1 of 1 
DECEMBER 16, 2002
The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob
Drake in the Forrest C. Soth Council Chambers, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton,
Oregon, on Monday, December 16, 2002, at 6:35 p.m.
Mayor Drake noted this was Councilor Brzezinski’s last city council meeting and she would
be missed.
Present were Mayor Drake, Councilors Evelyn Brzezinski, Dennis Doyle, Fred Ruby,
Forrest Soth and Cathy Stanton.  Also present were Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, City
Attorney Mark Pilliod, Finance Director Patrick O'Claire, Community Development Director
Joe Grillo, Engineering Director Tom Ramisch, Operations/Maintenance Director Gary
Brentano, Library Director Ed House, Police Chief David Bishop and City Recorder Sue
Nelson.  Also present were Building Official Brad Roast, Project Engineer Jim Duggan,
Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley, Senior Field Inspector Bob Hammond, City
Engineer Terry Waldele, and City Utilities Engineer David Winship.
Henry Kane, Beaverton, said he gave the City Recorder a letter about urban renewal that
contained a picture of an urban renewal development that was vacant for forty years.  He
said the 114th Avenue Project would be reviewed by the Advisory Committee and it was a
serious matter.  He said that the press reports stated that Beaverton must approve the
Tigard Plan.  He noted Tigard had gone through an urban renewal fight and lost.  He said
urban renewal was a sensitive subject.  
Mayor Drake explained that Tigard had not approached the City about an urban renewal
district.  He said the Washington Square Regional Center Plan would require that
Beaverton hold a hearing to change the Comprehensive Plan and zoning but that would
not be an urban renewal district.    
Councilor Soth said he participated in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and
while a portion did extend into Beaverton as a boundary, an urban renewal district was not
proposed.  He noted this was a tool that might be available sometime for funding the
improvements, which were over $100 million. 
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page ²
Councilor Soth noted the improvements would depend on many entities, including
Washington County’s Department of Transportation, the City of Tigard, and others.  He
stressed that an urban renewal district was never specified.  
Harry Bodine, Cedar Mill, said he was on the Cedar Mill Community Library Board and
they had conducted an informal study on the pros and cons of forming a library service
district.  He said the study was to determine the legal and political problems in setting up a
district and to see if it was financially possible.  He said Cedar Mill wanted to remain part
of the Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS); the district would only
cover the unincorporated territory.  He said the district would not operate the library but
would contract for services with the Cedar Mill Community Library Association.  The West
Slope area had indicated interest in becoming part of this district.  He said Council would
receive a copy of the report when it was completed and the Board would appreciate any
Mayor Drake asked him if the proposed district was in addition to WCCLS; and would both
WCCLS and the proposed district be on the ballot.   
Bodine replied they could be, though he was not sure that would be wise.  
Mayor Drake noted Bodine had supplied them with figures on the voter turnout for the
WCCLS Measure 34-54 and Cedar Mill had a 70% turnout.  He noted with that turnout,
they could get the double majority on an off-year election.  
Bodine explained that the problem with not going with a primary or general election was 
the people requesting a special election would be required to pay for the election. He said
he did not know what a special election would cost and they did not have a lot of money.  
Councilor Soth asked if there would be two measures on the ballot one to form the district
and another to provide financing.  
Bodine explained that the typical process, per State law, was to petition for an election and
the measure would be to form the district, elect a board of directors and provide initial
funding.  He noted that one of the legal questions they had was if the financial package
could be divorced from creating the district.  He said that if the WCCLS levy did pass and
it treated Cedar Mill fairly, there would be no need for a service district.  
Councilor Doyle thanked him for the levy tally and noted the tremendous upswing in the
votes; about 44,000 more people voted in 2002.    
Bodine agreed the numbers were impressive.  He said in areas where people were asked
to support the measure, it passed, but in areas where there was little or no campaigning,
the results were poor.  
Councilor Brzezinski said she had been very impressed with the work from City staff over
the last ten years.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page ³
Councilor Brzezinski noted that staff did not often receive a thank you for the their work,
but she wanted the staff to know she realized they worked hard and she appreciated their
efforts.  She thanked the Council for a good ten years. She concluded that the staff and
Council continually impressed her.  
Councilor Soth reminded Councilor Brzezinski she was a Councilor for 15 more days.  He
said she had brought a lot of common sense and analytical ability to the Council and he
appreciated all she had done.
