1 of 1 
JANUARY 27, 2003
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, January 27, 2003, at 6:31 p.m.
Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Betty Bode, 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, Human Resources Director Sandy Miller, Police Chief David
Bishop, Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley, City Engineer Terry Waldele, Senior
Planners John Osterberg and Kevin Snyder, Associate Planner Sambo Kirkman and
Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.
Oregon Environmental Council Request to Present Information Regarding Diesel Exhaust
from Motor Vehicles and Proposed Legislative Action
Sarah Doll, Program Director, Oregon Environmental Council (OEC), explained the OEC
was the oldest statewide environmental group, had 2,000 members, and worked on clean
air and clean water issues.  She noted this presentation was on the health impacts of
diesel pollution and opportunities to mitigate the impact to the community.
Kirsten Jensen, American Lung Association of OR, shared information on the impact that
diesel exhaust has on lung health in Oregon.  She stated that diesel exhaust was a human
carcinogen, causing lung, kidney and liver cancers; and the immediate health impact of
diesel exhaust was on people who had asthma.  She noted asthma was the number one
chronic disease in children in the United States and it was prevalent among adults and
seniors.  She explained asthma was an inflammatory disease where airways swelled, filled
with mucus and the muscles tighten and clamped, causing an asthma attack.  She said
diesel exhaust exacerbated the disease; if someone with asthma walked by an idling
diesel bus, that would trigger an asthma attack.  She stressed that people die from this
disease.  She said it was known that on days with high pollution levels, there were more
deaths from asthma than on days when the air pollution numbers were lower.  Jensen
noted the horrible effect this could have on everyday life and said they believed that if
general idling (of diesel vehicles) could be stopped, it would make a difference in citizens’
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page ²
Doll explained that diesel trucks continued to play an important role in the transport of
goods in Oregon; the question was how to minimize the impact on human lives.  She said
new Federal rules would be implemented in 2007 that would require new trucks/buses
purchased after 2007 to be significantly cleaner.  She noted their goal was to minimize the
impact that older trucks/buses had on the environment.  She said that most of the reasons
for idling engines did not apply, especially for newer vehicles and there were cost savings
issues that supported cutting back on idling, for it saved gasoline, engine wear and
maintenance.  She noted that UPS had banned idling across the board and there were
alternatives to idling, such as auxiliary power units that saved in maintenance and fuel
costs; Oregon had a tax credit that helped pay the cost of the auxiliary power unit.  She
noted other jurisdictions had taken the step to decrease idling including Ashland, Oregon,
which had banned idling buses.  She said that for enforcement they expected it would be
like the seatbelt law; the expectation that it would be enforced would bring about
compliance.   She asked if Council had any questions.
Coun. Stanton asked what was the step other jurisdictions had taken.  
Doll explained Ashland implemented a citywide ordinance to ban idling; buses could idle
five minutes or less; but no other cities in Oregon had taken any action.  She noted that
the draft anti-idling ordinance she submitted to Council was taken from a variety of
ordinances adopted throughout the country.  She said they were trying to create some
balance from what had been done across the country.
Coun. Stanton asked if they had gone to other cities in the Tri-County area.
Doll explained they were having discussions with Hillsboro, Portland, Eugene, Medford,
Salem and Corvallis.  
Coun. Stanton suggested if the Bill did not pass the Legislature, they might want to
consider doing this by counties. 
Coun. Soth stated that studies indicated that particulates from diesel exhaust settled faster
than those from gasoline exhaust.  He said the biggest contaminate in diesel was the
sulfur content.  He noted California had a law that limited the sulfur from diesel fuels.  He
said the specifications for clean diesel were being circulated nation-wide as an idea.  He
noted there were mechanisms that could be installed in current engines that would
minimize the soot production of that fuel.  He said progress was being made but it would
take time and he appreciated what they were doing; many of the things they advocated
would come about in the years to come.
Doll agreed and said these were the things they were trying to do at the State level.  She
noted the cleaner diesel would be required, but they were looking for actions that local
jurisdictions could take to minimize the diesel exhaust from older vehicles.  She said cities
could adopt anti-idling ordinances and not have to wait for State action; the ordinances
could be written to meet each jurisdiction’s needs.
Coun. Soth asked if they made presentations to areas east of the Cascade Mountains.  
Doll replied that they contacted Bend and planned on contacting others.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page ³
Coun. Doyle asked if this was the first time they had gone to the State Legislature with
suggested legislation.  
