston with exhibits noted below: 5. F.1 above - duplicate 6. Letter, 6-6-09, David DeVol, 0602 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland, OR 97219 - Opposes expanded use at Griswold and Huston 7. Email correspondence from Thomas Jones to Josh Hinerfeld, 6/2/09, in opposition of expanded use at Griswold and Huston 8. Letter from Josh Hinerfeld to Dave & Dixie Johnson, 6/1/09, in opposition to expansion of use at Griswold 9. Letter from Athey Creek Christian Fellowship to “Lewis and Clark neighbor”, 2-13-08, notification of Sunday Easter Service at Griswold. Photos of traffic included. 10. Portland Track Festival schedule, 6-13-09 11. Email, 6-23-09, Mark Duntley & Melinda Smith, 0570 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland, OR 97219 in support of College. 12. Letter, 7-1-09, Brian Russel, Southwest Neighbors, Inc, 7688 SW Capitol Highway, Portland, OR 97219 – Opposes expanded use at Griswold and Huston 13. Letter, 7-13-09, Riverdale School District, Terry Hoagland, 11733 SW Breyman Ave., Portland, OR 97219 - Support for expanded use at Griswold 14. Letter, 7-21-09, Margo Ballantyne, 0526 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland, OR 97219 - Support for expanded use at Griswold G. Other 1. Original LUR Application (Exhibit B – November 24, 2008) Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 64
2. Site History Research 3. Pre-Application Conference notes 4. Incomplete Letter 5. Signed 120-day waiver 6. Request for Rescheduled Hearing 7. Letter to Applicant May 27, 2008, Re: Additional Clarification Required H. Received in the Hearings Office 1. Request to reschedule - Frugoli, Sheila a. Request for an Evidentiary Hearing and Waiver of Right to a Decision within 120 Days Frugoli, Sheila 2. Hearing Notice - Frugoli, Sheila 3. Letter - De Lance, Jack & Norene 4. Staff Report - Frugoli, Sheila 5. Memo to Hearings Officer dated 8/11/09 w/attached memo from PBOT - Frugoli, Sheila a. Memo from PBOT to Frugoli dated 8/7/09 - Frugoli, Sheila 6. Letter with 17 pages of photos attached handwritten labeled A-Q - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn a. Photos (17 pgs.) handwritten labeled A-Q - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn 7. Letter with attached aerial map - Anderson, Reed 8. Letter dated 8/18/09 - Simmons, Jack 9. Letter dated 8/18/09 - Simmons, Sue 10. Memo from Frugoli to Hearings Officer with attachments of testimony rec'd in BDS - Frugoli, Sheila a. Letter from Anne Dobson dated 8/18/09 - Frugoli, Sheila b. Copy of email from Astrida Berzs to Frugoli dated 8/18/09 - Frugoli, Sheila c. Copy of email from Rayona Horkulic to Frugoli dated 8/18/09 - Frugoli, Sheila d. Letter from Friends of Tryon Creek State Park dated 8/17/09 - Frugoli, Sheila e. Copy of email from Gary Folker to Frugoli dated 8/17/09 - Frugoli, Sheila f. Copy of email from Jesse Rosenzweig to Frugoli dated 8/14/09 - Frugoli, Sheila g. Letter from Bruce Thiel with copies of 2 tax lot maps - Frugoli, Sheila h. Letter from Jan & Marcia Baisch dated 8/12/09 - Frugoli, Sheila 11. 8/18/09 letter - Bonn, Kristin 12. 8/18/09 letter - Bonn, David 13. Letter dated 8/18/09 - Bonn, Christopher 14. Letter dated 8/18/09 - Notbohm, Mark & Ellen 15. Letter dated 8/19/09 with attachments - Johnston, Dave and Dixie a. Letter to "Johnsons" (Johnstons) with signatures dated 8/5/09 - Johnston, Dave and Dixie b. Letter to Douglas Hardy from Johnstons - Johnston, Dave and Dixie c. Rose City Showcase printout from web site - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 16. PowerPoint presentation - Frugoli, Sheila 17. Copy of email from Carlin Evans to Frugoli dated 8/18/09 with note to replace this with previously submitted letter (added to record, not replaced) - Frugoli, Sheila 18. Copy of email from Tyler Lawrence to Frugoli dated 8/18/09 - Frugoli, Sheila Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 65