There were none 
Councilor Ruby  MOVED, SECONDED by Councilor Doyle, that the Consent Agenda be
approved as follows:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 14, 2002, November 4, 2002 and December 2,
Traffic Control Board Issue 494 and Traffic Commission Issues TC 495-498
Adopt Resolution Repealing a Portion of Resolution 3690 Authorizing Implementation of
One and Two Family Dwelling Mechanical Permit Fee Increases  (Res. No. 3694)
A Resolution Authorizing a Revised Intergovernmental Agreement for the Metropolitan
Area Communications Commission (Res. No. 3695) 
Appropriation of Additional Funds for Private Underground Utility Facilities in the SW
Millikan Way Extension, SW Hocken Avenue to SW Cedar Hills Boulevard
Land Purchase Authorization – ASR (Aquifer Storage and Recovery) Well No. 4, Lots 8 &
9, 1S121DC, TL 1800, at 13450 SW Hanson Road
Board and Commission Appointments
A Resolution Establishing Photo Radar Speed Enforcement in Certain Areas and Ratifying
Prior Determinations  (Pulled and to be rescheduled to January 2003)
Contract Review Board:
Consultant Contract Award – Water System Vulnerability Assessment
Waiver of Sealed Bidding, Authorization for Rental of Six (6) Copy Machines from State of
Oregon Bid Award
Chief of Staff Linda Adlard pulled Agenda Bill 02349   
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 4
Councilor Brzezinski explained concerning Agenda Bill 02345 the Metropolitan Area
Communication Commission’s (MACC) main priority was to have an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) that improved business procedures.  She noted the new distinction in the
agreement about unanimous consent of all member jurisdictions and unanimous consent
of all affected jurisdictions.  She said the change meant that only jurisdictions affected by a
change would need to give their consent.  She noted that those items that needed a
quorum were spelled out and there were now regulations on how to withdraw from MACC. 
She explained a jurisdiction would not be able to utilize MACC’s negotiating assistance to
get a franchise and then leave; a window was put around the negotiation period and a
jurisdiction could not leave for 18 months before or after a franchise was negotiated.  She
noted that the other change was that a lot of the items that were in the agreement were
now in the by-laws.  
Councilor Doyle complimented Councilor Brzezinski for her many years of service to
Councilors Stanton and Doyle said they had minor corrections to the October 14, 2002,
minutes, which they gave to the City Recorder.  
Councilor Doyle asked concerning Agenda Bill 02343, Traffic Control Board Issue 497
(Traffic Signal at Cedar Hills Blvd. And Fairfield Street), if there was anything that the City
could do for the people in that neighborhood to handle the problems with speeding and
drivers running the red light.  
Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley said the Commission looked at this; he noted all
their concerns were outside of the City; the Traffic Commission felt the City should not
spend its resources outside of the City. 
Councilor Doyle suggested it would be wise for the City to “nudge” those responsible to
take care of the situation, as these were serious issues.    
Mayor Drake noted a lot more positive than negative came from installing the traffic light,
and the speed bumps on 123rd and 124th added to the safety of that area.  
Councilor Doyle agreed the traffic light helped.  
Question called on the motion.  Councilors Brzezinski, Doyle, Soth, Ruby and Stanton
voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0)
Appeal of Site Development Permit Penalty Fee for Home Depot (110th Avenue)
Mayor Drake explained this was a public hearing on the appeal of the Site Development
Permit Penalty Fee for Home Depot at 110th Avenue.  He explained the process for the
hearing (in the record).  
Development Services Engineer Jim Duggan explained that in his position he acted under
the authority of the city engineer.  He said this double fee penalty was similar to the
Elmonica double fee situation heard by the Council a few weeks ago.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 5
Duggan noted the circumstances were slightly different, but the Code Sections that were
enacted were the same.  He offered to answer any Council questions.  
Councilor Stanton stated she understood the chronology and she asked if she was
missing anything.
Duggan replied that one thing that could not be communicated very well was that there
were a lot of discussions going on between staff members and the Home Depot team (the
owner, the engineer and the contractor).  He said that up until the time of the pre-
construction meeting, there was no sit down session where everyone received all of the
information at the same time.  He said everyone received information through a series of
separate discussions.  He said staff tried to communicate with as many people as they
had interaction with, on what was left to get a permit and what could be done under the
demolition permit.
Councilor Stanton said that was well stated in the report.