Doll replied it was the first time OEC had;  a bill was introduced last session but there was
no momentum behind it.  Steve March also introduced a bill at the last session about
smoke testing for diesel engines.  She said there had been some discussion, but this was
a relatively new discussion at this time.  
Coun. Doyle asked if she had any feeling on what kind of reactions this could bring.
Doll said it was too early to tell; they would get a hearing and this issue had visibility and
priority statewide.  She noted they did not have a House Bill number yet.  She said they
would appreciate any action the City could take to support that legislation.
Coun. Bode referred to Section 2(d) of the proposed ordinance that read, “The vehicle is
stopped because of traffic congestion over which the operator has no control.”  She
suggested they consider rewording this because if there wasn’t traffic congestion, the
trucks would not be idling.  She said the fine would not be imposed with that sentence.
Doll replied they would look at it, as that was not their intention.
Coun. Ruby thanked them for the presentation.  He said he was more inclined to support a
resolution to support a State effort because travel was a non-local activity and he was
concerned about making traffic laws a patchwork of local regulation, in terms of  fairness
and notice for those traveling throughout the state.  He said he thought it was more
appropriate for broader geographic regulation.  He concluded their evidence was
Coun. Soth asked if they had information from the jurisdictions that had this type of
ordinance, concerning how much time was required for police enforcement.    
Doll explained that enforcement varied; some jurisdictions had the police enforce it, others
had their own Department of Environmental Quality as enforcers.  She said they
envisioned it as part of the traffic citation process, similar to enforcement of the seatbelt
laws, or having it be complaint driven.  She said they did not envision police patrolling for
idling vehicles.
Mayor Drake thanked them for the presentation.    
Traffic Commission Presentation
Engineering Director Tom Ramisch introduced Traffic Commission Chair Scott Knees and
explained that last year the City submitted a nomination to the League of Oregon Cities for
a Good Governance Award for the traffic commission process.  
Ramich said the award was for City programs that engaged citizens in the public process;
the Traffic Commission engaged citizens as commissioners and many people attended
these meetings.  He noted that Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley was the staff
liaison to the Commission.
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 4
Traffic Commission Chair Scott Knees acknowledged the Commission members, stating
they were an excellent group of commissioners and citizens.  He explained they all
devoted a lot of their time to traffic-related issues, outside of the monthly Commission
meeting, and they were interested in making Beaverton a better place.  He complimented
staff on the excellent work they did to support the Commission.    
Knees reviewed activities of the Commission for the Year 2002.  He noted there were nine
meetings, hearings on fifteen separate issues and eighteen issues were approved on the
Consent Agenda.  He noted parking was the top issue for 2002, with fourteen cases
processed; they also dealt with traffic calming, striping changes, stop controls, traffic
enhancement program, construction closures, speed limits, turn restrictions and a new
traffic signal.  He said thirteen were initiated by residents or business owners, fifteen by
staff in response to complaints or suggestions from the public, two by local school
committees, one by a Neighborhood Association Committee, one by the Traffic
Commission and one by a developer.  They participated in workshops, reviewed the
Permit Parking Ordinance, the Transportation System Plan amendments to the Comp
Plan, and changes to the Traffic Commission Bylaws.  He said they reviewed twenty one
issues on the Consent Agenda, had sixteen advertised public hearings, from which there
was only one appeal which was granted (TCB 471, Median Island on Hall Boulevard at the
Fanno Creek Trail).  He asked for feedback from Council on how the Commission was
doing; was Council happy with what the Commission was doing and would it like to see
any changes.  
Mayor Drake thanked Knees for the Commission’s good work.  He noted the
Commissioners were often on the frontline with the citizens on important neighborhood
issues.  He explained how the Traffic Calming Program was implemented in 1996 and
how long-standing speeding issues were resolved as the Commission led the process.  He
noted people no longer had to come to the City Council to get their traffic issues resolved.  
Coun. Stanton said she was glad the Commission was established and she was pleased
with its work with the citizens.  
Coun. Doyle echoed Coun. Stanton’s comments and said he enjoyed reading the minutes
and letters the Commission received.  He noted it was a tough job and they handled it
well.  He commended the Commissioners and asked that they keep up the good work.  
Mayor Drake noted the Council was happy with what the Commission was doing.  
