OCTOBER 18, 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, October 18, 2004, at 6:33 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Betty Bode, Dennis Doyle, Fred Ruby, Forrest Soth and Cathy Stanton. Also present were 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 Resources Director Nancy Bates, City Engineer Terry Waldele and Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.


Mayor Drake proclaimed October 25, 2004, Make a Difference Day and October 18-22, 2004, Race Equality Week.


Pavel Goberman, Beaverton, said he was a write-in candidate for State Representative for District 28. He said his civil rights were violated by not being able to speak at the Voters Forum. He said he attended the forum and submitted a question for Representative Barker regarding campaign funding and the narrator did not ask Barker the question. He said this was censorship, not democracy.

Mayor Drake explained the narrator was not hired by the City. He said this event was staffed by volunteers; the narrator and the members of the Beaverton Committee for Citizen Involvement volunteered their time to organize this event. He said he and the Council were not involved in organizing the event.

Goberman said he felt people from the audience should be able to ask questions without going through a narrator.

Coun. Soth explained he had been a narrator in many similar functions over the years. He said it was impossible to have all the questions answered because of the volume and limited time. He said the narrator must choose carefully which questions to ask to both or all candidates. He said this was a judgment call and it was important to keep to the time schedule in order for everyone to be heard.

Ann Jacks, Aloha, said she was a mentor for a 13-year-old girl; recently she became aware that minors were able to check out R-rated movies from the library without parental permission. She said she called Library Director Ed House and he explained it was not the library’s responsibility to monitor this activity. She said as a concerned citizen and a member of the School Board, she thought this was an issue of great concern to the community. She said unsupervised students at the library should not be checking out R-rated movies. She said Hollywood Video and Blockbuster Video did not allow minors to check out R-rated movies and movie theaters did not allow admittance to the movies unless teenagers were 17; yet a child of any age could check out an R-rated video. She said she understood the censorship issue but she felt this should be looked at more closely. She said she testified in front of the Library Commission last week and also contacted the Washington County Board of Commissioners.

Mayor Drake asked Library Director, Ed House to comment on this issue. He said this was not the first time this had been brought up and it was a tough issue.

House said this was an important subject to librarians across the community and he appreciated Jacks’ comments. He said it was important that parents oversee what their children checked out at the library. He said there were many items in the library that people did not like depending on their religious, political or moral views; however, this was a public library that served all ages. He said one issue of concern was that a child needed to adhere to the wishes of their parents or guardian and it was the responsibility of the parents or guardian to express this to the child. He said they did not want to have librarians telling children what they could view, read or hear. He used the analogy of a 16-year-old whose car keys were taken away for driving recklessly. He said if a child did not follow their parent’s guidelines for using the card, it should be taken away. He explained the library had self-checkout machines so a person did not interact with a library staff person when checking out items. He said the final issue was that of the “slippery slope” and he used the example of Harry Potter. He said when Harry Potter came out as a book and movie, there were people all over the country who felt it was inappropriate for children to read and see. He asked at what point one would say this was appropriate or inappropriate to check out. He said this brought the issue back to the parent and parents needed to decide for themselves what their child could see or read.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea explained there was much litigation regarding library regulations and internet filters. He said the City could legally impose regulations for young children, but there are no filters on young adults. He said per City decision, middle school children had full access to the internet. He said while the City could impose some restrictions, the larger issues were the administrative difficulties, such as deciding at what age restrictions were imposed and how guardianship was checked. He noted there were many issues to explore if Council wished to establish restrictions.

Coun. Soth stated this was discussed many times since he had been on the Council. He said it boiled down to whether it was the library’s or parent’s responsibility to watch what children checked out. If it was the Library’s responsibility, then guidelines from the parents were needed. He said this depended on the degree of trust established between parent and child, rather than placing this responsibility on library staff. He said in his view, it was the parent’s responsibility. He commented if there was a way to filter this activity, without running into charges of censorship, then the City might look at it.

