BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 5, 2004

CALL TO ORDER:

The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob Drake in the Forrest C. Soth City Council Chamber, 4755 SW Griffith Drive , Beaverton , Oregon , on Monday, January 5, 2004 , at 6:35 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Betty Bode, Dennis Doyle, Fred Ruby and Forrest Soth. Coun. Cathy Stanton was excused. Also present were Chief of Staff Linda Adlard , City Attorney Alan Rappleyea , Finance Director Patrick O'Claire , Community Development Director Joe Grillo , Engineering Director Tom Ramisch , Operations/ Maintenance Director Gary Brentano, Library Director Ed House, Human Resource Services Manager Nancy Bates, Police Chief David Bishop, Development Services Manager Steve Sparks, Utility Engineer David Winship, Associate Planner Tyler Ryerson and City Recorder Sue Nelson .

CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS:

There were none.

COUNCIL ITEMS:

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby to nominate Coun. Forrest Soth for Council President. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (3:0) Coun. Soth abstained from voting.

STAFF ITEMS:

Chief of Staff Linda Adlard said the kiosk at the corner of Fifth Avenue and Hall Boulevard would be installed by January 30, 2004 . She said it would be identical to the one next to the Beaverton Bakery. She noted that the CERT (Citizens Emergency Response Teams) cards had been mailed and there had been a great response from citizens. She added within the week the editing would be finalized on a new TV production about Beaverton entitled "Your City" starring Mayor Rob Drake . She said it will be televised on the TVTV public channel in about ten days.

CONSENT AGENDA:

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the Consent Agenda be approved as follows:

Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 15, 2003 .

04001 - Liquor License Application: New Outlet Rama Thai

Contract Review Board:

04002 - Council Notification of Award of the Bid by the Mayor - Drinking Water Fluoride Feed Facility

04003 - Exemption From Competitive Bids - Water System Telemetry Engineering, and Supply and Installation of Equipment

04004 - Waiver of Sealed Bidding - Purchase Nine Vehicles from the State of Oregon Price Agreement

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

PUBLIC HEARING:

04005 - APP 2003-0011 Appeal of Holland Park Planned Unit Development Conditional Use (CU 2003-0018)

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 (Director) asked if any Councilor had a potential or actual conflict of interest.

Coun. Soth stated he did not have a conflict of interest; however he had been friends with the Holland family for many years. He said he had not talked with them in any regard about this issue.

Grillo (Director) asked if any Councilor had an ex parte contact to declare.

Mayor Drake said he did not have an ex parte contact; he was familiar with the property and he had made a trip to the area this past week.

Coun. Soth said he did not have any ex parte contact; he had visited and walked the site in the past week.

Coun. Bode said she did not have any ex parte contact; she had visited the property and went to the school to see the property from all sides.

Coun. Doyle said he had no contacts though he had visited the site several times over the years for various events.

Grillo (Director) asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the right of the Council to consider this matter or challenge the right of any Councilor to participate in this hearing, or wished to request a continuance of the hearing to a later date.

Mr Phillip Grillo, Portland , attorney for applicant, said he was representing the applicant for the development company. He referred to his December 31, 2003 letter regarding jurisdiction that he had sent to the Council. He said on December 10, 2003 , he wrote to the Planning Director requesting a dismissal of the appeal on several grounds including BDC 50.70.2 Sub. C, D, and E. He said he made a copy of the Type 4 procedures but they were in a Type 3 situation. He said it was materially the same for Type 3 and 4. He said on December 15, 2003 , the Planning Director determined that the appeal generally met the requirement for filing the appeal; the Vose NAC had submitted the notice and was therefore the only appellant. He said the issue was who the appellant actually was; there was evidence that was placed in the record (by Mr. Kane) that showed conclusively that there were two appellants in the appeal. He said it was not just the Vose NAC, but also Mr. Kane. He said there may have been some confusion at the Planning Director level whether Mr. Kane was representing the Vose NAC but it was clear from the evidence Mr. Kane submitted that he was representing himself.