Raymond Law, Beaverton, representative for local Falun Dafa practitioners, said he was
employed with Intel, but for the record stressed that he was not speaking for Intel.  He
noted that February 2003, was Falun Dafa Month and several activities were planned for
the month.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 5
Law explained Falun Dafa was an ancient cultivation practice made public in China in
1992, with 100 million practitioners worldwide.  He said Falun Dafa involved physical and
mental exercises designed to improve physical health and cultivate mental clarity and
focus.  He said practitioners cultivated their hearts and minds by following the principles of
truthfulness, compassion and forbearance, to become better people.  He stressed that this
was not a religious or spiritual movement; that the practitioners seek an environment
where they could practice Falun Dafa.  He spoke on the activities planned locally and
Law spoke on the persecution of Falun Dafa followers in China.  He noted that in 1999 the
Chinese President ordered a crackdown that resulted in hundreds of deaths and the
imprisonment of thousands of Falun Dafa practitioners.  He said that the persecution has
spread outside of China through Chinese consulates.  He said the US House of
Representatives passed Resolution 188 last year condemning the persecution, but the
Chinese government still applied political and economical pressure to prevent
governments from supporting Falun Dafa.  He said he wanted to make the Councilors
aware of this situation so that they would understand what was happening.
Coun. Soth asked if this movement extended across religious faiths.
Law replied that the philosophy was within the Buddhist school, but it was not the Buddhist
religion; they do not have monasteries, rituals, memberships, and churches.  He said the
movement was not directed toward religion but rather toward self-improvement.
Coun. Stanton asked how long this had been practiced in the United States. 
Law explained it began in Oregon in 1995 and earlier on the east coast.  
Coun. Stanton asked if the practitioners of Falun Dafa had their own religious faith; they
practiced Falun Dafa as others practiced Tai Chi. 
Law replied that many practitioners of Falun Dafa had other religious faiths. 
Coun. Stanton asked Law if he or any other practitioners in Oregon experienced
harassment for their practice and had they contacted the local police about it.  
Law related an incident of an Oregon practitioner and her family being harassed in
California; based on the content of the harassment, he said it was clear it was related to
governmental pressure from China.  He also noted a case in Chicago last year where
someone coming out of the Chinese Consulate physically assaulted a practitioner; this
case did go to court.  
Coun. Stanton noted her concern that any practitioner in Oregon that was harassed
should call the police, because it was not allowed.   
Mayor Drake and Coun. Stanton thanked him for the information. 
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 6
Henry Kane, Beaverton, submitted a draft resolution for Council consideration that asked
the Legislature to assume that Portland General Electric (PGE) would be acquired by the
City of Portland and make Portland subject to the Public Utility Code to protect those who
live outside of Portland.  He stated the Council could edit the document as desired. 
Coun. Soth explained that Portland had extra-territorial rights whereby it had the ability to
acquire electric resources for supply and distribution.  He said he and Coun. Stanton
attended a meeting last week where this was discussed and this was in the very
preliminary stages; no decisions had been made on whether or how any acquisition would
be done.  The issue was under study and some issues could not be discussed because of
a confidentiality provision between PGE and Portland.   
Coun. Soth explained that one suggestion was that instead of Portland being the
governing body, the six counties and all the cities would enter a modified
intergovernmental agreement to setup a board of seven to nine people which would be
different from the Portland Commission.  He stressed this was very nebulous pending
further negotiations and what would be done with Enron.  He said he thought Kane’s letter
was premature.
Kane responded he had followed the details on this situation and that this action was
protective and could do no harm.  He said it might do some good by providing protection
before something negative happened.  He noted this could prevent Portland from
establishing different rates for the areas inside and outside its city limits. 
Coun. Stanton noted that PGE was her provider now and if PGE had different rates for
different areas she would not know.  She added that if there were complaints about it now,
all the City could do would be to refer them to PGE.  She noted that if Portland went
forward with this and became the sole provider, the situation would not change since
Beaverton had no control over PGE.    
Kane noted if someone was unhappy with PGE, they could go to the Public Utility
Commission.  He said he was putting the resolution on the table for Council consideration.  
Coun. Bode asked Mr. Law if he would share his information with the City of Beaverton’s
Human Rights Commission.  
Law replied that he would.  
Coun. Soth spoke on the meeting he and Coun. Stanton attended last week on the City of
Portland/Portland General Electric situation.  He said Erik Sten, Portland Commissioner,
was the chief speaker.  The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) was there with elected and
appointed officials from the counties and cities involved.  He said the consensus was to
explore a modified ORS 190 (intergovernmental agreement) to determine if a Board could
be setup and then hire the director of this agency that would operate the utility.  Portland’s
function would be to issue revenue bonds, to be repaid with revenues from the sale of
electricity.  If the board should default, Portland, as the owner, would be the body to step
in.  He stressed this was nebulous and conceptual at this time.  He noted the LOC would
coordinate and disseminate information to LOC members; it would not take a position.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 7
Coun. Stanton noted the LOC was very concerned; it would act as a clearinghouse for
materials and not take a position.  She noted everyone was willing to go forward and
explore options.  She noted information could be obtained at  
Coun. Doyle asked what the next step would be.
