JULY 8, 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, July 8, 2002, at 6:43 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Fred Ruby, Evelyn Brzezinski, Dennis Doyle,

Forrest Soth and Cathy Stanton.  Also present were Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, City

Attorney Mark Pilliod, Human Resources Director Sandra Miller, Finance Director

Patrick O'Claire, Engineering Director Tom Ramisch, Operations/Maintenance

Director Gary Brentano, Police Chief David Bishop, Library Director Ed House,

Development Services Manager Steven Sparks, Senior Planner Alan Whitworth,

Principal Planner Hal Bergsma, Senior Planner Kevin Snyder, Transportation

Engineer Randy Wooley, Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.


Mayor Drake said that Mr. Boersti was present to speak on the Murray Ridge tree

removal issue.  He said staff was handling this matter internally, but the City Attorney

had suggested that the Council listen to Mr. Boersti’s testimony.

Chris Boersti, Vice President of Construction, D.R. Horton, Portland, stated that D.R.

Horton did not arbitrarily remove the trees at the Murray Ridge Subdivision.  He said

that prior to the removal; they discussed the options with the City’s planning and legal

staff.  He said that the City advised two options:  1) go through a Type 1 Application;

2) wait until the homes closed and let the homeowners remove the trees at their

discretion.  He said they decided to wait until all the homes closed before doing any

work.  He said Horton hired two arborists to check the health of the trees and both

arborists identified a number of trees that should be removed and that documentation

supporting those findings went to the City before any work started.  He noted that the

City reviewed the information and based on discussions with the City, Horton sent

notices to all the affected homeowners that they could keep the trees or have them

removed at Horton’s expense.  He said most opted to have the trees removed for

safety concerns.  He stressed that Horton did not profit from the tree removal.  He

said that the week prior to removing the trees, they confirmed with the City planner

that they could proceed with the removal without further notice.  He said after a stop

order was placed on them, they learned the trees could only be removed with a Type

1 review.  

Boersti said that mitigation was not brought up.  He said that if they had known that

the trees could only be removed through a Type 1 review, that they would have done

it months ago. He reiterated that Horton was working with the City prior to the removal

of any trees and within the options presented by City staff; they were not arbitrarily

removing trees at their own discretion.  

Betty Bolz, Beaverton, referred to the bus stop on Hall Boulevard at Greenway, where

the Albertson’s store was located.   She noted this was a busy location and it was

unsafe to cross the street to one of the other stops during the construction of that bus

stop.   She urged the Council to improve the safety for the pedestrians in that area.  

Engineering Director Tom Ramisch explained that this was the Hall Boulevard Bike

Lane Project.  He explained that the bus stop on the north side of Hall, across from

Greenway at the Albertson’s location, was closed for construction because of the

demolition of the current sidewalk and part of the roadway.  He described how the

project would widen the road, add a bike lane, a new sidewalk, curb and gutters.  He

said that this required a large excavation and the bus stop was eliminated temporarily

because it was safer to keep pedestrians out of that area totally.  He said it would be

an inconvenience for about six weeks. He recommended that people use alternate


Mayor Drake noted that this was a tough situation, but allowing people to access the

construction site would be more dangerous.  

Bolz suggested Tri-Met have one of its mini-buses from Washington Square Transit

Center stop at Albertson’s and said she would talk to them about it.

Mayor Drake noted that Henry Kane had requested to insert a surrebuttal comment to

a memorandum from Development Services Manager Steve Sparks.

City Attorney Mark Pilliod noted that the hearing was left open to June 24th for

additional written comments and Kane exercised that privilege.  He noted that the

Council did not have an obligation to include any comments Kane might make during

Citizens Communications as part of the record.

Mayor Drake noted the Sparks’ memorandum was a reiteration of material provided

earlier and part of the general discussion.  

Coun. Brzezinski asked if Council could allow Kane to speak but not include it in


Pilliod replied it could.  He noted that Citizens Communications was typically for

subjects not on the agenda.  He advised against including Kane’s comments into the

record.  He stressed this was a legislative matter; whether initiated by staff or Council

in its legislative capacity, the communications between Council and staff did not give

rise to the opportunity for rebuttal or surrebuttal.  