19. Copy of email from Paul Dunlap to Frugoli dated 8/17/09 - Frugoli, Sheila 20. Memo to Hearings Officer from Frugoli & Fast - Frugoli, Sheila 21. Letter dated 8/19/09 - Vance, Carl 22. Narrative (5 pgs.) - Yeager, Clark 23. Letter - Atkinson, Jane 24. Letter - Bray, Jim 25. Letter - Laurence, Tucker 26. Letter - Pamp, Meredith 27. Letter - Peale, James 28. Letter - Lamberti, Walter 29. 11 x 17 Photos (2) - DeLance, John 30. Testimony - Dana, Sam 31. SW Portland Walking Map - DeLance, John 32. Testimony - DeLance, John 33. 8/18/09 letter - DeLance, John 34. Letter - Majury, Robert & Johnette 35. Letter - De Lance, Norene 36. Letter - Walker, Samantha 37. Letter - Danehower, Andrea 38. Petition signed with "I Oppose..." header notating what petitioners are signing - Troutman, DeeAnn a. Signature pages (3) - no header stating what signatures are for, not attached to previous petition - Troutman, DeeAnn 39. Letter with attachments - Troutman, DeeAnn a. Narrative/Questions "You Will Be Interested To Know.." - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn b. Maps (10 pgs.) - Troutman, DeeAnn 40. Letter - Pierce, Gwendolyn 41. Letter addressed to Mr. Prakash Joshi dated 8/11/09 - Ford, Michael 42. Letter - Smaka, Stashu 43. Letter dated 8/19/09 also from Anna Browne - Keller, Barry Stuart 44. 8/22/09 Memo with attachments - Leighton, Lee a. E-mails - Leighton, Lee b. 8/18/09 Memo, GeoDesign Inc. to Ron Peterson - Leighton, Lee 45. 8/25/09 memo with attachments - Frugoli, Sheila a. 8/19/09 e-mail from Rebecca Hein - Frugoli, Sheila b. 8/19/09 e-mail from Clarence Hein - Frugoli, Sheila c. 8/18/09 e-mail from Barry Stuart Keller - Frugoli, Sheila 46. 8/27/09 letter - Behrens, Maggie O'Connor 47. BES Addendum to Land Use Response to Hearings Officer (cc: Frugoli) dated 9/3/09 - Frugoli, Sheila 48. Memo to Hearings Officer dated 9/3/09 - Helm, George 49. 9/5/09 letter from Collins View NA with attachment - Johnston, Dave and Dixie a. 9/3/09 Memo, SWNI to Collins View NA Board - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 50. 9/9/09 letter - Fisher, Emerson G. Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 66
51. Letter dated 9/9/09 - Hinerfeld, Josh 52. Letter dated 9/12/09 - Snyder, Kent & Phyllis 53. Letter dated 9/14/09 - Arrowsmith, Richard 54. Letter dated 9/14/09 - Blackburn, Don 55. Letter dated 9/13/09 - Lipkin, Eileen L. 56. Letter - Rosenfield, Randy 57. Letter from Charlotte dated 9/14/09 - Joshi, Prakash & Charlotte 58. Letter - Charles, Mike 59. 9/15/09 letter - Thomsen, BJ 60. Letter dated 9/12/09 - Dummer, Bruce & Peggy 61. Memo from Frugoli with attachments - Frugoli, Sheila a. Copy of email from Sully Taylor to Frugoli dated 8/25/09 - Frugoli, Sheila b. Letter from Marianna Redd to Frugoli dated 8/18/09 - Frugoli, Sheila 62. Letter - Brusselback, Nate 63. Letter - Brusselback, Jennifer 64. Letter dated 9/15/09 - Dobson, Anne 65. Letter with map & photos - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 66. Letter from Cassandra O'Banion - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 67. Letter from Virgil Kemper - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 68. Letter - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 69. Letter from Helen Juckett - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 70. Letter from Nancy Jo Visenberg - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 71. Letter from Josh Hinerfeld - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 72. Letter - James, N. 73. Letter - James, N. 74. Letter dated 9/16/09 from Tryon Creek Watershed Council Chair - Preeg Riggsby, Terri 75. 