Grillo referred to the Kane letter ( December 23, 2003 ) but he commented it was not part of the numerical sequence of letters to the Council from Mr. Kane. He referred to page 1 ( December 23, 2003 Kane letter) " Appellant Kane in these appeal proceedings represents only himself and does not represent appellant Vose NAC or any person or entity." He said Kane made it very clear that he was representing himself. He said there was come confusion about this issue at Planning Commission level, (he referred to page 60 of the record, November 5, 2003 minutes of Planning Commission meeting) "observing that Mr. Kane had introduced himself with credentials of the Vose NAC, Commissioner Voytilla questioned whether he had testified on his own behalf or as a representative of the NAC. Mr. Kane stated that he had testified only on his own behalf." He said the Planning Director was not present at that meeting so he was not sure if the Planning Director realized that Kane was testifying on his own behalf. He said Kane clarified that in front of the Planning Commission and Kane also clarified in his December 23, 2003 , letter to the City of Beaverton that he was representing only himself.

Grillo continued by stating it was important to recognize that Kane could not represent other people; Kane was not an active member of the Oregon State Bar, by State Statute ORS. 9160, only active members of the State Bar could practice law in this State. He said what that meant was Kane could not represent other parties, only himself. He said two people signed the appeal (Mr. Redmond representing the Vose NAC and Kane representing himself) there was a special provision of the Code BDC 50.70 Sub. 2 Sub D. He read the provisions: " When multiple people sign and file a single appeal, the appeal shall include verifiable evidence that each appellant provided written testimony to the decision making authority and the decision being appealed was contrary to such testimony." He referred to the paragraph that stated "One person shall be designated as the contact representative for all pre-appeal hearing contact with the City. All contact with the City regarding the appeal, including notice, shall be with that contact person." He said that was the problem; there wasn't a contact person designated with this appeal.

Grillo referred to Kane's letter ( December 15, 2003 , page 68) " Appellant Kane makes the following statements of fact under penalty of perjury . Page 1 of the Grillo letters claims: 2. Despite the fact that it is a single appeal signed by multiple parties; it does not designate one person as the contact person, as required by subsection 2D." BDC 50.70.2.D provides that the appeal shall designate one person as the contact representative for all pre-appeal hearing contact with the City. Appellants complied with the letter and spirit of the above-quoted provision of BDC 50.70.2.D at page 4 of the Notice of Appeal. Please forward the Record on Appeal and other documents pertaining to this appeal to co-appellant Henry Kane at his address listed below." He said they agreed if Kane had included that statement with the appeal documents he filed with the City the requirements of 2.D would have been complied with; but what Kane filed with the City on December 8, 2003, did not have a page 4, and the statement that Kane said was on page 4 was not in any of the documents Kane filed. He said all the documents pertaining to the appeal were on pages 18-25; there were more than four pages in those documents, but there wasn't a page 4. He said he checked with the City Recorder's office and there weren't any additional documents that were not included in the record. He surmised that Kane typed a page and neglected to file it in the record; he suggested that Kane could explain the page 4. He said Kane's explanation of how he complied with Sub. 2D was not in the record. He said the appeal failed to comply with Subsection 2D due to the fact that one person was not designated as the contact person.

Grillo stated in Beaverton neighborhoods mattered very much and he agreed with that statement. He referred to page 58 of the record that stated Mr. Redmond (Voce NAC Chair) thanked the applicant for his work on this case. He stressed the developer felt neighbors and neighborhood mattered. He said they were asking to be treated fairly as any applicant. He said when he read the provision in Subsection 2D that "The appeal shall designate one person as the contact representative for all pre-appeal hearing contact with the City " he didn't see any "wiggle room" in Criteria D. He said the criteria was clear and if the Council created "wiggle room" where there wasn't any, that would create an unfairness and a feeling of not being treated equally. He said they were asking Council to look at the rules and the uncontested facts and make a fair decision.