Pilliod noted that the public hearing was closed which was the end of the opportunity

for the appellant to submit testimony.  

Pilliod explained that the Code did not discuss conducting a legislative hearing on

appeal from the Planning Commission.  He noted there was no applicant because

this was a legislative proceeding initiated by the City.  He noted that though the City

was holding an appeal hearing, it was not a quasi-judicial function; and that after a

public hearing on a legislative issue was closed, the information submitted by staff

was not subject to rebuttal or surrebuttal.  

Mayor Drake noted that to be fair, Council extended the period for additional testimony

for all sides.  He noted that if Kane was given an additional opportunity, it would have

to be provided to all.  He said he could not allow it for one and not the others.   


Coun. Soth noted Council received an announcement of an Open House on the

proposed Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency.  He explained that he and Mayor

Drake have been representing the City of Beaverton in these discussions; David

Winship was on the technical advisory committee.  He noted there were fourteen

different water agencies represented.  He said that these agencies were exploring

setting up a drinking water regional agency that would have jurisdiction for regional

water issues, including Bull Run and its transmission lines.  He stated that Beaverton

had not committed to anything other than to participate in the study.  He noted that

there were many participants and that it would not involve distribution but it would

involve large capital improvement items.  He noted that the cost estimates ranged

from $150 million to $563 million, depending on how capital assets would be defined. 

He noted that additional information would be given at the Open House. He said the

Open House dates were July 17th, 6:30 p.m. at the Gresham Conference Center;

July 24th, 6:30 p.m.  at the Tigard Water District Building; July 31st, 6:30 p.m., at the

Portland Building, Meeting Room C, in Portland.

Coun. Stanton said that those who were interested could find information on this

project at

Coun. Stanton noted that next Wednesday would be the Picnic in the Park at Hiteon

Park at 6:00 p.m. for Greenway, South Beaverton, and Neighbors Southwest NACs.


Development Services Manager Steve Sparks introduced the new Senior Planner

Kevin Snyder from the City of Battleground, Washington.


Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth, that the Consent Agenda be

approved as follows:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 29, 2002

VAR 2002-0003 Clean Water Services Headquarters Parking Lot Design Variance

Traffic Control Board Issues 484 through 488

Coun. Stanton said she was pleased to support Agenda Bill 02219 to allow a design

variance for the Clean Water Services Headquarters parking lot on 170th and Merlo. 

She noted the variance would allow alternatives to landscaping, plant material on the

flat roof, and the use of pervious and semi-pervious paving materials, as a

demonstration project on other ways of mitigating impervious surfaces.

Coun. Stanton said she would abstain from voting on the April 29, 2002, minutes as

she was out of town and did not attend the meeting.

Question called on the motion.  Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Soth, Ruby and Stanton

voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0) with Coun. Stanton abstaining

on approval of minutes for April 29, 2002.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:15 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:24 p.m.


Appeal of Chapter 50 (Procedures) Development Code Update (APP 2002-0004) 

(Continued from 6/17/02)

This hearing was continued from the City Council Meeting of June 17, 2002.

Mayor Drake noted this was a continuation from June 17, 2002, public hearing, and

that the hearing was closed at that meeting.  He confirmed that Council received the

staff memorandums.

Coun. Brzezinski noted that in the information from staff, half of the jurisdictions hold

de novo hearings.  She asked what their record was for meeting the 120-day

deadline.  She noted that the 120-day deadline was a major reason for on-the-

record.  She wondered if others were not having problems meeting the deadline,

what was their process so that they did not have problems.

City Attorney Mark Pilliod explained that until Washington County changed its process

substantially to add hearings officers and remove the Board of Commissioners from

the appeal process, it had a continuous history of violations of the 120-day deadline

and scores of mandamus cases that they were defending.

Coun. Brzezinski noted that Hillsboro had a hearing to decide if the appeal hearing

would be de novo or on-the-record and asked how that fit that into the deadline.

Sparks explained that in the proposal before Council, Beaverton’s process would be

similar to Hillsboro’s.  He explained that after the 10-day appeal period was over, staff

would immediately go to Council for a decision on whether to have a de novo or on-

the-record hearing.  He noted that the proposed Chapter 50 included the criteria for

making this decision, which Hillsboro does not have. 