Coun. Stanton said she agreed with Jacks. She said in smaller communities she was sure library staff worked in partnership with parents and community in maintaining s tandards. She said the Beaverton Library was too big to do that; the logistics would be difficult, if not impossible. She asked if House could bring to Council any data on what other libraries do in this situation. She explained library staff and hours were just cut back because of the failure of the serial levy, and this kind of operation would be labor intensive. She said it was timely that Jacks brought this issue forward.

Mayor Drake asked House if other libraries in the County limited access.

House replied there weren’t any libraries in the County that limited access. He said the American Library Association (ALA) wrestled with this question for many years. He said the ALA concluded it was the parent’s who should have the responsibility of watching what their children checked out at the libraries.

Mayor Drake said he had his own experience guiding his son’s use of the Web. He said within reason, he did not know where the slope was on balancing guidelines and First Amendment issues. He said this was balancing what the courts allowed and having a free and open society. He said he agreed youth should be guided in what they see and read. He said he believed the City had collectively tried to find the right balance.

Jacks asked if the legal issues the library dealt with were different than public schools. She said the schools had filters on what youth could view on the Internet. She said commercially (Blockbuster, Hollywood Videos and Regal Cinemas) were more restrictive than the City. She asked why a commercial business would be more restrictive than a public entity. She stated there were many unsupervised children at the library because it was considered a safe place and she wanted it to remain that way. She said, in her opinion, children should not see many of the items available to them at the library until they were much older.

Coun. Ruby stated there was a big difference between a movie and a book. He noted there was no way to screen a minor from checking out a book that had vulgar elements in it; but there was a big difference between a graphic display of violence in a movie and printed text of a book. He said the real difference to him was why movies of that nature were in the library. He questioned why there were R-rated films in the library, unless they were documentaries. He said he would like more information.

Coun. Stanton noted there were many CD’s at the Library which were also inappropriate. She said she was not sure they would find an answer to this but she felt the City needed to explore its options.

Mayor Drake suggested if the City did anything, it should do it collectively at the County and County Library Advisory Board level. He agreed Jacks was a well-intentioned citizen. He noted for every person she brought to support this issue, there were just as many others against censorship and in support of the First Amendment. He said it was a tough issue and he recommended that staff check information from around the County.

Jacks asked if there were State guidelines the library had to follow.

Mayor Drake explained there were no State guidelines. He said he thought the difference between a school and a public library was that schools dealt with youngsters but a public library served people of all ages and walks of life, with different viewpoints.

Coun. Bode thanked Jacks for coming. She said this went back to educating families and the School Board might want to undertake additional parent training on guiding children’s use of the library. She said it was better to educate families and let them make the choice. She said as soon as a public body setup guidelines or restrictions, it would impinge on someone’s rights.

Jacks said she spoke with several parents who were shocked to learn youth under 18 could check out R-rated movies at Library.

Coun. Doyle stated he shared her frustrations and understood her position. He said public bodies operated under different s tandards than private business, which was frustrating for Council and citizens. He said he felt there was a need to inform parents and citizens, and thanked her fo r bringing this matter forward. He said there was a need to repeat the message often, in hopes that someone would look after the children.

Jacks said she also wished to speak about having a smoke-free environment in clubs, restaurants and bars. She said in San Francisco all these businesses were now smoke free and she would like the City to move toward that direction.

Mayor Drake explained the Legislature dealt with this issue and the State law was just changed. He said she could get the new statute on the State’s Web site and the change in the law made it better for everyone.

Coun. Stanton noted the Mayor had asked staff to look at what was happening in the County on the issue of restricting youth access. She asked that staff look beyond the County and State at what others had done.

Mayor Drake explained Oregon’s State Court interpreted the First Amendment more liberally than any other state. He said as result of that, Oregon had the highest number of per capita adult businesses than any state.

Coun. Stanton said she was suggesting that the Library Director conduct a wide search for information, rather than just checking at County or State levels.

Mayor Drake said staff would check what was available.