Mayor Drake asked the City Attorney to comment on the legal issue and then questions would be taken. He noted the Council should then take action. He said if the Council decided this should proceed, Mr. Phil Grillo and his client would be protected at a higher court.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea explained Grillo raised a vital point. He said he and the Community Development Director considered this issue and they thought one appeal was filed; there was one appeal fee and one fee reimbursement request from the NAC, and Kane was the NAC Secretary. He noted a decision had to be made within seven days and based on the record that was available (as staff did not have the additional details Phil Grillo raised); staff considered it to be one appellant which was the Vose NAC and Kane was the Secretary to the NAC. He noted the cover letter of December 8, 2003 , was signed by Kane as the Vose NAC Secretary. He said they felt the intent of the language was clearly met by the filing of the appeal, and if there was any doubt staff preferred to err on the side of inclusion of the public in the appeal.

Mayor Drake asked if there were any questions.

Coun. Soth asked Phil Grillo if it was his contention that the appeal letter documents did not specifically designate Kane as the person representing the appellant.

Grillo replied that was not quite it. He referred to Kane's letter concerning page 4 of the appeal was not part of the appeal documents that Kane had filed. He said the only thing that supported Kane's position with regards to a statement that complied with Sub 2D, was not in the record. He said they were aware of the ambiguity created by the cover letter Kane filed with the appeal, but he said that within the actual notice of appeal, Kane separately established his own s tand ing and separately signed the appeal and at the base of the appeal in the signature column Kane used the word "appellants." He said Kane also clarified in front of the Planning Commission that he was not representing the Vose NAC. He reiterated that the situation in Sub D only occurs where multiple people file a single appeal be it two or 20 people. He said he felt the intent of 2D was clear.

Mayor Drake explained to Grillo that he voted in place of a tie and he noted there were four councilors present. He said this may be a two-headed beast with one body. He said he did not feel this appeal was as clear as other appeals he had seen. He said he believed Kane was acting on behalf of the NAC and the City considered if there was formal NAC action when the appeal was filed. He said from the material he read and the understanding he had, he thought Kane was speaking on behalf of the NAC. He said the other relevant issue was that Senate Bill 100 and the City Code intended there be public access to land use issues and the City had a long history of fostering citizen involvement, especially in land use. He said that not every appeal received by the City was of the same caliber and he thought it would fly in the face of the State's and City's intent of allowing citizen access to its elected officials and those who make land use decisions. He said he disagreed with Grillo's assessment, and while it was not a perfect appeal, it met the intent of allowing citizen access to appeal to their elected officials.

Henry Kane, Beaverton , said at 8:10 a.m. this morning he handed in ten copies of his response. He said he still did not know what the new evidence was; his letter had a notice of appeal and it had a page 4. He said in deference to Grillo, the record on appeal was incomplete and the agenda bill was accurate. He said he had his copy in his car and if one looked at the notice of appeal there was a page 4. He said if there was a recess later he could get his copy. He admitted it was not the best appeal; but he said they spoke for five minutes and asked how much of a record could they make. He said when they file an appeal with LUBA, they file a notice of appeal and attach a copy of what they were appealing the judgment or the order. He said he was supposed to write the appeal in less than ten days. He said they cited everything that was contrary to the decision. He said he made it a matter of record when he was speaking for himself and when he forwarded the appeal it was as the Secretary of the NAC. He noted Redmond (NAC Chair) worked and his free time was taken for his family. Kane said he was retired and had time, and had worked on this appeal. He said he visited the site several times. He said if he could go get a copy of what he filed he would show Grillo there was a page 4.

Rappleyea stated he spoke with the City Recorder about this and there wasn't a page 4 on the Notice of Appeal. He said there was a signature sheet, pages 2 and 3, a statement from the budget, and the signature sheet. He said Community Development Director Joe Grillo made the decision that the appeal was valid even without page 4.

Kane said he would check to see what he could find. He said there a provision in State statute on what was jurisdictional. He said he filed the appeal at 4:00 p.m. and though there were three appeals possible, they decided to file one appeal. He said he was involved in land use matters and took pleasure that LUBA accepted his last appeal.

Coun. Bode asked Kane when he signed the appeal, what was his intent and who was he representing.

Kane replied he was only representing himself.

Coun. Bode asked if he was the Recording Secretary for the NAC.