Coun. Soth explained that everything was on hold until Enron made its announcement on
the PGE bids, which should be in the next two-to-three weeks. 
Coun. Stanton advised that Portland had allocated half-a-million dollars and sent out a
Request for Proposal for the type of group needed to facilitate the exploration of this
discussion.  She noted Sten was clear that the Commissioners were not interested in
managing the utility; they wanted to contract this out.   
Mayor Drake noted that the Planning Commission denied a request by Precision Holdings,
LLP, a Chapter 20 Text Amendment.  He said that staff had talked individually to the
Council regarding scheduling this on the Council agenda and rehearing this issue.  He
noted that in discussing this with Assistant City Attorney Ted Namuera, Council did not
have to make this motion, but he said he would appreciate a motion to schedule it for a
hearing on February 10, 2003, at 6:30 p.m.
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that the City Council schedule a public
hearing for February 10, 2003, at 6:30 p.m., for the purpose of hearing and deciding on
Precision Holding’s request for a Chapter 20 Text Amendment, regarding additional
parking; TA 2002-0006.  Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and Stanton voting AYE, the
There were none.
Coun. Doyle  MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth that the Consent Agenda be approved
as follows:
Minutes for meeting of January 6, 2003
ZMA 2002-0025 Millikan Way Zoning Map Amendment
CPA 2002-0015/ZMA 2002-0026  8888 SW Canyon Road Land Use Map Amendment and
Traffic Commission Issue No. TC 499
Contract Review Board:
Exemption from Competitive Bids and Authorize a Sole Seller of Tree Grates from
Northwest Recreation
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 8
Coun. Stanton noted a correction to minutes that she gave to the City Recorder.
Question called on the motion.  Couns. Bode, Doyle, Soth, Ruby, and Stanton voting AYE,
the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0)
Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:49 p.m.
Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:01 p.m.
APP 2002-0019 Appeal of RZ 2002-0021; Progress Zone Change at SW Hall Boulevard  
Mayor Drake opened the public hearing on APP 2002-0019, the Appeal of RZ 2002-0021,
Progress Zone Change at SW Hall Boulevard.  
Community Development Director Joe Grillo read a prepared statement defining the
process that needed to be followed for this hearing, including the various required
disclosure statements (in record).
Grillo asked if there was anyone present who wanted to challenge the Mayor or
Councilors’ right to hear the matter that evening.
There were no challenges.
Grillo asked if there were any Councilors who wished to abstain due to impartiality.
There were none.
Grillo asked that Councilors announce whether they received any ex parte contacts, the
nature of such contacts and whether the contact impaired the Councilor’s impartiality or
ability to vote on the matter.
Coun. Soth stated he had no ex parte contacts and he was familiar with the site.  
Mayor Drake stated he had no ex parte contacts; he was familiar with the site and drove
by it today to reacquaint himself.  He said he had no contacts with the applicant/appellant.  
Grillo asked if there was anyone present who wished to challenge the Council’s authority
to hear the matter.
There were no challenges.
Grillo noted staff would present the staff report.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 9
Senior Planner John Osterberg reported this was an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
denial of a request to rezone a one-quarter acre site on Hall Boulevard from Residential
(R2) to Community Service (CS).  The appellant was the applicant for the rezone request.  
He noted that on the agenda bill staff recommended that the Council uphold the Planning
Commission’s decision; and that on appeals it was standard procedure for staff to
recommend upholding the Commission’s decision.  He said that on the rezone application
staff recommended approval of the request to the Planning Commission.  He explained
the Commission found, by majority vote, that because the applicant’s traffic analysis used
a traffic volume growth rate of 1.1% per year, instead of 3% to estimate the impact of
future development, that the Level of Service (LOS) at Hall Boulevard and Scholls Ferry
could fall to unacceptable levels by 2020.  The Commission found that because an
approved funding source for intersection improvements was not in the Regional
Transportation Plan, the 1.1% was not a realistic traffic volume growth estimate.  
