NOVEMBER 1, 2004


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, November 1, 2004, at 6:34 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Betty Bode, Dennis Doyle, Fred Ruby and Forrest Soth. Coun. Cathy Stanton was excused. Also present were City Attorney Alan Rappleyea, Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, 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 Nancy Bates, Deputy Chief Chris Gibson, Development Services Manager Steve Sparks, Principal Planner Hal Bergsma, Senior Planner Colin Cooper, Program Manager George Fetzer and Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.


Rev. Ja West, Beaverton, addressed the Council regarding her religious and political viewpoints.

Henry Kane, Beaverton, referred to the proposed Civil Rights Ordinance scheduled for public hearing on November 8, 2004. He said he hoped the City Attorney would talk to the City Council regarding legal issues he raised previously. He distributed copies of Just Out, to Council. He said there were pictures of men and women in the publication but a person could not tell if they were homosexual just by looking at them. He said he asked the City to produce documents which supported the findings of fact (in the ordinance) that there was a severe civil rights problem. He said the only information he received was a notice that there were four or five police reports regarding intimidation. He stated intimidation was not prohibited by the proposed ordinance; and if there was a problem, there were existing State laws that covered intimidation and harassment. He said if this ordinance went to court it would be difficult to substantiate the facts on which it was based.

Susan Cook, Beaverton, referred to the Code Design Review Update and the issue of grading. She said when she had spoken with engineers and other land developers; she was told the grading criteria were potentially hazardous. She said that was her main concern. She asked that Council question the appropriate experts in the area of grading. She noted there was a development on 170 th Avenue and Weir that was in a steep area. She said because she lived on a steep slope, she was concerned that protections were in place for present and future residents.

Mayor Drake thanked Ms. Cook and said her issue would be addressed during the work session later in the meeting.

Mayor Drake noted there were two boy scouts in the audience and asked them to introduce themselves.

Andrew Condron, Boy Scout Troop 870, and Don Carver, Boy Scout Troop 854, introduced themselves; both noted they were home schooled students and were working on their Community Badges.


Coun. Soth said the League of Oregon Cities Annual Conference was this weekend in Portland at the Marriott Downtown and a number of Councilors were attending.


There were none.


04212 - Design Review Update Project (TA 2003-0005)

Development Services Manager Steven Sparks introduced Senior Planner Colin Cooper and Consultant John Spencer, Spencer & Kupper.

Sparks presented a Power Point slide presentation on the process and objectives used for the Design Review Update (in the record). He said the City's current design review criteria were vague and lacked clarity and objectivity. He said the goals of the Update were: to improve customer service by developing clear and objective design standards; to have an increased certainty about requirements and responsibilities for all involved in the process; to maintain the community’s aesthetic quality of life; and to promote economic development through more efficient permitting procedures. He reviewed the work done by the Code Review Advisory Committee (CRAC) and the issues the Committee considered (in the record).

Sparks explained the advisory committee discussed many issues:

1) Maintaining public involvement in the review process.

2) Administrative review of minor projects and defining what minor projects were.

3) Compatibility concerns between conflicting land uses. He said the CRAC settled on conflicting land uses adjacent to residential areas, such as commercial/residential or industrial/residential areas. He said the tools developed to address this were landscape buffering, lighting, screening of equipment and grading. He referred to Ms. Cook's concern about grading and explained they tried to create a gentler transition between residential and commercial properties. Instead of having a tall retaining wall at the property line to deal with substantial differences in grade, the standard developed was a two-to-one slope for the first 25 feet and after 25 feet the change could be mitigated or buffered through landscaping.

4) Architectural variety and interest of buildings visible from the streets. Sparks said they developed standards to address the issues for not having large blank walls; Including high quality materials; having varied roof and façade articulation; and being well landscaped.

Sparks explained that in addition to the CRAC, there were special interest retail groups involved that provided extensive testimony to the Planning Commission regarding the text. He said he and Mr. Spencer also met with these groups separately to address their issues. He noted most of the development in the City was infill and redevelopment. The retail group felt some of the standards were written toward Greenfield development, where one dealt with a clean slate and no constraints of existing buildings or roads. He said they also discussed phasing compliance with the standards over time, as there were misconceptions that applicants would be required to bring their entire property up to design standards right away. He said there were also questions about the validity of the Major Pedestrian Routes; he noted the Update included revised standards for the pedestrian routes to address the group's concerns.