Coun. Brzezinski said that her bottom line on whether or not to support the proposed

change would be the 120-day deadline.  She said she needed the information from

the other jurisdictions to make a good decision.

Coun. Stanton said that in Beaverton’s experience, only once did the City miss the


Mayor Drake explained that the City constantly pushes the 120-day deadline.  He

noted that four months was not a lot of time to process an application and get through

all the steps.  He added that Beaverton has an additional design review process that

takes time.  He said that the City comes up to the wall every time.

Coun. Stanton asked why on-the-record hearings would be within the 120 days and

de novo would not.

Sparks replied that the 120-day clock was not the most significant rationale for the

type of hearing held.  He said that the major difference was the introduction of new

evidence at a de novo hearing, which then required staff time for responses.   He

noted that with on-the-record the facts were already known and no new evidence was

brought in that required staff analysis or response.  

Coun. Stanton asked about the Code timeline for introduction of new evidence. 

Sparks explained that anyone could provide testimony and evidence up to the time of


Coun. Stanton asked if the new evidence was the only issue being addressed with


Sparks confirmed that if the hearings were on-the-record, only evidence that was

presented to the initial decision-making board would be presented.  He explained that

the Council could decide to have a partial de novo hearing, but the Council would

have to decide what new evidence would be heard.  He confirmed that if the Council

held a partial de novo hearing on a specific subject, only that subject could be

discussed at the hearing.

Mayor Drake noted that with a de novo hearing, the evidence could come from

developers or citizens; with on-the-record hearings both sides would present their

case at one hearing.  He noted that if the appeal hearing was based on what was

discussed before the initial board, the developer could not present new information

but the citizens would have the opportunity to hone their information, as long as they

stayed focused on what was discussed at the initial hearing.  

Irish Bunnell, Planning Consultant, explained that City Code timeline for a Type 2

Application (an administrative decision that could be appealed to either the Planning

Commission or Board of Design Review first and to the City Council second) was

180 days. He said to meet the 120-day deadline, the City used a very expensive and

time-consuming process by noticing two hearings and two appeal hearings at the

same time in the newspaper.  He said that the expense would be avoided with the

timelines proposed for Chapter 50.  He explained that the longest process could take 

104 days if everything went perfectly; but the reality was the schedule was often

disrupted.  He noted that when an application was before Council at a de novo

hearing, and new evidence was presented, staff could not do an in-depth technical

analysis on the new evidence and often the answers were “off the cuff.”  He noted

that some cities do not conduct the extensive technical analysis that Beaverton would

do for a land use process.  He stated that the 120-day deadline was tough to meet

and even under the new proposed Chapter 50, it would still be difficult.

Coun. Soth asked if in Washington County’s process, any appeal from the Planning

Commission or the Hearings Officer went directly to LUBA.

Sparks replied that was correct for the examples in the memo and for quasi-judicial

plan amendments.

Bunnell noted that in Portland, the City Council removed itself from the appeals

process and appeals would go directly to LUBA.

Coun. Soth confirmed that the County’s Planning Commission and Hearings Officer

do not hold joint hearings; and that the County clearly delineates the responsibilities

for each body.  He confirmed that the Hearings Officer’s decision was appealed

directly to LUBA and not the Planning Commission.

Coun. Soth asked how the City of Hillsboro handled appeals.

Sparks explained that in Hillsboro, the Planning Commission looked at land divisions

and text amendments; the Hearings Board looked at Use Permits, Variances and

Zone Changes.  He added that Beaverton was unique in that it had a design review

process.  He said other jurisdictions were more prescriptive in giving applicants a

choice of materials to use; if there was a deviation from what was allowed, then it

would go to the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission.

Coun. Doyle asked if staff had sensed that the process was not working. 

Bunnell replied that the process was broken; that was why all this time was spent

trying to fix it and why this recommendation was before Council.  He stressed that

staff was managing the unmanageable right now; scrambling was done behind the

scenes to make it come out right.  

Coun. Doyle asked how removing de novo would fix things.  

Bunnell explained that if there was a de novo hearing at 104 days, and new evidence

was presented, Council would look to staff for guidance on the new information.  He

noted staff would not have time to do a thorough analysis of the evidence.  