Osterberg explained that the Commission found that the zone change did not meet all the
criteria for approval because future development under the CS zone could have adverse
traffic impacts to that intersection.  He added that the City’s transportation staff found that
the applicant’s traffic growth projections in the traffic analysis were adequate to determine
the LOS impacts.  He noted transportation staff was in attendance to answer Council
questions.  He summarized that if the Council found that the zone change did not meet the
criteria for approval, it should rely on the findings of the Planning Commission.  If the
Council supported the appeal (approval of the zone change), Council could rely on the
facts and findings in the staff report presented to the Commission, along with those
comments augmented by the appellant.  
Coun. Doyle asked if there was any change in staff observations related to traffic, from the
original staff report.
Transportation Engineer Randy Wooley stated there was no change in staff’s viewpoint. 
He said either the current or proposed zoning would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Plan for this area.
Coun. Ruby asked if it was still staff’s viewpoint that unless there was a zone change, this
property was unlikely to be developed for residential use.
Osterberg explained that staff’s opinion was that while the property could be used for
residential, the ability to develop it was tenuous because of the small site size, the
location, and other factors.  
Coun. Bode confirmed that this site was less than one-quarter acre and asked if one
house could be built on that lot.  
Osterberg explained he spoke to the desirability and viability factors for residential
development and that a maximum of six residential units could be built there.  
Coun. Bode confirmed that when the owner bought the lot, it was zoned R2.
Coun. Stanton asked why Findings No. 4 in the Land Use Order (Goal 6.2.6) was not
referenced in the minutes.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 10
Osterberg said he would look into the matter during the hearing and return with an answer.
Coun. Stanton noted the Planning Commission denied the applicant, overturning staff’s
recommendation for approval.  She asked if there was anything compelling that made staff
review why they initially recommended approval and now supported the Commission’s
Osterberg replied that there was no compelling reason and he believed staff usually
recommended upholding the decision of the hearing body, with only a few exceptions.    
Lee D. Leighton, AICP, Westlake Consultants, Inc., Tigard, explained he and John
Deskins, P.E., NWS Traffic Engineering, Tualatin, represented the owner of the site, and
they were prepared to address the issues that concerned the Planning Commission.  He
explained that this parcel was a former water tank site, which was now obsolete.  He said
the parcel was .24 acres in size and would require a dedication of right-of-way when
developed, which would reduce it in size to less than 10,000 square feet.  He noted the
main question was the highest and best use of the site.  He explained a City sewer line did
not currently serve the site and it could not be served from the existing line that lies to the
west.  He said a sewer line would need to be extended along Hall Boulevard from
Greenberg Road at an estimated cost of $80,000.  He said no one else could make that
extension because no one else had undeveloped property in this area.
Leighton explained they developed a site plan that indicated the site could accommodate
a 4,000 to 4,400 square foot building to be used for office, retail, or residential.  He noted
that on page 51 of the staff report, a real estate appraisal firm (Hobson Ferrarini
Associates) concluded there wasn’t any comparable property.  He explained this would
not be spot zoning because this area was designated as a corridor in the Comprehensive
Plan and the corridor designation contemplated mixed uses.  He reviewed the
developments in this area and pointed out how the commercial and retail uses fronted Hall
Boulevard and the residential uses were hidden behind the commercial areas and did not
front onto Hall Boulevard.  He said that with the proposed zoning that pattern would be
repeated on this site.  He reviewed the site plan that showed a 14 foot rear yard, which
could be planted densely with landscape screening as a protection for the neighbors to the
rear.  He reviewed the side yard setbacks and noted it was not possible for this site to
support a building with a footprint of more than 2,100 square feet.   He stated that severely
limited the potential for this site to significantly impact traffic operations in this area.  
Leighton explained that the Planning Commission was very concerned about traffic
functioning in the Years 2005 and 2020, and if this met the City’s and ODOT’s access
standards for intersections and roads.  He said that Deskin performed several runs on the
traffic impact analysis that showed that all the roads and intersections performed
satisfactorily.  He reviewed the four issues that formed the basis for the Commission’s
concern and denial: 
1)  Will the zone change cause an unsafe condition or congestion at the site’s driveway
2)  Can access management/intersection spacing requirements be met
3)  Is the long-term traffic growth rate assumption valid and reasonable
4)  Are the capital improvements assumptions reasonable
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 11
Leighton reviewed the factors for intersection safety: sight distance, traffic speeds,
driveway turning movements, access spacing and traffic volumes.  He stated that the first
three were tested and documented by Deskins and were in the Engineer’s Report; it was
found that they were adequate to support future development.  He said access spacing
was a concern, but the guidelines were guidelines only and ODOT provided procedures
for unusual circumstances; he said they could meet those standards.  He explained that
the traffic volumes would need to be made in the future under the site development permit.