Henry Kane, Beaverton, said on October 11, 2004, he distributed to Council a six-page analysis of the City’s proposed Civil Rights Ordinance and he was following it up with four pages of further analysis. He said the analysis contained suggestions he felt the City should follow when considering the proposed ordinance. The suggestions included: 1) Meeting with the City Attorney in executive session to discuss the issues Kane raised in his analysis; 2) Advertising the public hearing, including what was in the ordinance; 3) Council should decide what it wants to do and put in exemptions and penalties, other than sending it to Circuit Court or the Oregon Labor Commissioner. He concluded by stating he wanted the City to do this correctly.

Mayor Drake asked the City Attorney to briefly respond to Kane’s comments.

Rappleyea explained that Oregon State Statutes (ORS) did not regulate sexual orientation or gender identity, but case law did. He said case law said that the ORS which regulated sexual discrimination encompassed sexual orientation and gender identity in the State and Federal Courts. He said the proposed ordinance was not a huge leap of law. He said there were questions about the administrative provisions which he discussed with the Mayor. He said the provisions call for an intergovernmental agreement with the Bureau of Labor and Industries, which provided the enforcement mechanism. He said the enforcement was through the court system, so if anyone felt they were discriminated against they had a cause of action.

Mayor Drake explained at the November 8, 2004, public hearing, the City Attorney would present an overview of what the ordinance would and wouldn’t do prior to taking public testimony. He said the ordinance did not blaze new legal trail; it summarized current State and case law.

Coun. Doyle asked if staff could provide information on what the neighboring cities have experienced with this ordinance.


Coun. Stanton reminded Council that on October 21, 2004, the speakers for the Westside Economic Alliance would be David Bragdon, Metro Council President and Lane Shetterly, Director of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. She also noted that on October 28, 2004, Metro and the Oregon Department of Transportation would hold a “Speak Out” at the Beaverton Resource Center, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., to solicit citizen comments on projects in the region.


There were none.


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

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 11, 2004

Coun. Stanton noted she had corrections to the minutes of October 11, 2004, which she gave to the Deputy City Recorder.

Coun. Bode stated she would abstain from voting on the October 11 minutes as she was not at that meeting.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0) Coun. Bode abstained from voting on the October 11, 2004 Minutes as she was not at that meeting.


04208 - Adopt Resolution Setting Fees for Appeals of Penalties for Violations of the Site Development Ordinance and the Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings, and for Appeals of Actions, Decisions and Interpretations of the City Engineer (Resolution No. 3783)

Mayor Drake noted City Engineer Terry Waldele was present if Councilors had any questions.

There were none.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing.

There was no one present who wished to testify.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council approve Agenda Bill 04208 and adopt the Resolution Setting Fees for Appeals of Penalties for Violations of the Site Development Ordinance and the Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings, and for Appeals of Actions, Decisions and Interpretations of the City Engineer.

Coun. Soth stated it was interesting to note that after one-and-one-half years, the City retained the same fee. He said that indicated the City was doing the right thing; when circumstance had not changed a great deal, the City retained what it had rather than arbitrarily trying to do something different.

Coun. Stanton asked why Beaverton had ten appeals in the past ten years but other jurisdictions had not had any appeals. She questioned what may have caused Beaverton’s appeal rate.

City Engineer Terry Waldele said the City had some strict requirements, some difficult building conditions and some developers were on the cutting edge with new types of developments. He said there wasn’t one root cause for the violations.

Mayor Drake said it would be interesting to look at how many projects in the past ten years required a Site Development Permit, and what percentage appealed. He said he suspected the number would be small; for in most cases it was a misunders tanding of the Code and he felt people wanted to do the right thing.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle, Ruby, Stanton and Soth voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

Suspend Rules:

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 04209, 04210 and 04211 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, Ruby and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (5:0)

First Reading:

Rappleyea read the following ordinances for the first 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)

Second Reading:

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

04207 - An Ordinance Annexing Property Located at 15865 SW Division Street to the City of Beaverton: Expedited Annexation 2004-0011 (Ordinance No. 4323)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 04207, 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 7:31 p.m.


Catherine Jansen, Deputy City Recorder




Approved this 1st day of November, 2004.

Rob Drake, Mayor