Coun. Doyle said he was hearing that Council was not making the best decisions

given what was just said.  

Bunnell said it was difficult to make the best decision when you have incomplete

technical analysis of a volume of new information.

Mayor Drake reminded Council that in December, 1992, Council acted on a

recommendation by another citizen committee to consolidate the Board of Design

Review and the Planning Commission.  He noted that lost on a split vote.  He said

that he thought good decisions were made, but getting a good analysis or review of

the new information was difficult. He noted that some of the changes proposed would

help the process be better refined.  He noted that ten years ago there was a sincere

attempt to consolidate the two boards; he saw that as a positive recommendation

because it meant there would be one less hearing.  He said it was not new that the

process needed work and the timeline of 120 days was very short, especially when

citizen involvement was fostered in Beaverton.  

Coun. Stanton noted that applicants/developers had been willing to extend the clock

when it was to their benefit.    

Mayor Drake noted that the City could not compel the extension.

Coun. Brzezinski referred to page 2 of  Sparks’ June 28 memorandum regarding

availability of information.  She asked how citizens would know that something had

been submitted; was there a formal notice process.  

Sparks explained that when an application was complete, the City would send out the

notice that the information was available.  He noted that if an applicant presented a

neighborhood meeting as part of the process, the residents were aware that

something would be happening.  He noted that several applicants send notices well

outside the 500 foot requirement, that City staff could be contacted on the Internet or

by other means, NACs were notified and citizens personally called him.   

Coun. Brzezinski referred to Point 4 on the same memo and asked if that information

automatically was distributed to citizens who requested earlier information.

Sparks explained that the City did not provide free copies of material to anyone other

than the applicant.  He said that if a staff member knew someone was interested in a

specific topic, they may contact them to let them know information was available.  He

said that most of the time it was not new evidence; it was mostly clarification of

previous information.  

Coun. Brzezinski said that the problem she had was that a person had to be very

knowledgeable to use the available information.  She said the appellant was in the

same position as Council when a decision had to be made with weak information.

Mayor Drake noted that the average citizen did not care unless it was in his

neighborhood.  He noted that over time the process was opened to provide more

information to the citizens.  He noted examples were: open Facilities Review

meetings; a 300 foot notice range was extended to 500 feet (the State only required

100 feet); developers had to meet with the neighborhood prior to the City accepting an

application; the City funds one appeal from each NAC; planning staff now attends CCI

meetings; the citizen committee that looked at this Code change was appointed by

the Mayor so that citizens had an edge; the NAC’s would receive land use notices;

the City has the most comprehensive Web site in the region.  He concluded there

were multiple opportunities for citizen information.

Coun. Brzezinski asked what the ramifications would be of having a sunset clause in

a few years, to see what Council may think of it.  

Mayor Drake explained that the Council had the opportunity to change it any time.  He

said his concern with a sunset clause was determining what would it fall back to.  He

thought a better method would be to continue the regulation and modify it as the

process evolves.  He asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney.  

Pilliod explained that ordinance could have a sunset, but writing it would become

more complicated when determining what the process should return to.  He said that

to say that it would go back to the current process was an over simplification,

because only some of the Code sections would revert and others would stay in

effect.  He noted the Council could always schedule a review of the ordinance,

instead of inserting a sunset clause or could have the Planning Commission and staff

do the review.  He said a sunset clause was not necessary for Council to get an

understanding if the ordinance was working well or producing unwanted results.    

Coun. Soth noted that one of way to do this would be to include the review in the

Planning Department work plans.  

Coun. Ruby referred to the problem with the current system placing a heavy burden

on staff to evaluate new evidence at the last minute.  He asked if that could be

addressed through internal guidelines with staff expectations.  He said he would not

expect staff to scramble and evaluate late information to supplement or modify the

original staff report.  

Mayor Drake responded that whatever was submitted prior to the deadline had to be

evaluated, included in the decision, and part of the record of the appeal.   He noted it

was hard for staff to do a thorough evaluation with last minute submittal of

information. He noted that on-the-record hearings gave everyone the opportunity to

view the information in a timely manner.  