Kane replied that he was the Secretary for the Vose NAC.

Mayor Drake said that was why he made the comment that it was one appeal; one beast with two heads. He said there wasn't any confusion in his mind that Kane was representing the NAC not himself. He said he understood that Kane was the contact and he felt with the signature from the NAC Chair and Kane, there was no confusion that Kane was speaking for the NAC and the request for the appeal was from the NAC not Kane. He said it was not perfect but he felt it met the intent of the Senate Bill and the Code. He said the Councilors would need to decide if it met the intent of the ordinance. He noted the Community Development Director and the City Attorney felt it did.

Community Development Director Joe Grillo said he concurred with the majority of what the City Attorney said. He added that he did not consider Kane to be a separate party; he was an officer of the Vose NAC, along with Redmond , and to that extent they could both or one could represent the NAC during their 15-minute presentation. He said he had not received any information up to tonight that indicated Kane was a separate appealing party. He said if Kane had made that representation to him during the appeal process, Kane would have had to file his own appeal fee. He said from his perspective, Kane was an elected officer of the Vose NAC and he and Redmond were at the meeting in that capacity alone. He said that did not preclude Kane, or anyone else in the NAC, coming and speaking to the Council as an individual either opposing or supporting the development. He said that as to the representation, he surmised Kane came on behalf of the Vose NAC to do the type of detailed discovery he liked to do and staff tried to provide that service to Kane on behalf of the NAC.

Coun. Soth said from Kane's letter of December 15, 2003 , entitled Appellant's Second Response to Applicant's Motion to Dismiss , Phil Grillo was pointing out that a single contact person was not designated there. He noted it read "Appellants complied with the letter and spirit of the above quoted provision of BCD at page 4 of the Notice of Appeal." He noted that was the missing page. He said what contributed to his confusion was the portion that said "Please forward the record on appeal and other documents pertaining to this appeal to co-appellant Henry Kane.noted below." He said it did not say that Kane was the designated party speaking on behalf of the Vose appeal. He said that was confusing; he noted that 50.70.2.D said "The appeal shall designate one person as the contact representative." He said in his view anyone who had s tand ing could request the record, regardless of whether or not they were speaking as an individual who testified at the various stages or whether or not they wished to be the designated person to speak. He asked if the City Attorney could clear that up.

Rappleyea explained that those materials came in after the seven days that the Community Development Director had to decide those issues. He said they had to make a decision based on what was filed at the time of the appeal on December 8. He said using what they had, the Director, Joe Grillo , decided it had met the s tand ards. He said there were a lot of problems with it and issues that could have been raised, but at the administrative level staff felt it was the NAC that was appealing and Kane was a secretary for the NAC and therefore it met the s tand ards.

Coun. Soth asked from the City Attorney's view, if Kane was acting as secretary to the NAC then that precluded him from appealing as an individual; he was representing, as secretary, the NAC Board. Since this came in later, then it appeared to him that it met the criteria for filing the appeal; and had they seen the other, it might have been different.

Rappleyea said it would have added another layer of confusion. He said on the balance, it was the Director's decision that this did meet the standards.

Coun. Ruby asked if the City had taken the view that despite the language in paragraph D, that the appeal shall designate one person as the contact representative, the City was saying that the designation of the contact person can be accomplished through all the paperwork involved, including the cover letter, and when staff made that assessment on an overall basis, it was felt the appeal did designate a contact person. He asked who the City believed was the contact person.

Rappleyea responded that was an accurate assessment of what staff went through and the contact person designated was Kane.

Phil Grillo responded to the question concerning who was the contact person. Grillo stated that since the Community Development Director's letter was addressed to the Vose Chair, they didn't know who the contact person was. He said the real question was if there were one or two appellants and Kane would not admit that he was filing separately. He said Kane could not be the NAC's representative as a matter of law and he did not think the City wanted to put Kane in the position of representing the NAC, even as secretary, because as a lawyer in inactive status, he could not do that as a matter of law. He said ethically the City should not put him in that position. He said the statute was clear and he had a copy of the order from the Oregon Court placing Kane on inactive status. He stressed Kane could not practice law. He said if what Kane was doing on behalf of the NAC was not practicing law, then he did not know what it was. He said that was why Kane could only represent himself and otherwise it placed Kane and the NAC in harms way.

