Tualatin council affirms ARB approval of Land Research campus expansion amid debate over supplemental noise findings
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Council affirmed the Architectural Review Board's approval of the Land Research campus expansion (resolution 5937‑25) and accepted a revised applicant exhibit that removed most contested noise‑standard language; staff said the supplemental findings were intended to guard against LUBA appeals.
The Tualatin City Council voted on Dec. 8 to adopt Resolution 5937‑25, affirming the Architectural Review Board's approval of the Land Research campus expansion (ARB 24‑0002) on Southwest Leviton Drive and related tax lots.
City attorney Kevin McConnell told the council the resolution contains three exhibits: the ARB's findings, the council appeal staff memo and the applicant's proposed findings. McConnell said the applicant's third exhibit initially included detailed noise‑standard language that drew community concern; the applicant submitted a redlined revision that removed the majority of those contested provisions. McConnell explained that including supplemental or alternative findings is a common legal strategy — "belt and suspenders" — to preserve the council's decision in the event of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) challenge. He said the council could voluntarily withdraw and refine findings if the matter is appealed.
An attorney for the applicant (Lam) described the supplemental findings as defensive and said the revisions were intended to address issues raised during public testimony and help the record withstand a potential appeal. A community member, identified as Mr. Hamilton, thanked the applicant for the revisions while urging the council to press the applicant on existing noise issues; city staff responded that a code enforcement investigation into ongoing noise complaints is underway and that the resolution does not preclude members of the public from lodging noise complaints.
Councilors and staff reaffirmed that the hearing was not reopened and that no new evidence would be accepted during the resolution vote. The council adopted the resolution and the revised exhibit submitted that afternoon; staff noted that if the matter is appealed to LUBA the council retains the ability to reconsider and modify the findings.
Ending: The resolution was adopted unanimously (roll call recorded as unanimous). Staff reiterated that community members remain able to file noise complaints with code enforcement and that an investigation is in progress.