9/16/09 letter requesting extension of record closing - Abel, Steven W. 76. 9/16/09 Memo with attachments - Frugoli, Sheila a. Recommended conditions - Frugoli, Sheila b. Recommended conditions - Frugoli, Sheila 77. 9/16/09 letter - Dana, Sam 78. 9/15/09 letter - Peale, James 79. 9/15/09 Memo - Hoagland, Terry 80. 9/15/09 Memo from Riverdale School District - Frugoli, Sheila 81. Letter from N. James - Frugoli, Sheila 82. 9/15/09 letter - De Lance, John & Kathy 83. 9/15/09 letter with attachment - Joshi, Prakash & Charlotte a. Diagram - Joshi, Prakash & Charlotte 84. 9/14/09 letter - Danehower, Andrea 85. 9/14/09 letter - Pierce, Jonathan 86. 9/16/09 letter from Arnold Creek NA - Hand, Nancy 87. 9/16/09 letter - Hand, Nancy 88. 9/14/09 letter - DeVol, David 89. Letter with attachments - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 67
a. 9/16/09 letter from Tryon creek Watershed Council - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn b. Photos (10 pages) - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn c. Natural Resource Assessment Map - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn d. Map - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn e. Notes - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn f. Photos (5 pages) - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn g. Upper Tryon Creek Corridor Assessment - August 1997 - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn h. 9/16/09 letter from AECOM Environment - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn i. Photos (33 pages) - Troutman, Mark & DeeAnn 90. Letter - Taylor, Mary 91. 9/14/09 letter - Bradley, Nicole 92. 9/16/09 letter with attachments - Abel, Steven W. a. 9/15/09 Memo from SWCA Environmental Consultants - Abel, Steven W. b. 8/18/09 E-mails - Abel, Steven W. c. 10/8/07 Lewis & Clark Law School Housing Study Results - Abel, Steven W. d. Law/Graduate School Housing "Interested" Residents Demographic Profile - Abel, Steven W. e. Lewis & Clark College Law Student Housing Study with Maplecrest Relocation - Abel, Steven W. f. Law Student Housing Lease - Abel, Steven W. g. Bylaws of the Collins View NA - Abel, Steven W. h. Complaints - Abel, Steven W. i. Unofficial Transcript, August 19, 2009 Hearing - Abel, Steven W. j. Maps - Abel, Steven W. k. Summary of Light & Sound Usage at Huston Field - Abel, Steven W. l. Parking Violations Fine Schedule - Abel, Steven W. 93. 9/16/09 letter - Stull, Barry Joe 94. 9/22/09 memo with attachment - Frugoli, Sheila a. 9/12/09 letter from Carolyn Voit - Frugoli, Sheila 95. Supplemental Transportation Analysis (bound booklet including letter from Steven Abel & report by Kittelson & Assoc.) - Abel, Steven W. 96. Letter with map attached (4 pgs.) - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 97. Letter dated 9/30/09 - Casey, Joyce 98. Letter dated 9/30/09 - Gibbon, John T. 99. Letter dated 9/30/09 - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 100. Letter - McFadden, Katy 101. Letter - Baack, Don 102. Appears duplicate copy of letter (Exh. H.101) - Baack, Don 103. Memo to Frugoli from de Freitas dated 9/30/09 (2 pgs.) - de Freitas, Fabio 104. Revised Response to BDS Land Use Review Request dated 9/30/09 - de Freitas, Fabio 105. Letter dated 9/29/09 from Prakosh Joshi, Walker, McLaughlin & De Lance - Walker, Samantha 106. Letter dated 9/30/09 from Prakosh Joshi - Walker, Samantha 107. Letter dated 9/30/09 from Walker & McLaughlin - Walker, Samantha Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 68