Coun. Brzezinski asked if there was anything prohibiting Council from saying that if

new evidence was going to be brought in, it had to be included with the appeal.  

Pilliod explained that staff was thinking of establishing a cutoff for people to effectively

provide information and yet not leave staff, opposition or applicants unable to respond

because of the lateness of the submittal.  He stressed that the applicants, appellants

and staff felt the same about the need for time to analyze new evidence.  He noted

that unless the Council wanted to be a hearings body (all hearings de novo), Council

could create an exception and allow limited de novo if new information was submitted

to the Planning Commission or Board of Design Review, as part of the process,

within a certain number of days of their decision.  

Mayor Drake asked if it would apply to both applicant and opposition.  He said if the

opposition submitted information that swayed the Board or Commission and it was

cited as one of the reasons for the decision, could the applicant’s appeal be based on

that late information.

Pilliod stated there was a reason for treating both instances the same or differently. 

He noted that the applicant was not at a disadvantage for extending the process and

responding to last-minute information.  He said an opponent did not have the flexibility

to request an extension.  He said he saw justification for limited de novo only in the

event of an applicant submitting information within that time frame.  

Pilliod stated that if the Council was unconvinced that the proposed Chapter 50 was

the way to proceed, its options were to deny the proposal and direct staff to prepare

Code provision changes that would leave the de novo hearing procedures intact, with

other changes to Chapter 50 as proposed, or remand the matter to the Planning

Commission to consider other alternatives.  

Coun. Soth said he was satisfied that the information illustrated that there was no

consistency among jurisdictions.  He felt that the City should strive for more

consistency so that citizens outside of the City would know the procedures.  He

confirmed with Pilliod that information submitted should go to all parties.  

Pilliod explained that the proposed changes would provide staff and others one month

to prepare an analysis and respond to new information; this was not available in de

novo when new evidence was submitted late in the hearing process.  He noted that

evidence from staff submitted after an application was complete was for clarification

of an application.  

Coun. Brzezinski referred to page 59, Point 3, of the staff report (memorandum from

Catherine Arnold, in the record) and asked staff if it was correct that with on-the-

record appeals, only people who spoke at the earlier meeting would be able to speak

at the appeal.

Sparks confirmed that was correct.  He explained that an applicant would hire a firm

to represent him at the Planning Commission level; anyone on the firm’s staff could

testify at either hearing.  He said that appellants would have the same ability and

would be allowed to have an attorney represent them at the City Council hearing if the

attorney was retained prior to the Planning Commission hearing.  

Coun. Stanton noted that if she was an appellant, but did not attend or submit written

testimony at the Planning Commission hearing, she could not speak at the on-the-

record appeal hearing.

Sparks said that was correct, but the exception was if she had hired an attorney prior

to the initial hearing, that attorney could speak at the Council appeal hearing, even if

he did not speak at the initial hearing.  He said evidence would be required to show

that the attorney was hired prior to the initial hearing.  

Coun. Brzezinski asked if the applicant had consultants, did the same staff person

have to speak at both the initial hearing and at the appeal hearing.

Sparks explained that any staff person from a consultant firm could conduct the

presentations and it did not have to be the same person at each hearing.  

Coun. Soth noted that the firm hired was the representative of the applicant,

regardless of which staff member did the presentation.

Coun. Stanton clarified that the Planning staff did not always attend Committee for

Citizen Involvement (CCI) meetings, but the CCI did get a report at every meeting.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 8:44 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:53 p.m.

Mayor Drake confirmed there were no further questions from Council.  He closed the

public hearing at 8:53 p.m.

Coun. Stanton stated this was a policy issue and she wanted the Council to “stay in

the loop.”  She said the City used de novo hearings because it gave the appellant the

opportunity to bring issues forward that were not explored at the initial hearing and

that the issues were not heard possibly due to funding, time, and energy constraints. 

She noted concern that on-the-record meant only issues discussed at the initial

hearing could be discussed at the appeal hearing. 