Sparks explained there was a second group involved that represented industrial property owners' interests. He said their concern was that much of what was in the new standards did not apply to a true industrial use, such as pedestrian-oriented design. He said the text was changed to accommodate true industrial use.

Spencer said that the issues raised and discussed with the industrial group were brought back to the Planning Commission and were included in the Update the Commission approved and forwarded to the Council.

Sparks reviewed what the Design Review Update accomplished. He said design review still consisted of three applications though the thresholds were substantially different to streamline the process. He reviewed the three types of applications (in the record):

1) Design Review Three (DR3) was for major projects (greater than 30,000 square feet if abutting or within a residential zone; greater than 50,000 square feet anywhere in the City); a public hearing was still required for these projects.

2) Design Review Two (DR2) was for projects up to 30,000 square feet if abutting or within a residential area; or up to 50,000 square feet if it did not abut a residential zone. DR2 allowed staff level review and decision if the project met the design standards.

3) Design Review Compliance Letter was for minor projects such as minimal design changes to existing buildings or sites. He said the goal was to make this as close to an over-the-counter review as possible. He said the project would be reviewed at the counter and there would be a pre-printed letter stating the project met the City's standards, which staff would sign, thus completing the review. He said the intent was to provide a quick turn-around for simple projects, though he stressed some projects might take longer if staff needed to consult with the Engineering Department.

Sparks explained Design Review Update focused on four design issues: Building design; Circulation and parking; Landscaping and open space; and Lighting. He showed examples of how the design standards could be applied to various projects (in the record).

Sparks explained the staff recommendation was that Council approves the Planning Commission's recommendation as noted on the Consent Agenda (Agenda Bill 04214). Sparks said if Council approved the amendment, staff would prepare an ordinance for first reading at an upcoming Council meeting. He said staff would develop a Design Review Handbook that illustrated how standards could be met. He said the handbook would be published and given to applicants to help them design their projects. He said staff would be monitoring the results of the Update to determine the effectiveness of the design review process and make improvements as needed.

Coun. Soth asked if all the photographs used in the presentation were taken in the City of Beaverton.

Sparks replied they were not.

Coun. Soth said that concerned him because the surroundings determined how that photograph appeared. He asked if the photographs could be identified and labeled because standards varied considerably depending on location.

Sparks said the majority of the photographs were taken in Beaverton; a few were from Hillsboro and Portland.

Spencer explained the photographs were examples that illustrated what the design standards tried to achieve. He said in some cases a good example could not be found in Beaverton.

Sparks thanked Coun. Soth for the suggestion and said photograph identification could be done.

Coun. Soth asked what the appeal process was for the Compliance Letter.

Sparks explained the appeal process for the Compliance Letter was identical to the current Type 1 process in that only the applicant could appeal and it would go to the Board of Design Review. He said if someone appealed the Board's decision, it would go directly to LUBA and bypass Council.

Coun. Bode asked if the new lighting standards would impact or limit the amount of lighting in areas such as sidewalks, curbs or gas stations.

Sparks explained the new standards did not establish more or less lighting. He said having height limits on light poles may result in more lighting. He said if someone wanted to deviate from the standard, the project would go to the Board of Design Review.

Spencer responded that part of the standards dealt with the height of fixtures, but another set of standards dealt with minimum and maximum lighting levels in certain locations. He said those standards currently do not exist for the City and they did a great deal of research to determine and set the lighting standards in this Update.

Sparks confirmed the CRAC spent a great deal of time reviewing lighting standards, including illumination levels and safety considerations.

Coun. Doyle said he hoped the new light standards were as attractive as anticipated. He asked who made the determination that a project met the applicable standards on minor projects handled through the Compliance Letter and what was the anticipated turn-around time.

Sparks explained the planner on staff at that time would make the determination. He said for a standard Type 1 project that the City currently gets, the turn-around time would be ten to 15 minutes.

Coun. Doyle said as he watched the process unfold, it seemed the business community was very involved. He asked if that was correct.

Sparks said there was more business participation during this review than the previous Code update process and the staff received a lot of good feedback from a number of people who had not participated previously. He said it was very beneficial. He said this document was the best compromise document that could be developed from everyone's participation.

Coun. Doyle said he was glad to see the City trying to simplify the process through the use of the Compliance Letter.

Sparks said the City was committed to making this work and would be actively soliciting feedback for ways to improve the process. He explained the new Update did not include standards for paint color, though it was discussed. He said it was not possible to develop clear standards for paint color.