108. Letter with copies of articles dated 9/30/09 from Rozek, Joshi, Walker, McLaughlin & De Lance - Walker, Samantha 109. Copies of news articles (3 pgs.) - Walker, Samantha 110. Copies of email/blog streams (5 pgs.) - Walker, Samantha 111. Letter with petition attached (14 pgs., some partially complete) - Walker, Samantha 112. Memo with 16 letters attached, exhibited separately - Walker, Samantha a. Letter from Tyler Lawrence - Walker, Samantha b. Letter from Laura Siddons - Walker, Samantha c. Letter from Betsy Shand - Walker, Samantha d. Letter from Lloyd DuBois - Walker, Samantha e. Letter from Janet Franco - Walker, Samantha f. Letter from Don McConnell - Walker, Samantha g. Letter from Russell Albertson - Walker, Samantha h. Letter from Kirsten Doblien - Walker, Samantha i. Letter from Robert E. Long, Jr. - Walker, Samantha j. Letter from Peter Giambrone - Walker, Samantha k. Letter from Johnette Majury - Walker, Samantha l. Letter from Martin Zimmer - Walker, Samantha m. Letter from Maxine Walker - Walker, Samantha n. Letter from Jim Diamond - Walker, Samantha o. Letter from Leigh Allen - Walker, Samantha p. Letter from Barry Stuart Keller - Walker, Samantha q. Letter from John De Lance - Walker, Samantha r. Letter with map attached - Walker, Samantha s. Letter from Walker & McLaughlin - Walker, Samantha 113. Letter dated 9/29/09 from Danni McLaughlin & photos attached - Walker, Samantha a. Photos - Walker, Samantha b. Photos - Walker, Samantha c. Photos - Walker, Samantha d. Photos - Walker, Samantha e. Photos - Walker, Samantha f. Photos - Walker, Samantha g. Photo - Walker, Samantha 114. Letter from McLaughlin dated 9/29/09 with photos attached - Walker, Samantha a. Photo - Walker, Samantha b. Photo - Walker, Samantha c. Photo - Walker, Samantha d. Photo - Walker, Samantha e. Photo - Walker, Samantha f. Photos - Walker, Samantha g. Photo - Walker, Samantha 115. Letter dated 9/30/09 from Rozek, Joshi, Walker, McLaughlin & DeLance with maps attached - Walker, Samantha 116. Letter dated 9/30/09 - Dana, Sam Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 69
117. Letter dated 9/30/09 with index tab attachments - Abel, Steven W. a. Tree Study 11 x 17 (5 pages) - Abel, Steven W. b. Site Plan Aerial Map - Abel, Steven W. c. Site Plan Aerial Map (possible duplicate of Exh. H.117b) - Abel, Steven W. d. Photos (2 pages) - Abel, Steven W. 118. Memo of Addendum to Supplemental Traffic Analysis from Kittelson & Assoc. to Krueger at PBOT dated 9/30/09 - Abel, Steven W. a. Supplemental Transportation Analysis dated 9/25/09 (possible duplicate of Exh. H.95) - Abel, Steven W. b. Report - 2009 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour - Abel, Steven W. 119.Letter - Staloff, Steve 120. Letter dated 9/30/09 - Bell, Brenna 121. Letter with attachments - Abel, Steven W. a. Kittelson & Assoc. Memo to Carl Vance at Lewis & Clark College dated 10/8/09 - Abel, Steven W. b. Copy (duplicate) of Exh. H.121 & H.121a - Abel, Steven W. 122. Memo from BES to Hearings Officer dated 10/14/09 - Abel, Steven W. 123.10/23/09 letter with attachment - Abel, Steven W. a. 10/21/09 Memo from SWCA - Abel, Steven W. 124. 10/31/09 letter - Shand, Betsy 125. 11/2/09 letter - Johnston, Dave and Dixie 126. 