Coun. Soth noted the letter dated December 15 which referred to page 4, on Kane's letterhead addressed to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, and was signed by Henry Kane, appellant. He said if the appeal was filed by Kane as secretary of the Vose NAC, Kane should have signed as secretary to Vose NAC. He asked Kane if he was representing the NAC as secretary, and if so, why did he not sign the letter as the NAC secretary.

Kane said he had a busy demanding schedule and no staff. He said he did not have the time to think through all possible consequences and he got the word out as best as he could. He said he did not want the Planning Commission thinking he was speaking for the NAC; he was speaking for himself.

Coun. Soth said that what transpired at the Planning Commission level was not what transpired here. He said they were talking about the action as the appellant. He said they were talking about two different things: one was standing before the Commission and the other was on the record for appeal where Kane did not make that distinction in a lot of his correspondence. He noted other cases were not relevant to this one.

Kane said the NAC was an organization and Bar rule was that an organization, such as a corporation, in a legal proceeding must be represented by counsel. He said he was careful to make the distinction in the signature page which had the Vose Chair signature and underneath he just signed "Henry Kane appellant."

RECESS:

Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:35 p.m.

RECONVENED:

Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:49 p.m.

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that Council move into executive session in accordance with ORS 192.660(1)(h) to discuss the legal rights and duties of the governing body with regard to litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

The executive session convened at 7:50 p.m.

The executive session adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

The regular meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m.

Mayor Drake thanked the audience for their patience.

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby that the Council declare that in this particular situation the Council did not have the jurisdictional authority, as outlined by Mr. Phillip Grillo and the Sections of 50.70, in that the Council does not believe that there has been a designation of a single person for purposes of the appeal.

Mayor Drake summarized the motion that the provisions of Beaverton Code 50.70.2.D have not been fully complied with and there was not a legal appeal; that there was not one person designated as the contact representative.

Coun. Soth explained that they were looking at two things. He said the appeal was solely from the NAC. He noted Kane contended that as Secretary of the NAC, he was acting in that capacity; however, much of Kane's writings specified Henry Kane, appellant. He stated Kane could not be both the appellant and Secretary to the NAC. He said because Kane did not file his own appeal, complete with the check required for that appeal, the Council determined that Kane's standing as an individual appellant had no bearing in this particular case. He added the NAC was the appellant and filed the necessary papers and received the remuneration as provided in the City's rules; therefore, from that particular standpoint the Council determined that it does not have the jurisdiction that was required by Section 50.70, A or D.

Coun. Ruby said he supported the motion based on the testimony heard tonight on this threshold jurisdictional issue. He said he believed that Kane's testimony established clearly that he was not acting in a representative capacity as the Secretary for the NAC and that testimony was surprising. He said it was clear and it established conclusively that Subsection 2D was, therefore, not met because of the failure to designate a contact representative. He said he did not think that section required any magic words and he applauded the City for trying strenuously to interpret that statute in a way that would make the appeal permissible, recognizing that the City always strived to hear from the NACs and hear appeals from citizen groups. He said the ordinance was very clear and paragraph 3 indicated that all the subsections were jurisdictional and given Kane's explicit testimony that he was not acting in a representative capacity, it proved that that section had not been met. He added that if Kane had testified that he was acting as the NAC Secretary and was making representations as the contact representative, he was not convinced that would have gotten him in trouble with the Oregon State Bar, because he believed a NAC could represent itself through its authorized officers and Kane was an officer of the NAC. He said he did not think this issue should be manipulated to prevent Kane from making valuable representations as a citizen on these issues. He said he had to accept Kane's firm representations that he was acting in his individual capacity and not as the NAC representative.