Coun. Stanton pointed out that information in the Council packet from Catherine

Arnold (in the record) showed that de novo hearings did not give the appellant an

edge.  She said she would accept on-the-record hearings if the City did the following: 

1) put application information on the Web as soon as the Pre-App Neighborhood

Meeting was set; 2) put all Pre-App Neighborhood Meetings on the Web calendar of

events; 3) applications were in fact, totally complete when staff deemed them

complete and started the 120-day clock; 4) if the clock itself was 160 or 180 days--

she noted that 120 days was State law but that staff could delay the start of the clock;

5) the 500-foot notice area was set for all types of appeals; 6) applicants could not

submit new material the night of the appeals hearing,  7) if an expanded de novo was

allowed as discussed earlier.   

Coun. Stanton said she could not support on-the-record unless these issues were

addressed.  She noted that the City had been in the forefront State-wide for including

citizens in the planning processes and she felt this would be a step backwards.  She

said that de novo was needed as long as: 1) there was a 120-day clock; 2) the staff

reports were available only seven days before the hearing; 3) the citizens could not

see what was in the file without taking time off work; and 4) the applicants could

submit new information at the hearing.  She asked that Council overturn the Planning

Commission’s decision and grant the appeal.  

Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the Council overturn the

Planning Commission’s decision and grant the appeal.  

Mayor Drake asked if Coun. Stanton’s motion was to reverse the Planning

Commission’s decision only on the de novo portion of Chapter 50.

Coun. Stanton confirmed that was her motion.

Coun. Soth stated he could not support the motion because one of the issues heard

in the public testimony was what was perceived as the lack of information and

opportunities for citizens and neighbors to enter into the process.  He noted that

citizens were notified through a variety of means, including: 1) notices to NACs; 2) 

properties were posted and notices mailed out; 3) pre-application reports were

available to everyone; 4) neighborhood meetings were held; 5) hearing procedures

provide opportunity for anyone to make comments on Facilities Review; 6)

examination of staff report was available prior to hearing; and 7) there was no limit on

the number of people testifying at hearings and the Code allowed the record to be left

open to submit additional written comments.  He noted that reviewing past minutes of

de novo hearings showed that people who testified at the appeal hearings were often

the same as those at the first hearing; and testimony was often similar or identical to

what was said at the initial hearing.  He noted that this did not prevent or remove the

right to appeal; the main difference was that Council would not spend many hours

listening to a repetition of what was already in the minutes from the previous

hearings.  He stressed that all the information was available and that the 120-day time

frame was important.   

Coun. Soth said on-the-record was the most efficient and expeditious way to handle

these matters.  He said he would favor limited de novo if it was limited to new

information from applicant or appellant, not a rebuttal, response, or repetition.  He

said he would support on-the-record or limited de novo.

Coun. Doyle said he would support the motion because he had not gleaned an

overwhelming sense of what the change would accomplish.  He felt it was a sensitive

issue, but noted the process was working within the City.  He pointed out that when a

proposal comes to the City, the applicant had looked at it for many months.  He said

the application would then come to the citizens for review and that review time was

limited. He said he did not hear anything that convinced him that giving this up would

be a wise thing to do.

Coun. Brzezinski stated she would not support the motion and neither did she favor

the proposals brought to Council.  She said she felt the City needed to look at a third

condition by which the Council could have a limited de novo hearing.  She preferred

that staff go back and look at the timeline.  She felt that if an applicant submitted new

information after staff had started writing the staff report that should be a trigger for a

de novo hearing.  She noted that it was very difficult for citizens who have full-time

jobs to come into City Hall during the work week. She said she would like to solve that

problem.  She noted that she was a staff member who responded to a policy making

body and she understood that staff had pride in their work and wanted to respond as

best as they could.  She said she understood the difficulties that the 120-day limit

placed on staff and she did not think staff was trying to make their job easier.  

Coun. Ruby asked if granting the appeal would preclude going back and reviewing

other alternatives.

Mayor Drake explained the Council could grant or deny the appeal.  He noted the

Council could also offer an amendment or remand it back to the Planning

Commission to look at a specific issue, such as further defining de novo process.

Pilliod explained that if the motion was approved, staff would rewrite the proposed

Chapter 50 and excise those portions that defined the on-the-record appeals and

include language that reflects the Council’s motion.  He said it would not return to the

Planning Commission.  He noted that if the motion failed, the options included

remanding the matter to the Planning Commission for a specific purpose having to do

with the appeal process.  He cautioned the Council against deciding whether or not

they were supporting or not supporting the appeal, because in a legislative context it

did not make sense.  He explained that Council was giving legislative direction and it

could be referred to staff or the Planning Commission.  

