NOVEMBER 18, 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, November 18, 2002 at 6. 35 p.m.  


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. 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.

Mayor Drake noted Boy Scout Troop 548 was in the audience.


Presentation of Mayor’s Office Program (General Services)

Chief of Staff Linda Adlard introduced City Recorder Sue Nelson who presented an

overview of the General Services Program.

Nelson reviewed the functions of the General Services Program, which encompassed

the Office of the City Recorder, Records Management, Elections Administration, and

Mayor’s Office Reception.  She reviewed the tasks handled by General Services which

included production of the City Council Agenda, City Council packet and minutes,

scanning and microfilming of City Records, election administration including production

of the City’s Voters’ Pamphlet, and Mayor’s Office reception.  

Coun. Soth recognized Nelson for her national reputation in the field of Records

Management and noted the City could be proud of Nelson and her vast knowledge in

this field.

Coun. Stanton thanked Nelson and expressed support for the electronic record system.  

Presentation of Citizen Survey on Solid Waste & Recycling

Adlard introduced Program Manager Scott Keller who presented the results of the

City’s Citizen Survey on Solid Waste and Recycling.  

Keller reviewed the results of the citizen survey that was conducted this summer and

early fall.  He noted this year the Council adopted a new solid waste ordinance and rate

structure, seven franchises were approved and the haulers converted to automated

systems that utilized the roll carts instead of garbage cans.  A citizen information packet

was mailed out to single-family residences in June that explained the new changes and

included the survey.  He stated the response to the survey was excellent; 14,991

surveys were mailed out and as of October 31st received 3,008 responses (20.06%

response rate).  The responses were still coming in.  He reviewed the main findings of

the survey:  

79% rated the garbage service in the top two categories (great and very good); 

72% rated the recycling services as great or very good; 

65% rated yard debris collection as great or very good; 

Over 75% of the citizens said they participated in the recycling program weekly; 

Over 80% said they participated in the yard debris recycling weekly; 

The adults in the family did 80% of the recycling. 

22% said they composted at home; 

38% said they would compost at home if they had a compost bin.  

Keller noted that the overall rating for the entire program was 92% stating that the

service was good.  He noted the survey included a question on changes the customers

would like to see in the program; over 1,500 customers wrote comments about yard

debris recycling, plastic, recycling bins and rates.  He said staff was responding to the

questions citizens submitted.  He noted staff would continue to monitor the program to

ensure that the service level was consistently high.    

Coun. Stanton stated she felt the City could get higher compost participation if the City

could figure out a way to do it with the least amount of odor for the neighbors.  

Keller explained METRO still conducted its bin sale and that citizens could be educated

on the proper way to compost.    

Coun. Soth spoke on how Beaverton citizens responded to recycling and composting. 

He spoke about paper, plastic and yard debris recycling, and noted there was a market

for the material.

Coun. Stanton asked about the leaf drops.  

Operations & Maintenance Director Gary Brentano stated the leaf drops were being

conducted on November 23rd and December 7th.  He noted that the drop-off locations

were the Operations Center, Sunset High School, and one of the middle schools.    

Coun. Doyle thanked staff for the presentation and noted the hauler’s service was

good.  He asked when the City would know the results of how people used the

weekly yard debris service.  

Keller said they could request initial observations from the haulers tomorrow.  He said

use would probably drop with winter, but in the spring follow-up monitoring would be



Henry Kane, Beaverton, said that part of the 114th Avenue Redevelopment Advisory

Committee met and came up with some inconclusive recommendations that would go

to the Planning Commission in January.  He stated there were unanswered questions,

which he listed in his letter to the Council.  He said that there were other matters that

should be submitted in a staff report, which was the purpose of the letter.  He said he

was continuing to analyze the data.  He said the questions should narrow the issue and

give the Planning Commission and Council more information.

Coun. Stanton confirmed that Kane was a member of the Project Advisory Committee. 

She asked if he submitted the list of questions to the Committee.  

Kane replied he had not submitted anything to the Committee though he made his

comments at the meetings.

Coun. Stanton asked why he was not running this issue through the committee.

Kane said a decision would have to be made on the Committee’s recommendation.  He

said he thought a good part of his concerns would be in the staff report.    