Coun. Doyle asked how many DR3 projects, with the new square footage standards, were anticipated for a given year.

Sparks replied he did not think there were be too many based on square footage; possibly two a year. He said he thought the bulk of the DR3s would deal with an applicant not meeting a standard or wanting to deviate from the standards. He said it would then go to the Board of Design Review, and the Board would only review the standard in question.

Spencer explained the design standards were quantitative requirements. He said it would be very clear if standards were met or not. He said each standard had a guideline which explained the intent of the standard. He said the Board of Design Review would interpret the guidelines to determine how the standard was met or not met.

Coun. Doyle asked if this would facilitate different design types or styles.

Spencer replied it was hoped the new standards allowed much more design creativity. He said that would be part of the monitoring staff would be doing.

Sparks said staff would monitor the projects to determine if the City was getting the best project it could get; and if not, why not. He said staff would review the standards and process to see there were problems affecting the design of the projects.

Mayor Drake said staff was focused on being customer friendly and much of what the business community produced today was of high quality. He said the applicants would not need the City's oversight if there were objective standards in the Code. He said the public interest was served in that the Update was more business-friendly and it still retained the citizen component for comments to help mold the project if it's a new type of design. He said the new Update was not a free pass; it still had high standards to meet without the standards being so high that they could not be met without going through the public process.

Sparks said staff had heard many times people were reluctant to develop in Beaverton because the standards were not clear. He said the goal of the Update was to make the standards clear.

Coun. Doyle asked how difficult it was to reach compromise on the grading standards.

Sparks said the initial text reviewed by CRAC was totally different from what was now before Council. He said the development industry representatives said the standards were unachievable. He said after further review it was determined that what they wanted to avoid was the huge change in grade at the property line, which required construction of huge retaining walls. He said they narrowed the standard to within 25 feet of the property line with a two percent slope for grading. He said that was a gradual change in topography which was acceptable to everyone. He said when the CRAC voted on this and sent it to the Planning Commission, this standard applied to all properties, in all zones. He said when the Commission had its hearing, the retail group objected because if retail properties were adjacent to each other, they could handle the transportation linkage between the properties. It was suggested the standard should apply only to properties next to residential areas. He said the CRAC was reconvened to consider this amendment, along with other revisions. He said the CRAC approved the revisions and forwarded the revised standards to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission approved the amendment of the standards, so that grade changes would only be reviewed when they were next to residential areas.

Coun. Doyle agreed it made sense because what was needed was a buffer to protect residential areas; commercial/industrial developers would not create problems for themselves through grading since their sites need to be protected.

Sparks said he felt this was a better way of doing business.

Coun. Doyle commended staff for listening, and the Committees involved for their participation in this review. He said it was well worth all their effort and he was very pleased with the result.

Coun. Soth asked if the proposed standards changed the requirement that lighting fixtures be equipped with a cutoff feature to avoid glare on adjoining properties.

Spencer replied it did not change that requirement. He said the Update set a standard for how much light could be achieved at a property line, in addition to the requirement Coun. Soth mentioned.

Coun. Soth asked if the new standards decreased the amount of lighting allowed on the backside of a commercial structure for security purposes.

Sparks replied security lighting standards were not changed.

Mayor Drake pointed out that there was easy access to Council for appealing a decision of the Planning Commission. He said that while not everyone liked every item in the Update, there was not sufficient dislike to file an appeal.

Coun. Bode asked when staff would report back to Council on the results of the monitoring.

Sparks explained it would take about a year-and-a-half to receive applications, process them and receive feedback. He said it might be longer as construction does not always occur right away. He said it was important to get feedback from the applicants and from the community, which would take time. He repeated this was a big change to the way the City did business.

Mayor Drake thanked them for the presentation.

04213 - An Ordinance Amending Provisions of Chapters Four and Five of the Beaverton City Code Relating to Nuisances Affecting the Public Health

Code Enforcement Services Manager George Fetzer presented a Power Point slide presentation concerning the proposed changes to the Beaverton City Code dealing with rubbish and solid waste. He explained the current Code prohibited the accumulation of rubbish. He said there had been cases in the past where owners or tenants disagreed with the City's evaluation of what was considered rubbish. He showed pictures of perennial problem properties in Beaverton that collected rubbish on site, including furniture and appliances. He said to deal with that, it was recommended that the definition of rubbish in the Code be expanded to include carpet, upholstered furniture and household appliances stored outside for more than 72 hours. He said the goal was to make the Code clear and objective; this language made it clear these items could not be stored outside for an extended period

Fetzer explained the other changes to the Code related to the Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance in the Code. He showed pictures of properties where overflowing garbage cans remained outside on the sidewalk for a week. He noted complaints were received from the neighbors. He said this was inadequate trash service; they needed two garbage cans or larger dumpsters in cases of apartments or businesses. The proposed Code amendments provide enforcement and penalty provisions to deal with customers who would violate the Solid Waste rules.