Councilor Soth referred to the demolition permit (Exhibit 2A) and noted the statement was
made “if more than 50 cubic yards of soil was removed and/or placed outside the building
footprint.”  He asked if this referred to the building being demolished or the new building.   
Duggan replied that the demolition permit was a “one size fits all” form.  He said he
believed it referred to the existing building being demolished rather than a new building.  
Councilor Doyle referred to Exhibit 2 and asked what issues had to wait until issuance of
the site development permit.  
Duggan explained there were a few things the contractor needed to get going on before
the demolition could be done.  He said they needed to bring some large pieces of
equipment onto the site with access off Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.  He said the
contractor was given the okay to remove the island so that the equipment could be
brought in.  He said they were allowed to clear a small area for the job trailer and to do
some shrub trimming and erosion control measures.  
Councilor Doyle asked if he could recall what had to wait until issuance of the permit.  
Duggan replied that included bringing any material onto the site, stockpiling, moving the
asphalt and disturbing or churning up the site.  He said Bob Hammond, Senior Field
Inspector, was involved in those conversations.  
Councilor Stanton asked if the movement of more than 50 cubic yards of soil had
Duggan explained that on the day the red tag was issued, City staff discovered they had
brought a lot more material onto the site than 50 cubic yards.    
City Attorney Mark Pilliod asked Duggan if he recognized the signature on the bottom of
the demolition permit.    
Duggan said it was one of the building staff. 
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 6
Mayor Drake confirmed that the applicant was Mr. Whitney with Turner Construction.  He
noted that the second page of the demolition permit was specific on what could and could
not be done.    
Duggan noted the permit was page 6 of the staff report and it was used for a number of
Councilor Stanton noted the application and permit were dated the same day. She said
she was not seeing permission to pull up asphalt.  She asked if this was specifically for
removal of concrete and asphalt exactly where the building was located.  
Duggan responded that it would have been at the building or within five feet of the
building.  He clarified that the reason for the red tag was because of the material brought
onto the site and not the material generated from the site, other than ripping up asphalt
outside of the building area.
Building Official Brad Roast explained that page 5 of the staff report was the application
for the demolition permit.  He added that page 6, Exhibit A2, was a condition of the permit
and the handout provided with the permit specified what the permit allowed.  
Councilor Stanton said she appreciated the permit information and asked if anyone at the
City reviewed the points of the permit with the applicant.  
Roast explained that as a general rule, this document was given out to be read by the
applicant.  He said if there were any questions, staff could be contacted. 
Dave Whitney, Senior Project Manager, Turner Construction 
Norman Ouellette, Project Manager, Turner Construction
Whitney stated they were issued a demolition permit and at that time were told not to
mass excavate.  He said that was where the misunderstanding occurred, as they did not
believe they did any mass excavation.  He said they brought in extremely heavy
equipment and a crusher, to crush large concrete that was then stockpiled.  He said that
when they started a project they brought in pipe and electrical conduit.  He said they
stockpiled gravel to mix with the reclaimed material.  He noted that 90% of what was
demolished was recycled and, to do that correctly, they needed to stockpile other
materials next to it.  He said they did not haul away any material and as heavy materials
were pushed towards the crusher, some asphalt came up.  He said it was not mass
excavation.  He said they came before Council to explain the misunderstanding and that
they would be paying the fine, not Home Depot.  He noted they had set up a site fence to
protect the citizens and they went beyond what was needed for erosion control.  He said
they were trying to be good citizens and this was just a miscommunication.
Councilor Soth complimented Whitney on the recycling of all the material.  He asked how
deep they dug into the asphalt surface when they were moving materials to the crusher.
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 7
Ouellette explained that the asphalt buckled so they peeled it up and stockpiled it next to
the crusher, to be recycled with the concrete and asphalt.  He said on the south end of the
project (Chucky Cheese site), they excavated the footprint, so that their contractor could
layout the building footprint.  He said that on everything they pulled up, they left the base
rock and did not get into any soils.  
Councilor Soth asked if the excavation at the Chucky Cheese site was done first and prior
to July 19th.  
Ouellette replied it was not the first, as asphalt was pulled up to set the construction
trailers and there was the asphalt that came up as material was moved toward the
crusher.  He said that was before July 19th.  
Councilor Stanton noted from the chronology that by the time the red tag was issued, 2000
cubic yards of other material was stockpiled on the site.