Coun. Soth noted that a short time ago the Council heard a presentation on the Bull

Run Initiative, which was Portland’s proposal for region-wide ownership of Bull Run

water storage and transmission assets.  He said the Council authorized Beaverton’s

participation through Phase III.  He reported that at last Thursday’s meeting, Phase III

was postponed indefinitely pending determinations on various financial matters.  He

said the group would probably meet in January, after Portland conducted further analysis

of the issues.  

Coun. Soth reported that the League of Oregon Cities had its annual business meeting

and sessions, which he said were very informative.  

Coun. Soth congratulated Mayor Drake on his election as President of the League of

Oregon Cities, beginning January 1, 2003.  

Coun. Soth explained he had been selected as Vice Chair of the Finance,

Administration and Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National League

of Cities.

Mayor Drake congratulated Councilor Soth on his appointment.  

Coun. Stanton said that this Wednesday (December 20th), the Planning Commission

would be reviewing the Development Code Transportation Performance Measures.

She said this was important; it would set the standards for traffic review.  She noted

this would be a work session, so no public testimony would be taken.  She encouraged

anyone who was interested in the traffic levels in their neighborhoods to attend; this

was in preparation for the future public hearing.

Coun. Doyle announced the City’s Annual Holiday Season Open House would be held

on Tuesday, December 10, 2002,  in the Council Chambers from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.  He

noted everyone was invited.   


Adlard advised Councilors her assistant would be calling them to schedule individual

meetings to update them on several issues, including fluoridation.  She also asked

them to consider serving on the Legislative Committee this year to help guide the

City’s lobbying efforts.  She noted that the Mayor, as League of Oregon Cities

President, would be busy lobbying on the League’s issues, so she would be carrying

the City’s legislative part.


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

approved as follows:

Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 7, 2002.    

Reinstate the Programmer Analyst Classification and Add a New Position

VAR 2002-0007 Tualatin Valley Water Department Operations Center Setback Parking


VAR 2002-0008 Tualatin Valley Water Department Operations Center Setback Variance

CUP 2002-0006 Tualatin Valley Water Department Operations Center Conditional Use


RZ 2002-0018 Kuni Automotive Zone Change

CUP 2002-0017 Kuni Automotive Major Automotive Service Conditional Use Permit

CUP 2002-0023 Kuni Automotive Extended Hours of Operation Conditional Use Permit

Ratify Tentative Contract Agreement with Beaverton Police Association

Contract Review Board:

Authorize Contract Change Order – Consultant Services for Community Development

Block Grant Assistance

Contract Award – Surveying Services for Cedar Hills Boulevard Improvements Phase 2

(CIP Project 8006B)

Bid Award – Sorrento Storage Building (13520 SW Hanson Road) for the City’s Water


Coun. Stanton said she had a minor correction to the minutes that she would give to

the City Recorder.

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

MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (4:0)


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


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m.  


Appeal of Site Development Permit Penalty Fee for Elmonica Condominiums

Mayor Drake explained this was an appeal and reviewed the procedure for the hearing

(in record).  He noted the Mayor would vote in the event of a tie.  

City Engineer Terry Waldele introduced Engineering Tech Vicki Ervasti. 

Waldele gave Council information that showed the site and where the grading and

stockpiling occurred.  He reviewed the history of the permit process for this project.  He

said that initially the developer applied for a full site development permit, but as it got

later in the season, they wanted to do the demolitan and get a permit only for that, so

that they would not have to wait for land use approval needed for a full site

development permit.  He explained that on August 22, 2002, OTAK submitted site

development construction plans for a full site development permit.  On August 27 City

staff notified OTAK by fax that the site development plans for the full site development

had been approved and the City issued a demolition permit to Henrikson Construction

for demolition of the old barn.  He said on August 28, 2002, City staff and OTAK began

discussing the procedure for a grading-only permit; staff gave OTAK a list of the items

that had to be submitted for that permit.  On September 3, 2002,  OTAK informed City

staff that it wanted to submit the grading and erosion control drawings from the August

22 submittal plan set, and listed other items that they knew had to be submitted to get

the permit.  On September 5 the full site development permit plans were approved and

signed off by the City and other agencies, but there were still a number of other items

that needed to be submitted for the site development permit.  