Mayor Drake said the City's current process to get these properties cleaned was cumbersome and lengthy. He asked if there was anyway the City could move more quickly on these problems. He said though the City's process was cumbersome, it balanced property rights to protect the property owner or tenant.

Fetzer explained the abatement process required that the City obtain a warrant from the Municipal Court Judge. He noted in one case where the owners moved out and could not be found, it took six weeks to get the property cleaned up. He said the neighbors were not pleased because it was not cleaned immediately. He said staff put a lot of effort into getting property owners to clean their property, so the City did not have to clean it.

Mayor Drake said there was a fine balance in being a good steward of the public interest, without incurring extra cost to clean these properties, and protecting private property rights.

Coun. Bode asked if the City had an information packet for residents moving into the City, to inform them of the City's standards for keeping property clean and maintaining the livability of the neighborhood.

Mayor Drake explained the City did not have packets; all property transactions were handled through realtors.

Coun. Bode asked about upholstered furniture as noted in the ordinance (Sec. 1.A.2.). She referred to her neighbor who had an upholstered couch on her front cement porch, under an awning. She said it looked clean and she wondered if this ordinance applied to that situation.

Fetzer explained the original wording in the ordinance referred to wet upholstered furniture but it was changed by the City Attorney.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea explained the wording was changed because it was difficult to measure dampness and the standard needed to be clear. He said if the furniture was out of the rain, under cover and looked usable, it would not meet the standard.

Mayor Drake thanked Fetzer for the presentation.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:45 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:02 p.m.

04221 - A Resolution Establishing City Annexation Policies

Community Development Director Joe Grillo and Principal Planner Hal Bergsma briefly reviewed the staff report regarding establishing the City's annexation policy (in the record).

Grillo explained the City had a passive annexation policy for many years; almost all annexations in the past were by consent. He said the only exception to this was in the mid 1990's when residents of the West Slope, Raleigh Hills and Garden Home neighborhoods petitioned to be annexed to Beaverton to avoid being annexed to Portland.

Grillo said staff did not think these kinds of annexations would happen in the future. He said staff worked for many years to establish the Urban Service Area per Senate Bill 122. He noted the Council recently faced the Urban Service Issue dealing with the single-majority annexation vote, as it related to the Tualatin Valley Park & Recreation District. He said Council made it clear it was reluctant to pursue that type of strategy.

Grillo explained staff felt there was another way to deal with bringing properties into the City of Beaverton. He said staff was recommending that Council consider supporting the annexation method that would allow annexation of selected properties without property owner or voter approval. He said under State law, properties within areas surrounded by the City's boundaries, could be annexed after the City Council conducted a public hearing on that proposed annexation. He said the draft resolution before the Council set out the City's policies for annexation of two different types of properties:

1) Unincorporated properties that were not islands within the City but were within the City's assumed Urban Service Area. He said the City would remain open to supporting annexation by the majority of the voters in that situation where there was "a coming of the minds" between a large segment of that population and the City. He said that would entail doing additional planning for infrastructure and services for that area.

2) Those properties that are within the incorporated area of the City, i.e., islands. He said the policy would be to provide an umbrella of priority to annexing non-residential properties, developable residential properties, and smaller groupings of developed properties that were zoned residential within a neighborhood that was within these islands.

He said the proposed resolution set out the objectives for the annexations. He said this policy did not give priority to annexing larger, unincorporated residential neighborhoods using the island annexation method at this time. He reviewed the objectives and reasons set forth in the draft resolution: 1) Minimize confusion about City service boundaries; 2) Improve efficiency of City services; 3) Control development or redevelopment of properties that would eventually be in the City's boundaries; 4) Create complete neighborhoods; and 5) Increase City's tax base. He noted these objectives were not prioritized. He noted staff was recommending the Council go from an unwritten general passive annexation policy to a written moderately-aggressive annexation policy.