Ouellette said they brought recycled materials from another site.  He said they intended to
mix both materials together and reuse it on the site.  He said none of it was hauled off; it
was still on the site to be used. 
Whitney said that was part of the misunderstanding.  He said it was stockpiled, but the
verbiage was to “not place it.”   He said placement was different from stockpiling; “place”
was to spread it out and pack it.  He stressed they stockpiled it, they had not placed it.  
Councilor Stanton noted that a permit was required to stockpile materials and asked if they
had worked in Beaverton before this job.  
Whitney replied they had worked in Beaverton before, but never had the permits divided
up like this.  He said they had a large corporation (Home Depot) on them daily to start and
there were other agencies involved (ODOT and Washington County).  He said they were
the third party and were getting their information from Home Depot, the architect, and
Councilor Doyle asked in their discussions with staff if they explained to anyone what they
were doing.  
Whitney explained that the normal procedure would be to crush it and place it at the same
time.  He noted that because they didn’t have a site permit, they could not place it, so they
stockpiled it.    
Mayor Drake said the ordinance was clear on starting work and that there was no latitude
on the fine.  He added he has asked staff to revise the ordinance.  He asked Whitney if
they had discussed with the other partners (Home Depot, the engineer and architect) if
they would help with the responsibility of the fine.  
Whitney responded that they did request help from Home Depot and did not receive any. 
He said they were working well with the City now.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 8
Councilor Stanton said she felt their intent was to request an appeal hearing in the July
22nd letter, although the wording was not correct and it was not sent to the right person. 
She noted they were a responsible company and asked why they didn’t follow the permit
Whitney said when he picked up the permit he was told no mass excavation.  He said it
was not possible to demolish a building and then stockpile the material inside the building. 
He reminded Council that the building was full of asbestos.  He spoke on why the material
was not removed from the site.  He agreed they were not clean and were wrong.  
Councilor Soth noted the appeal needed to be made to Council within the ten-day time
frame.  He noted the July 22nd letter to Duggan, then the November 4th letter and asked
why there was the time lag.    
Whitney explained that Ouellette wrote the letter within the ten-day period, but he
addressed it to the wrong person and did not have the exact verbiage.  He said he kept
asking Ouellette for the hearing date as they thought they were in the process.  
Mayor Drake asked Ouellette where the letter went originally.    
Ouellette said his letter went to Duggan and stopped there.  
Mayor Drake asked if Duggan informed him he was not the right person.
Ouellette replied he did.    
Pilliod asked Ouellette if that was his signature on page 6, the demolition permit.  
Ouellette confirmed it was his signature. 
Pilliod noted that earlier Duggan had stated that signature was from a staff member and
he wanted to correct the record.
Mayor Drake asked if anyone else would like to testify on behalf of the appeal.
There were none. 
Mayor Drake asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the appeal.
There were none.
Councilor Brzezinski explained she was not at the meeting when Elmonica was
considered and asked what made this case similar and different to Elmonica.  
Mayor Drake noted Elmonica was not being considered here and asked the City Attorney
if this was proper.
Pilliod replied that Duggan started his testimony by relaying how the circumstances were
similar and said it was a fair question.
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 9
Duggan explained the situations were similar in that they were unfortunate.  He said that
the type of work done was similar and the recycling aspect of the Montgomery Ward
(Home Depot) site made it unique.  He said the major difference between the two was that
there was a lot of communication between the contractor doing the work and City staff on
the Home Depot project; there was none on Elmonica.  He said the sense of urgency in
getting the full site-development permit issued was limited to City staff and the contractor;
Home Depot’s engineer and representatives did not possess the same sense of urgency
in getting everything done so the permit could be released.  Home Depot did not
demonstrate that urgency, especially in getting security that was acceptable to the City. 
He said the responsibility for the security was Home Depot’s and they were aware it was
holding up the permit issuance.
Councilor Soth asked if the engineer, WRG, had conducted business with the City before.  
Duggan said they were very familiar with working with the City and City staff.   He
explained that they had numerous conversations with WRG.  He added that the permit
was issued to the owner and the engineer; the contractor was a third party, a
subcontractor not under direct contract with the City. 
Councilor Doyle asked when the demolition permit was issued, was there any discussion
with staff about the recycling effort of reusing the building materials on site.  