Waldele explained that on September 10, 2002,  a City inspector discovered that site

clearing, stripping of ground cover and top soil, stockpiling of the stripped material, site

filling and grading had been performed on the project without a proper City permit.  He

reviewed pictures that the inspector took at that time.  He explained that none of the

work done had any type of soil erosion control in place.  He noted that normally a silt

fence would be in place to prevent soil from washing off the site and into the streams

and storm drain system.  

Waldele stated that staff had spent 25-30 staff hours on the appeal and there was no

mechanism in the Code to recover the cost of that time.   

Mayor Drake asked him to explain the fine process and the reason for the doubling of

the fee.  

Waldele explained the penalty fee was the same amount as the permit for the project to

discourage this kind of activity, to prevent erosion of the soil and damage to adjoining


Coun. Stanton confirmed that on August 30, 2002, staff sent OTAK an e-mail on what

they would need for a grading permit, that on September 4, 2002,  staff advised OTAK

of what was needed for the grading permit, and on September 5, 2002,  the site

development plan was approved.  

Ervasti explained that on September 3 the City received an e-mail from OTAK that

highlighted everything needed.  She confirmed that prior to September 10th no grading

plans or other items needed had been submitted.  She stated that the City did not

receive the needed information (grading plans, etc.) until September 18, 2002.   

Coun. Soth confirmed that the site development permit would include the grading permit. 

He asked if the site development plans had been approved and were waiting on the

performance bond.

Ervasti explained there were several outstanding issues that went with the site

development permit and the land use had not been approved.  She said the developer

saw it would be a while before the site development permit would be approved, which

was why he requested the separation and an early grading permit.  

Coun. Soth noted a reference in the October 1, 2002,  Henrikson letter to the “final

permit for excavation and grading was at the City of Beaverton Engineering counter…” 

He said he assumed this was either the site development permit or a separate grading


Waldele said they were confused about that statement because staff had not said that

to Henrikson.  He noted if they heard that, it must have come from the developer

or another source.  

Coun. Soth asked if they would have had to get permission to bring the material from

the TriMet site to stockpile it on this site.

Waldele said it would have been included in the site development permit, but they did

not want to wait that long; they wanted to do the grading and stockpiling before the full

permit could be issued.

Ervasti confirmed for Coun. Soth that they got the grading permit ten days later, on

September 20, after the stop work order had been posted.  

Coun. Ruby asked if there was any grading allowed under the demolition permit.

Waldele confirmed that it was not included in the demolition.  He also confirmed that

there was no doubt that there was activity beyond stockpiling of excess materials.

Mayor Drake noted in the pictures of the site that the stockpiling was in one corner and

other work was done on the site.    

Coun. Doyle confirmed that the work had been approved as of September 20.  He

asked what the penalty would be if someone had the permit but did not do the erosion


Waldele said he thought it was $250.00 a day; they would be red tagged and shut down

until the erosion control was put up.

Mayor Drake explained the City was the agent for Clean Water Services (CWS), which

had been delegated this responsibility by the Department of Environmental Quality.  He

noted CWS took this very seriously because of Federal requirements and the City could

be fined if the regulations were not enforced.     

Coun. Stanton confirmed the location of the barn that was demolished.  She asked if

someone came in for a stockpiling permit, did they have to say where the materials

were being taken.

Ervasti said that if it was inside the City, the City would want to know where it was being


Coun. Stanton confirmed that Henrikson, in its permits for the TriMet site, did not

reference anything about hauling the materials to this site.

Mayor Drake confirmed that erosion control devices were required throughout the



Randy Varin, Vice President, L.S. Henriksen Construction, said he was the contractor

for the Elmonica and TriMet projects.  He reviewed his timeline for the Elmonica project

and said the inspector arrived on September 10, 2002, which was the day they started

installing the silt fence.  He passed out pictures of the site that he said showed the area

behind the stockpile was deneutered ground, caused by having many trucks driven

over it; he said this was not a stripped area.  He said that some of the pictures shown

by staff were not stripped areas but rather areas that had a lot of traffic driving over

them.  He said the stockpile was not dirt and rock; he said it was useable rock for this

project.   He showed the site plan, noting the area of the stockpile, and said that the

demolition area was larger than anything on the site, including the stockpile area.  He

said that there were eight buildings and there was a great deal of activity in the

demolition that deneutered the majority of that ground.  He said very little of the activity

with the stockpile caused the deneutering.  