Leighton noted there were many uses in the proposed CS zone that had low traffic
generation in the peak periods.  He noted the concern would be uses that would produce
high traffic rates.  He stressed that the City would look at the access and traffic volumes
and would have the ability to approve or deny any application based on those traffic
issues.  He summarized that they have worked to address the Commission’s concerns.
Coun. Bode asked for more information concerning the 1.1% versus 3% traffic volume
growth rates.
Leighton reviewed a chart on Growth Projection Methods and Traffic Volumes (in record)
for areas where there was not a lot of land left to be developed, as in this area.  He
explained that when there was a constraint on the potential growth, the growth curve
tapered off and flattened.  He said the 1.1% assumption came from the Metro Regional
Transportation Plan, which was the best traffic-modeling plan available. He said they took
the estimated traffic generation figure from that Plan for the Hall/Scholls intersection,
compared it to where the traffic was now, and that yielded the 1.1% rate.  He said this was
supported by data collected by ODOT from this area and reflected average daily traffic in
1994, 1997, and additional estimates that ODOT produced since then.  He noted that in
2000, the actual counts were lower.  He said this was the basis for using 3% for the near-
term to 2005, and the 1.1% for the long term.  He said they discussed this extensively with
City staff and they felt it was acceptable and appropriate.  
Coun. Bode said she could accept how they calculated the 1.1%.
Coun. Stanton asked how far to the west and east was measured for the Growth
Projection Records.    
Deskins replied that the analysis on Hall Boulevard was done between Scholls Ferry Road
and Greenberg/Oleson, at the request of City staff and ODOT.
Coun. Stanton asked if this parcel had existing right of access.  
Leighton explained there was an existing driveway onto Hall; there was no other viable
access for this property.  He said he did not know if there was a deeded access.  
Coun. Stanton asked if the site could connect to the street that serves the Embassy
Suites, where the signal light was located.
Leighton reviewed the signalized intersections and said there was no way to connect to
the Embassy Suites Street because there was no interconnection among any of the sites.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 12
Coun. Stanton suggested he might want to obtain an existing right of access because the
State and County did not give access anymore.  She was concerned that they comply with
the OAR’s that addressed access to sites.   
Leighton explained that this related to the exact meaning of right of access.  He said that
the State Highway Division tried not to deny access and had acknowledged they were
acquiring property when they denied the only available access.   
Mayor Drake asked if ODOT had not objected to an existing access that had been there
for many years, did that make it a right of access.
Leighton stated that ODOT reviewed their application and the Traffic Impact Analysis and
supported the proposed zone change; they were fully cognizant of the driveway issues.
Coun. Stanton noted the access was for the water tower and at a time when the traffic
generation was much less than what it was now.  She asked if an access previously
issued by ODOT still applied now when the use and environment had changed.
Wooley explained his experience with ODOT and the County was that they re-evaluated
the access for a new use, but if it was the only access available they did not normally deny
it, though they may put new conditions on it.  He noted page 515 of the staff report was 
ODOT’s approval.  He added that the zone change did not decide the access; that would
be considered in the development review process.  
Coun. Doyle noted the material presented was well written.
Coun. Soth asked about boring to the other side of Hall Boulevard for the sewer line.
Leighton explained there was no sewer line across the street from this property; it was
some distance to the west;  due to inverted elevations it was not feasible to run a sewer
line with adequate coverage in that westerly direction. 
Coun. Soth asked if it was the appellant’s view that this site was deemed unfeasible for
any type of residential development because of the cost, location and size of the site and
building.  He concluded if it was economically feasible to develop the site,  then it would
need to be a commercial development.  
Leighton stated that was an excellent summary.  He clarified that the evidence showed
that any residential development could not be profitable because it could not meet the
market.  He stressed the sewer cost alone was $80,000 which was the cost of the lot; this
was not what a lot across from Target would cost because of the exposure.  He noted
increasing the number of units could not be done because there was not enough space for
parking.  This was why the market analysis concluded residential development was not
viable; no one could make money on this or would invest in it.  He added that any
proposed use would go through review. 
Coun. Soth stated he could not remember a time when that water tank was not there and
that the driveway was always used for access.  He asked if Leighton considered or
inquired about the concept of Hall Boulevard being a five-lane right-of-way, with a three-
lane developed section.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 13
Leighton explained the current configuration was five lanes along the entire corridor they
studied.  He said the sidewalk and curb line did not conform to the design standard for Hall
Boulevard and a public right-of-way dedication would be necessary to meet the standard. 