Coun. Bode said her deliberation came from Kane's testimony when she asked him what his role was; he could have said he was the secretary because any citizen could be with the NAC. She stated one of the Council's goals was to be open to its citizens. She said that faced with Section 2D, which was clear, and with Kane's testimony that he was not representing anyone but himself, then his role of his relationship to the NAC became clear when he said he was an individual. She said it was clear to her that the Council had to go back to the Code. She said she believed the NAC worked in good faith, but the Code was clear on the designated person and Kane stated that he was only representing himself.

Coun. Doyle said he was disappointed with this situation and he thought the Council had always functioned in a different fashion. He said he was sorry that they were put in this position. He said to expect a NAC to get into this depth concerning the rules was difficult. He noted staff tried to ensure they knew what was happening in this case. He said he thought the City had just gotten colder, but he could not deny that it was an accurate decision; he was disappointed to start 2004 this way.

Coun. Soth said traditionally the City encouraged citizen communication in many fashions. He noted the City had established rules for the conduct of business, so from his perspective it was a tough decision. He explained there was just so far the Council could go to accommodate people and in this case there was no place the Council could have gone to accomplish what they would like to have accomplished.

Mayor Drake asked the City Attorney to explain why the appeal was not applicable based on Section 50.70.2.D.

Rappleyea explained the problem was that it was a jurisdictional requirement; with the filing of the appeal, and the defect in the filing of the appeal, the City Council no longer had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. He said that was why the Council could not continue with the appeal.

Mayor Drake noted this application might have met the intent of the Ordinance and Council could have approved it or overturned the appeal, but the Council would not have that opportunity. He noted since there was no appeal, the project theoretically would go forward. He noted Kane's testimony that stated he was not representing the NAC, but only himself; if the NAC had submitted an appeal itself, the appeal probably would have been heard.

Rappleyea replied that it would have been much clearer. He said staff had to make a difficult interpretation and tonight differing evidence was heard.

Mayor Drake noted there was new evidence after staff made their interpretation; and it had been a valid appeal, until Kane admitted he was appealing it but not on behalf of the NAC.

Rappleyea repeated staff had to make its interpretation based on the filing, and that interpretation was incorrect based on the testimony heard tonight

Mayor Drake asked for a vote on the motion of Council determining that it does not have jurisdiction based on incomplete evidence under Section 50.70.2.D. that it did not meet the intent of having jurisdiction. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

Mayor Drake noted it was a unanimous decision that the Council would not hear the appeal tonight.

ORDINANCES:

Mayor Drake noted two letters were received today regarding the First Reading of Ordinance 4284 (Agenda Bill 04006) were distributed to the Council and the City Recorder as part of the record. He noted that the Teuffels (property owners) had requested that the agreement the Council approved on December 15, 2003 , be included in the record.

Suspend Rules:

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bill 04006 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, Soth and Ruby voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

First Reading :

Rappleyea read the following ordinance for the first time by title only:

04006 - An Ordinance Annexing Property Generally Located at 12345 NW Barnes Road to the City of Beaverton : Expedited Annexation 2003-0012 (Ordinance No. 4284)

Coun. Soth asked if the inclusion to that ordinance would be an amendment at the second reading.

Rappleyea explained the inclusion was to the record only and not to the ordinance.

Second Reading :

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

03257 - An Ordinance Annexing Property Generally Located at 8655 SW Canyon Lane to the City of Beaverton . Expedited Annexation ANX 2003-0006 (Ordinance No. 4278)

03265 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, for Property Located at 8655 SW Canyon Lane; CPA 2003-0010/ ZMA 2003-0012 (Ordinance No. 4279)

03279 - An Ordinance Annexing Property Located at 690 SW 173 rd Avenue to the City of Beaverton : Expedited Annexation 2003-0009 (Ordinance No. 4280)

03280 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, for Property Located at 690 SW 173 rd Avenue; CPA 2003-0013/ ZMA 2003-0016 (Ordinance No. 4281)

03281 - TA 2003-0006 (Application Completeness Text Amendments) (Ordinance No. 4282)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 03257, 03265, 03279, 03280 and 03281, now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

APPROVAL:

Approved this 2nd day of February, 2004.

__________________________________
Rob Drake, Mayor