Varin continued by saying that Henrikson was not attempting to do any grading or begin

construction; he said what they were trying to do was to recycle material.  He said he

was not aware of Beaverton’s Code requirement that over 50 yards included

commencing grading of a project.  He said he thought he was saving the City, the

community and Henrikson the process of sending this material to the landfill.  He said

he thought the permit was on the way.  He said they did not start the project; they did

no grading work, no compaction, or placing of material.  He said that all he did was to

stockpile material which could be used again rather than sending it to the landfill.  He

noted that L.S. Henrikisen had 23 years of construction in a professional manner.  

Varin said his ignorance of the Code was probably the reason that this arose.  He said

he did not think the Code was written with such a huge fine, to condemn a company of

their nature, when they were just trying to recycle material.  

Coun. Soth asked Varin how many projects he had done in Beaverton, besides TriMet.

Varin replied that since he had been with Henrikson he had done one or two others, but

he had not gotten this involved in the Code.

Coun. Soth noted that all projects have to have a silt fence installed before any

significant work was done; either grading, stockpiling or anything else.  He asked Varin

why the silt fence wasn’t installed before starting.

Varin said they had started the demolition process, which does not require a silt fence. 

He said that the stockpiling that was done was pure rock, it was the middle of August,

there was no threat of showers or rain, the site was flat and there was no area for it to

runoff too.  He said the activities that took place did not create any erosion control

problems.  He said he was working under the demolition permit and saw an opportunity

to recycle pure rock and he saw no erosion control problem with that.  

Coun. Soth stressed that the statutes required that the silt fence be in place before any

work started.  He explained that when rock was piled up, unless it was washed rock,

there would be a certain amount of moisture penetration and run off.  He noted this was

not washed rock that was being stockpiled; it was excavation material.  He asked Varin

what the developer told him about the status of the permits when the stop work was

placed on the project.

Varin said the developer said the plans had been reviewed and approved; however,

that the City Engineer would not issue anything until the City had the bond.  He

said he assumed the bond would be there in a day or so, and he was not completing

any grading activity, he was just recycling material in a stockpile.

Coun. Ruby noted that the City staff was under the belief that they were clearing the

land.  He asked if the area they looked at was only a product of deneutering or was

there machinery doing vegetation clearing before the grading permit.

Varin said that where the pile was located, they had removed the grass so it would not

contaminate the rock.  He said the area scraped was about 100 feet x 50 feet; it was

not a large area.  He said that the other area that staff showed (where the dirt was

fluffed), happened when the demolition occurred and the trucks came in.  He said that

a week after the permit was received; the site took three inches of stripping before the

mass excavation could start.  He said that the rolling of the trucks during demolition

deneutered more area than anything done to stockpile the rock.

Coun. Stanton asked Varin when he received the permit for the work on the TriMet

site, where had he planned to off-load the material.  

Varin replied it would have gone to a landfill.  He said there was no cost value savings

intaking it to the landfill or to the stockpile site.  

Coun. Stanton said she didn’t understand why he did not call the City to let them know

what he was thinking and to ask the City if it would be okay to change locations.   

Varin said that on all the jobs he had done, there had never been a requirement to

dictate where he was taking the material.  He explained how on other projects they

would do the utilities first, which started with excavation and a stockpile of rock.

Coun. Stanton asked if OTAK told them to start.

Varin said his only correspondence was the developer’s manager and every indication

was that they would have the permit that week; he did not feel they had a problem.

Coun. Stanton asked if anyone told them to start.

Varin replied no; the developer said they would have the permit that week.  He said with

the demolition permit, he assumed activity was okay and he did not think he was doing

excavation.  He said that when he was approached by the inspector and told the activity

was unlawful, he did ask what he wanted him to do and if there was a provision for a

stockpiling permit.  He noted this was a horrible waste of a resource.  He said he was

told he could not get a stockpiling permit, though they did get a mass grading permit.