Also, any redevelopment would entail relocating the sidewalk, providing a planter strip and
other improvements.
Coun. Soth asked if there were discussions about combining this parcel with the
commercial property next door or the golf course.
Leighton said he had not had any such discussions and referred the question to the
property owner who was present and would testify later.
Coun. Soth asked about the growth projection chart and if there was any significance to
the flattening of the line from 1997 up to 1999.
Deskins explained that the circled numbers were actual measured volumes at specific
locations, calculated by ODOT in three-year cycles; the other volumes were ODOT
projections.  He noted it was not a constant projection, so he felt ODOT must have a
formula to arrive at those volumes.  
Coun. Soth said it occurred to him that if the flattening were in place that would give
credence to the 1% rate versus the 3%.
Deskins explained that the model had a stair-stepping feature; if the values for 1993 and
2001 were used in the calculation, it would end up with a 1% growth rate.  He said he
used 3% for the short term, as they did not see major improvements happening through
2005.  He said for the long term they used the Regional Transportation Planning Model,
which was a better estimate, and came up with the projected 1.1% growth rate.  
Coun. Stanton referred to her previous question and noted that the ODOT letter on page
515 listed the required conditions but it did not give approval for access or the project.    
Leighton explained that ODOT had a standard letter that it used when it opposed a zone
change, which listed the reasons for the opposition.  He noted that ODOT staff was in the
loop when the modeling methodology was done and understood the rules of the hearing. 
He said he was confident that ODOT would have recommended denial of the zone change
if it had any concerns about the impact it would have on the highway.  He said that the
ODOT letter implicitly acknowledged that the City may approve the proposed zone change
and that ODOT listed the conditions a future applicant would have to meet, as a way of
notice to the applicant.  He said that was the proper interpretation of that letter.  
Coun. Stanton said she was looking for definite approval from ODOT.
Mayor Drake said he did not believe ODOT would ask for this information if it had no
intention of allowing the applicant to have access to the roadway for that site.  He asked
for a definitive opinion from the City Attorney or Community Development Director.
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 14
Grillo explained that ODOT was notified of this land use proceeding and had every
opportunity to submit into record if they opposed or approved the project, or remain silent.  
He said this letter addressed if someone filed a development application.  He said with this
letter ODOT was anticipating a development application and was letting everyone know
that these items would have to be addressed, over and above whatever the City required. 
He stated that if ODOT had a problem with a rezone, it would write a letter stating its
opposition and the reasons for the opposition.  He said the letter would be followed by a
phone call to staff relating the same information verbally.  He said this letter was actually
no comment on the zone change.  
Coun. Stanton said she also saw it as no comment, since there was no definite approval
or denial.    
City Attorney Mark Pilliod agreed with Grillo.  He explained that the Comprehensive Plan
section on Access Management had a number of requirements, among which was the
need to coordinate and request that ODOT approve or apply access management
principles, but the applicable arterials they were talking about were not Hall Boulevard or
Scholls Ferry.  He reminded Council that ODOT’s access/permit process was not a
precondition for a zone change; it was a separate approval process.  He said that ODOT’s
lack of a clear recommendation on the zone change, was an indication that it recognized
there was another process that would follow any type of approval from Council.  He noted
the access management requirements were found on Section 6.5.8 and there were a
number of points the City must apply; access spacing was one of those requirements, but
even ODOT’s regulations allowed for exceptions when it was impractical to meet the 600-
foot minimum.  He noted these were principles the Council had to apply at this hearing;
ODOT’s consideration was a separate proceeding.    
Rajiv Judge, Lake Oswego, owner of property, stated that when he purchased the
property from the Water District his first efforts were to find a viable residential use for the
site.  He said he spoke with various developers and brokers; he said the reports he
received indicated that it did not make sense from an economic perspective.  He noted
that in the staff report was an analysis from Hobson Ferrarini confirming his opinion.  He
said he put the property on the market for a year-and-a-half to see what interest was out
there.  He said there was no interest from convenience stores or from the owners of the
adjoining commercial property or golf course.  
Coun. Soth asked if he had any conversations with the owners of the apartments behind
that property.
Judge replied he had not; no one in the area had any interest.  He stressed his sincere
interest was to put this property to some productive use and if it stayed in its current
zoning he would not move ahead with any residential development.
Mayor Drake asked if anyone wished to speak in support of the appeal.
There were none.  