11/2/09 letter with attachments - McLaughlin, Danni a. 10/23/09 letter, Abel to Frank - McLaughlin, Danni b. 10/21/09 Memo, SWCA to Stoel Rives/Westlake Consultants - McLaughlin, Danni c. Map - McLaughlin, Danni 127. 11/2/09 letter with attachment - McLaughlin, Danni a. 11/2/09 letter, McLaughlin to Carl Vance - McLaughlin, Danni 128. 11/2/09 letter with attachments - Joshi, Prakash a. E-mails, Danni McLaughlin/John Charles - Joshi, Prakash b. Traffic Chart, Terwilliger/Boones Ferry to Freeway - Joshi, Prakash c. Travel Time Run Results from Terwilliger at Maplecrest to Interstate 5 - Joshi, Prakash d. Travel Time Run Results from Terwilliger at Maplecrest to Interstate 5 - Joshi, Prakash e. Travel Time Run Results from Terwilliger at Maplecrest to Terwilliger at Taylors Ferry Joshi, Prakash f. TriMet Bus Route 38 Schedule - Joshi, Prakash g. TriMet Bus Route 39 Schedule - Joshi, Prakash 129. 11/2/09 letter with attachments - McLaughlin, Danni a. 10/16/09 article "Who wants a Law School dorm?" - McLaughlin, Danni b. Lewis & Clark, College of Arts & Sciences article "LC gets C+ for sustainability" - McLaughlin, Danni c. Lewis & Clark, College of Arts & Sciences article "Chapel addition planned" - McLaughlin, Danni 130. 11/2/09 letter with attachments - McLaughlin, Danni Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (HO 4090017) Page 70
a. Southwest Hills Resource Protection Plan - May 1992 - McLaughlin, Danni b. SW Neighborhood News article "Private landowners helping threatened salmon return to Tryon Creek" - McLaughlin, Danni c. Article "Improvements Proposed for Willamette Subwatersheds" - McLaughlin, Danni d. 10/25/09 photos - McLaughlin, Danni 131. 11/2/09 letter - Dexter, Michael 132. 11/2/09 letter with attachments - McLaughlin, Danni a. E-mails - McLaughlin, Danni 133. 11/2/09 letter with attachments - Walker, Samantha a. Pioneer Log article "Who wants a Law School dorm?" - Walker, Samantha b. Pioneer Log article "LC get C+ for sustainability" - Walker, Samantha c. Lewis and Clark College Campus Survey - Walker, Samantha d. Community Relations Board Meeting Minutes - 3/5/09 - Walker, Samantha e. KGW.com article "Bike ban considered through SW Portland cemetery" - Walker, Samantha f. 2008 Master Plan - Walker, Samantha g. Lewis & Clark College Neighobrhood Parking Enforcement Boundaries - Walker, Samantha h. Testimony - Walker, Samantha i. PortlandMaps printout - Walker, Samantha j. Article - "Threat or Opportunity?" - Walker, Samantha 134. Letter with attachments - Laird, Fran a. Map - Laird, Fran b. Lewis & Clark College Law Student Housing Study with Maplecrest Relocation - Laird, Fran c. Outfall Restricted Streams - Laird, Fran d. PortlandMaps printouts (4 pages) - Laird, Fran e. Lewis & Clark College Law Student Housing Study with Maplecrest Relocation - Laird, Fran f. Aerial photo with overlays - Laird, Fran 135. Notebook - Drive-In Experiment 10/20/09 - McLaughlin, Danni a. DVD - McLaughlin, Danni 136. 11/2/09 letter with attachments - McFadden, Katy a. 10/20/09 Oregonian article "Basin's health in jeopardy" - McFadden, Katy b. Photos and business card - McFadden, Katy 137. Final written argument - Abel, Steven W.
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (4090017) Page 71
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (4090017) Page 72
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (4090017) Page 73
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (4090017) Page 74
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (4090017) Page 75
Decision of the Hearings Officer LU 08-180498 CU MS (4090017) Page 76