Coun. Soth noted that it appeared that quite a bit of grading had been done in the area

where the stockpile is located to prevent contamination.

Varin replied that had about 600 yards; that there were about 65 to 70 trucks that ran

over that area to get that material there.  He said that activity alone would deneuter the

area and what Coun. Soth saw as grading, was more likely from truck traffic.  He said

there was some scraping under the pile area to prevent contamination, but in front of

the pile area the majority was deneutered by the trucks. 

Coun. Soth noted that in the area surrounding the deneutered area it was possible to

see the way the trucks were moving and the grass was still in that area.   He noted that

Varin still continued to work though the developer had said the permit would be there in

a day or two.  

Varin said he did not know he was creating this issue.  

Coun. Soth noted the City does act as the agent for CWS and DEQ, and erosion

control was one of the most important regulations of the whole process.

Mayor Drake noted Varin had stated there was no cost savings to dumping gravel

versus driving to the landfill.  He asked if they didn’t have to pay a fee to dump in the


Varin responded that the load was pure rock and Farmington landfill would take that

material for free, to resell or to reuse it.  

Mayor Drake asked where the Farmington landfill was located.  

Varin said it was a half mile before Baker Rock.  


Mayor Drake asked if anyone wished to testify in favor of the appeal.  

There was none.    


Mayor Drake asked if anyone wished to testify in opposition to the appeal.  There was


Mayor Drake asked for staff comments.

Waldele explained that the construction traffic chewing up the ground creates an

erosion problem.  He said it was just not a matter of grading being the problem.

Coun. Ruby asked if the Council had discretion to lower the penalty.  

City Attorney Mark Pilliod said the penalty was clear; it was equal to the amount of the

permit.  On the Council’s authority to allow the appeal in part, he said it was a stretch to

go in that direction.  He said the language about the appeals did not speak to cutting

the penalty in half and the Code was not clear on that. 

Coun. Soth asked if the City Code or Clean Water Services required erosion control

measures on demolition sites.    

Waldele responded that they were not aware of any specific regulation.  He said that

any kind of disturbance of a site that created a potential erosion control problem came

under the State statutes.

Engineering Technician Jim Bell explained that a demolition permit had an erosion

control section.  He said the demolition permit was for five feet outside of the building


Coun. Ruby asked if the contractor complied with the erosion control requirements in

the demolition permit.

Bell replied not at the time; they were still taking some of the building down and hauling

it off.  He said they did put in a gravel entrance to keep the mud and debris from going

out into the street.  He noted that silt fences were not put up on a demolition site until

after the building had been torn down.  

Coun. Soth asked if truck traffic going into the site to receive the demolition material,

would not have had a significant effect on the disturbance of the ground.

Bell explained at the time they still had stockpiles of debris that were not being hauled

off right away.  He said it was when they had the chance to get an end dump in there to

load it and take it out, was when they were doing it.

Mayor Drake noted the bulk of the buildings were on the northeast section.  He asked

Bell if he required access out onto Baseline.

Bell said they had to use Baseline for the access point.  He noted there were three

chicken coops, two barns, one out building and one garage that came down.    

Mayor Drake asked why that area would be stripped when the other area was where

the bulk of the buildings were and they were accessing Baseline.

Bell replied it should not have been stripped.  

Pilliod asked Bell if he looked at the material in the stockpile and if he could tell if it was

material brought in from the TriMet project or if there was material that was the result

of scraping on this particular site.

Bell said the rock material was coming from TriMet.  He said if you looked at the rock

pile, there were piles on the side where the scraper had come through and dumped it

down, making a clean area for the rock so it would not be contaminated.  


Mayor Drake asked Varin if he wished to rebut any of the comments.

Varin said there was no access off Baseline; the only access onto and off of that site

went through TriMet’s parking lot.  

Bell said for demolition of the buildings they were going off of Baseline; Elmonica

access was not allowed on Baseline; it went through the TriMet property.

Mayor Drake confirmed that Baseline was used for the mobilization of the demolition

only; the gravel came in through the TriMet site.  He asked Bell if the stockpile was in

the southeast portion, of what benefit was the stripped area in the middle.  