Mayor Drake asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the appeal.
There were none.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 15
Mayor Drake noted since there wasn't any testimony in opposition, there would not be any
rebuttal or surrebuttal.  
Coun. Bode asked how many feet it was from the site to the condominiums.
Judge explained that immediately adjoining the condominium complex was dense
vegetation and trees.  He thought the existing building was 40 to 50 feet away.
Leighton noted on page 65 of the staff report, the lower right corner of the subject property
was within the range of 20 feet from the condominium property line.  He noted it would be
an important consideration for future development.  He said they could treat that area so
that it would be protected; this would be considered by the Board of Design Review.  
Coun. Stanton noted the concept plan on page 59 of the report would require a variance.
Leighton responded that in the reasonable worst-case analysis, they could have said that
to comply with all setbacks, they could only fit 1500 square feet on this property.  He noted
it seemed reasonable that the City would entertain some adjustments of those setbacks
with appropriate compensation.  He stressed they did not know that for sure and they were
not trying to get approval of any conceptual plans at this time.  
Coun. Doyle asked if a cell tower could be built on the site with the current  R2 zoning.
Osterberg replied that it could with a Conditional Use Permit and it would require design
review.  He noted the zone change did not enable that in any way.
There were no other questions.
Mayor Drake closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m.
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that Council approve the appeal as
reflected in Agenda Bill 03025, APP 2002-0019 Appeal of RZ 2002-0021; Progress Zone
Change at SW Hall Boulevard, based upon the facts and findings presented in the staff
report dated October 16, 2002, and in staff’s memorandum dated November 27, 2002.  
Coun. Doyle said he supported the motion as it seemed that common sense and business
sense said that this piece of property was not a residential site.  He said he felt confident
that future reviews for development would safeguard the area.
Coun. Soth said he supported the zone change for the reasons stated by Coun. Doyle; it
would be impossible to develop this site as residential.  He added it made sense to do
something to utilize the property.    
Coun. Stanton said she agreed that there was no viable option to put residential on that
site.  She noted that the Code said that the Comprehensive Plan amendments were done
with compelling reasons and she did not see the compelling reason to go to Community
Service (CS).  She said she did not see the rationale to put CS there, so she would uphold
the Planning Commission’s interpretation.  She said that changing something because the
area had changed was not the same thing as finding a compelling reason to move forward
in a particular area.  She said she could not support the motion.  
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 16
Coun. Bode said that after reviewing the report, her concern was that the Planning
Commission was not of one mind about transportation values.  She said when she
reviewed the appellant’s response on the traffic analysis, which was logical and well
stated, she found it compelling that the data was not consistent so this had to go to the
City Council.  She said she would go with the chart on the growth rate and slope, because
she wanted the quality of life and an empty lot that was unusable would not add to the
quality of life.  She said because of that and the clarification of the data, she favored
granting the appeal.  
Question called on the motion.  Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, and Soth voting AYE, Coun.
Stanton voting NAY, the MOTION CARRIED.  (4:1).   
Suspend Rules:
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton that the rules be suspended, and that
the ordinances embodied in AB 03026, 03027, 03028 and 03029, 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. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth, and Stanton Voting AYE, the
MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0)
First Reading:
City Attorney Mark Pilliod read the following ordinances for the first time by title only:
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Map
and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located on Both Sides of Koll
Parkway Between Walker Road and SW Greystone Court; CPA 2002-0009/RZ 2002-0017
(Ordinance No. 4239)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, from Community Service
(CS) to General Commercial (GC); RZ 2002-0018  (Ordinance No. 4240)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, From (R1) to (RC-E); RZ
2002-0019  (Ordinance No. 4241)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Map
and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, for Property Located at 14305 SW Millikan
Way; CPA 2002-0022  (Ordinance No. 4242)
Second Reading:
City Attorney Mark Pilliod read the following ordinances for the second time by title only:
An Ordinance Annexing Property Lying Generally Outside of the Existing City Limits to the
City of Beaverton; ANX 2002-0014 (8888 SW Canyon Road Expedited Annexation)
(Ordinance No. 4237)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Development Code; TA 2002-0005
(Ordinance No. 4238)
Beaverton City Council
Minutes – January 27, 2003
Page 17
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton that the ordinances embodied in
Agenda Bill 03017 and 03018 now pass.  Roll call vote.  Couns. Bode, 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 9:35 p.m.
Catherine L. Jansen, Deputy City Recorder
Approved this 10th day of February, 2003.
Rob Drake, Mayor