Mayor Drake suggested if there were a majority interested in modifying the motion, it

would be better to send it back to Planning Commission with very specific direction

on what the change would be.  

Coun. Brzezinski said she was not sure why it would be remanded to the Planning

Commission for a very narrow issue.    

Mayor Drake explained he was not in favor of sending it back; he was looking for an

option in case the Council was looking for an alternative.

Pilliod explained that if the matter were remanded to the Planning Commission for

specific adjustments to allow limited de novo, the Council could direct that after the

Commission had concluded its deliberations that the matter return to the Council

automatically without further filings.

Coun. Brzezinski responded to Coun. Stanton’s earlier comments and said she

agreed with Mayor Drake that issues were much more publicized than they were

eight years ago and that the newspapers gave more press to upcoming potentially

contentious issues.

Coun. Stanton said she crafted motion as it was, because the City would be in limbo

until an alternative was found.  She said she supported her motion and was equally

willing to support an alternative to develop a better on-the-record.  She said she

wanted de novo to be used until a better on-the-record was developed.

Coun. Ruby said he would support the motion because he was persuaded that the

citizen groups would be disadvantaged the most by eliminating de novo.  He said he

was sensitive to the issue that the Planning Commission and Board of Design

Review not be marginalized because those people were selected because of their

experience and skills, but he heard mixed evidence that the A-Team/B-Team

phenomenon exists.  He noted that all parties in land use issues were better off

winning at the Planning Commission and Board of Design Review level, because

Council seriously considers the opinions and actions of these Boards.

Coun. Soth noted that the motion did not address everything in the Chapter 50

revision.  He thought the motion should grant the appeal as it pertains to de novo/on-

the-record hearings, but deny the appeal for the rest of Chapter 50.    

Coun. Stanton, Coun. Ruby and Mayor Drake confirmed that the intent of the motion

dealt with the de novo/on-the-record hearing sections.

Pilliod reiterated that if the motion passed, staff would prepare an ordinance for

Chapter 50 that would retain the existing sections for de novo appeal hearings. 

Sparks explained that in the Code, on-the-record appeals were allowed if the

appellant requests it and that would remain.  

The Councilors concurred.

Mayor Drake repeated that the motion was to grant the appeal regarding de novo

hearings, but deny any other parts pertaining to Chapter 50.

Question called on the motion, Couns. Doyle, Ruby and Stanton voting AYE, and

Couns. Brzezinski and Soth voting NO, the MOTION CARRIED. (3:2) 


Suspend Rules:

Coun.  Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the rules be suspended, and

that the ordinances embodied in AB 02221 through AB 02223 be read for the first time

by title only at this meeting, and for the second time by title only at the next regular

meeting of the Council.  Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and Stanton voting

AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0)

First Reading:

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

An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Right of Way of SW Metz Street and SW

124th Avenue (Ord. No. 4218)

An Ordinance Annexing One Parcel and Associated Rights-of-Way Lying Generally

Outside of the Existing City Limits to the City of Beaverton; ANX 2002-0005  (Meadow

Park Middle School Expedited Annexation) (Ord. No. 4219)

An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Map and

Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Two Parcels Located on Canyon Road and

Two Parcels Located on 110th Avenue; CPA 2002-0004/RZ 2002-0014 (Ord. No.


Pilliod explained that the City received a communication on Agenda Bill 02222 from a

citizen who lived in that area and prior to adoption, staff would submit to Council a

response to that communication so that it can become part of the Council’s final


Second Reading and Passage:

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

An Ordinance Expressing the City of Beaverton’s Election to Receive Distribution of a

Share of Certain Revenues of the State of Oregon for Fiscal Year 2002-03 Pursuant

to ORS 221.760  (Ord. No. 4217)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle that the ordinance embodied in AB

02218 now pass.  Roll call vote.  Couns. Brzezinski, Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton

voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting

was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.


Catherine Jansen, Deputy City Recorder


Approved this 19th day of August, 2002.


Rob Drake, Mayor