Bell said it did not make any sense as to why the scraper was brought in to do that.

Mayor Drake asked Varin if he wished to make any further comments.

Varin indicated he did not wish to testify.

Mayor Drake closed the hearing

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council deny the appeal

requested on Agenda Bill 02329, Site Development Permit Penalty Fee for Elmonica


Coun. Soth noted that per the City Attorney, the Council did not have much leeway.  He

said that ignorance of the law was no defense.  He said he applauded Varin for his

efforts to save a valuable material, but he failed to get the permit ahead of time as well

as install an erosion control fence.  He noted it was the responsibility of the developer

and his agent on site to make sure that all of the conditions were fulfilled, as well as the

advice of the engineering firm.  He said for those reasons he moved for denial.  

Coun. Stanton said she would support the motion because with 22 years experience in

this field, and with OTAK as the consultant, she could not believe that someone would

not know the rules of the game.  She noted that the erosion control and permits were

also big issues for her.  She said it was a matter of not using due diligence.  

Coun. Doyle said he felt the fine was excessive for what happened.  He said he felt the

staff did what they needed to do and the Code was strict.  He noted Varin had good

intentions but Council was hamstrung by the Code to make a more fair decision.  

Coun. Ruby said he would not support the motion, because he was not convinced that

the disturbance of the ground was more than nominal.  He noted it was hard to

evaluate if there was any intentional grading work done beyond the deposit of the rock

pile and he chose to take Varin at his word; that that was not what he was doing. 

Coun. Stanton said she was supporting the motion because of every other developer

and grader out there.  She did not want anyone to think it would be okay to go in and

grade or clear-cut without erosion control devices, or without a permit.  She noted she

had seen this happen before in the City and she did not want to reward bad behavior.

Question called on the motion.  Those in favor of motion to deny appeal:  Couns. Soth

and Stanton  (2).   Those opposed to motion to deny appeal: Couns. Doyle and Ruby

(2).  With a tie vote, it was noted Mayor Drake would vote.

Mayor Drake said he took Varin at face value, but with his experience he felt Varin

knew he could not dump rock and dirt anywhere he wished.  He noted Clean Water

Services had been very vigilant in upholding clean water and clean stream standards.

He said this was not the first time a developer did this; there was a similar case with

a local private school beginning work without a permit and the Council upheld that fee.

He noted there was no joy in taking this action, but the erosion control standards were

in place and had to be upheld.  He noted that while the weather was sunny on the day

the pictures were taken, a storm could have come up in the afternoon or next day.  He

agreed that while the penalty was stiff, it was what was currently in place.  He noted

other developers do not begin work before getting permits.  He said that for all those

reasons he would support the motion to deny appeal.  

The MOTION to deny the appeal CARRIED (3:2):  Couns. Stanton, Soth and Mayor

Drake voting AYE;  Couns. Doyle and Ruby voting NO.

Mayor Drake said he had instructed staff to revise the Code.  They will bring

recommended changes to the Council after the first of the year.  


Second Reading:

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

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

Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located on the East Side of Hocken

Avenue and South of Jenkins Road; CPA 2001-0013/RZ 2001-0014 (Ordinance No.


An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,

By Redesignating Certain Properties to Best Fit with the Current Zoning (Knollhurst

Condos and Highland Hills Townhouse Estates); CPA 2002-0003  (Ordinance No. 4234)

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

Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located at 2090 SW Cedar Hills

Boulevard; CPA 2002-0012/RZ 2002-0023 (Ordinance No. 4235)

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

Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located at 4985 SW Laurelwood

Avenue; CPA 2002-0013/RZ 2002-0024  (Ordinance No. 4236)

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

02312, AB 02313, AB 02314 and AB 02315 now pass.  Roll call vote.  Couns.  Doyle,

Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (4:0)

Mayor Drake announced the Budget Committee meeting on the supplemental budget

on Thursday, November 21, 2002, would start at 6:30 p.m.  


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

adjourned at 8:35 p.m.


Sue Nelson, City Recorder


Approved this 6th day of January, 2003.


Rob Drake, Mayor