Coun. Soth said one of his major concerns was the provision of police services. He said under the current situation, with the nearest-unit-response type of dispatch, the Beaverton Police answered outside calls because Sheriff's deputies were not available. He said Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) was coming to the dispatch center and it would indicate which vehicle was closest to the call. He said in that regard Beaverton Police may be called to those areas immediately surrounding the City limits because they were the closest. He said currently Beaverton Police responded to many of the outside-area calls, so those areas were receiving City services. He related the inefficiency of dealing with the unincorporated islands for many of the islands already received City services.

Coun. Doyle confirmed with Grillo the four types of property being considered in the island annexation concept were: Undeveloped parcels zoned for industrial, commercial or mixed uses; Developed or redevelopable properties zoned for industrial, commercial or mixed uses; Undeveloped or redevelopable property zoned for residential; and Small developed properties zoned residential within a neighborhood that is completely incorporated within the City. He stressed they were not talking about going beyond the City's boundary and looking at adjacent property. He said they were strictly talking about islands within the City, completely surrounded by the City, receiving the benefits of being in their location.

Bergsma said they were not talking about annexing larger neighborhoods like Cedar Hills.

Mayor Drake pointed out there were islands within the City and this policy would include those smaller parcels that were surrounded by the City. He said the specific annexation that had been noticed was at the north end of the City.

Coun. Bode said it was logical to articulate the annexation policies and all the other policies the Council discussed at this meeting. She noted these islands were in the center of some parts of Beaverton and when looking at equalizing the playing field, and considering livability, access and services, it was time to articulate the annexation policy. She said the annexation supported the City's continuing efforts to maintain livability. She added bringing in additional land would help the City maintain a low tax rate. She said all of these issues entwined with each other and make Beaverton the city it wants to be in the next century.

Coun. Ruby said he appreciated this policy and the Consent Agenda item prepared for this issue was straight forward in discussing where the City had been in its past annexation policy and announcing to the public that policy may be more aggressive in the future and the reasons why. He said he thought that was straight shooting with the public. He said the island annexations were forced annexations but they were within certain parameters, and there were justifications for treating those areas differently as they were already benefiting from City services. He said the policy articulated well why this policy was justified as the City had expanded its boundaries already.

Mayor Drake thanked staff for the presentation.


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

Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 18, 2004

04214 - Design Review Update Project (TA 2003-0005)

04215 - Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for Utility Undergrounding Work on the Barnes Road Project, 119 th Avenue to Saltzman Road

04220 - A Resolution Establishing City Annexation Policies (Resolution No. 3785)

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


04216 - Proposed Water Consumption Rate Increase for Operating the City’s Water System (Resolution No. 3784)

Finance Director Patrick O’Claire briefly reviewed the staff report. He said the annual increase to the water rate would be around $2.88 for a single-family residence.

Coun. Bode asked who owned the water meter at the house.

O'Claire explained it was owned and maintained by the City.

Coun. Doyle confirmed with O'Claire that the rate increase was less than $3.00 per year per residence.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing.

There was no one present who wished to testify.

Mayor closed the public hearing.

Coun. Soth MOVED, SEONDED by Coun. Doyle that the Council approves Agenda Bill 04216, the Proposed Water Consumption Rate Increase for Operating the City's Water System. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

Suspend Rules:

Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 04217, 04218 and 04219 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 and Soth, voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

First Reading:
Rappleyea read the following ordinances for the first time by title only:

04217 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Known as Steele Park Located on the Eastside of SW 170 th Avenue, Immediately South of Elmonica Elementary School; CPA 2004-0011/ZMA 2004-0011 (Ordinance No. 4327)

04218 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Peck Park/TVF&R Station 61 which is Nine Parcels Located Along SW Murray Blvd.; CPA 2004-0014/ZMA 2004-0014 (Ordinance No. 4328)

04219 - 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 12030 SW Center Street; CPA 2004-0015/ ZMA 2004-0015 (Ordinance No. 4329)

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

04209 - 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 15865 SW Division Street; CPA 2004-0010/ ZMA 2004-0010 (Ordinance No. 4324)

04210 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Lilly K. Johnson Park which is Located North of SW Division Street and West of SW 153 rd Avenue; CPA 2004-0012/ZMA 2004-0012 (Ordinance No. 4325)

04211 - An Ordinance Annexing Property Located at 12030 SW Center Street to the City of Beaverton: Expedited Annexation 2004-0012 (Ordinance No. 4326)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 04209, 04210 and 04211, now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.


Catherine Jansen, Deputy City Recorder




Approved this 8th day of November, 2004.

Rob Drake, Mayor