Duggan replied there were numerous discussions about that; he said that at the pre-
application conference Home Depot staff indicated they wanted to reuse as much of the
building as possible as fill.  He explained that staff’s problem was not with stockpiling the
materials that came out of the building; it was with bringing more material onto the site and
ripping up the area outside of the demolition work.    
Councilor Ruby asked the City Attorney if he was still convinced that under the current
Code there was no discretion on reduction of fees.
Pilliod replied that was correct.
Mayor Drake asked the appellants if they wished to respond to comments made.   
Whitney stressed that the City staff knew they were going to stockpile and though they did
bring in more, he felt it was all the same.    
Ouellette stated that in the demolition phase, the best way to recycle was to stockpile and
sort.  He said a project as large as this would generate many piles.    
Mayor Drake confirmed there were no more questions and closed the hearing.
Councilor Brzezinski MOVED, SECONDED by Councilor Soth, that Council deny the
appeal of the Site Development Permit Penalty Fee for Home Depot (110th Avenue) 
Councilor Brzezinski said her main reason for denial was that the Council needed to be
consistent and it seemed very similar to the earlier appeal that was denied.  She added
that if this motion went down to defeat and the appeal was granted, Council would need to
be very clear why the appeal was being granted.   
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 10
Councilor Stanton said she wanted to side with the appellant, but they did not follow the
rules and the rules were in place for important reasons.  She noted she did not take
pleasure in this, but the work was not done correctly and she wanted to send a clear
message that this would not be allowed.  She said she would like to have the Code
amended to allow more options than just approval or denial of the appeal.
Councilor Soth said this was tough.  He said he wanted to applaud them for recycling and
he liked to reward companies that supported recycling.  He noted that the July 22nd letter
did not state they were appealing the stop work order or the doubling of fee, and did not
state the grounds for appeal.  He said he had no leeway and would have to support denial
of the appeal. He said he hoped the Code could be revised.  
Councilor Doyle said he fully understood the dilemmas, but he would not support the
motion because the fine was excessive and the Code was inflexible.  He agreed that these
were expensive lessons.  
Councilor Ruby said he would support the motion because they were handcuffed.  He said
he wished they could mitigate a compromise, but Council was advised there was no ability
to do that.  He said he felt they needed to be consistent.  
Mayor Drake said the Code was very old and he thought the fees were excessive but the
Code gave Council no leniency.  He said the Code would be revised.  
Question called on the motion.  Councilors Brzezinski, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting
AYE, Councilor Doyle voting NAY, MOTION CARRIED (4:1).   
Proposed Water Consumption Rate Increase for Operating the City’s Water System.
Mayor Drake asked if Council had any questions.
Councilor Stanton asked how the City compared against other water systems, in terms of
rates and meter charges.    
Finance Director Patrick O’Claire explained Beaverton was the second highest in terms of
rates and about fourth highest on meter charges.  
Councilor  Stanton asked the reason the City was the second highest in the region on
Mayor Drake explained that in 1992 the City faced significant costs due to its partnership
in the Barney Reservoir and the Council had not kept pace with inflation over the previous
12 years.  During that time of significant growth, the City had a 10% decline in rates and
was facing some high infrastructure costs.  He explained that because of this and the
increased growth, the City had to catch-up to cover costs.    
Councilor Stanton said she preferred a nickel increase as opposed to five percent and she
liked that the increase would be based on consumption.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – December 16, 2002
Page 11
Mayor Drake explained that in his first two-week period in office in 1993, there were over
3,000 phone calls from unhappy citizens because the increase was huge (33%) rather
than having increases over a period of time done incrementally.  He said that for the future
they devised a long-term plan to allow for covering costs through incremental rate
Councilor Soth explained that at that time the City did not have a capital replacement fund
in the Water Fund, which also needed to be addressed. 
Mayor Drake opened the public hearing and asked for public testimony.
There was no public testimony.
Mayor Drake closed the hearing.
Councilor Brzezinski MOVED, SECONDED by Councilor Soth, to approve Agenda Bill
02353, the proposed water consumption rate increase for operating the City’s water
Councilor Stanton said she would support this because it was based on consumption.
Councilor Doyle stated he would support this to maintain the City’s water system at a high
Question called on the motion.  Councilors Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and Stanton
There being no further business to come before the Council at this time the meeting was
adjourned at 8:05 p.m.  
Sue Nelson, City Recorder
Approved this 13th day of January, 2003.
Rob Drake, Mayor