MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Tuesday, March 6, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Bill Atherton, David Bragdon, Carl Hosticka, Susan McLain

Members Absent:   Rod Monroe (Vice Chair), Rex Burkholder

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2001, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATES

Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT)

Natural Resources Committee

Councilor Hosticka said the committee, which included 3 of the 4 members of the Community Planning Committee, planned to meet tomorrow, March 7, 2001, to begin the review of the performance measures and attempt to reach closure regarding the Goal 5 timetable. The performance measures issue referred to questions regarding just how Metro was positioning itself relative to the agency’s role in the region. Therefore, that discussion might involve other elements of the performance measures in the future.

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-892, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 95-625A TO AMEND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP AND ORDINANCE NO. 96-647C TO AMEND THE TITLE 4: INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT AREAS MAP – FEBRUARY 2001

Brenda Bernards, Metro Senior Regional Planner – Community Development, said following the Community Planning Committee meeting on February 6, 2001, her staff amended No. 01-892, before it became an ordinance, and created 2 ordinances. She referred to Ordinance No. 01-892 and said they removed the 3 amendments requested by Hillsboro and placed them in Ordinance No. 01-893. They also made amendments to Attachment 1 and 5 maps (3, 6, 7, 14 and 15).

Chair Park asked Ms. Bernards to provide background and explain why the map amendments, within the general concept of what Metro was doing, were so significant.

Ms. Bernards said they made the map changes for several reasons. Local governments requested the changes due to errors they discovered on Metro’s map, or compliance work and changes they made over the last 5 years that they wanted reflected on the map. The staff also initiated some changes with direction form the Metro Council.

PUBLIC HEARING

No speakers.

Councilor McLain said it was very important that everyone understood that they were not dealing with the exceptions process, but instead simply map changes that were more administrative and house-keeping, where Metro corrected mistakes local jurisdictions requested. After reviewing the first set of ordinances for the past month, she supported the report presented by the staff, which explained why the map amendments were housekeeping and mistakes in mapping. She suggested the Committee move forward with Ordinance No. 01-892.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-893, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 95-625A TO AMEND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP AND ORDINANCE NO. 96-647C TO AMEND THE EMPOLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS MAP IN THE CITY OF HILLSBORO – FEBRUARY 2001

Ms. Bernards referred to a letter submitted to the Community Planning Committee by the City of Cornelius that regarded the Addition to Ordinance No. 01-892 Amending Ordinance No. 95-625A to Amend the 2040 Growth Concept Map and the Title 4: Industrial and Employment Areas. (A copy of this letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) She proposed the amendment requested by Cornelius become part of Ordinance No. 01-893. Ms. Bernards referred to 3 of the amendments requested by Hillsboro, which the Committee requested staff remove from Ordinance No. 01-892 and place in a separate ordinance (No. 01-893). She referred to the amended maps in the meeting packet.

Councilor Hosticka asked why staff included the Cornelius amendment.

Ms. Bernards said Cornelius requested a change to the Title 4 and 2040 Growth Concept maps, also. She described the city’s requested map amendment on an oversize map.

Councilor Hosticka asked why Cornelius was included in the current context. Staff removed the 3 Hillsboro amendments from Ordinance 01-892 for separate consideration. However, they added the Cornelius request.

Councilor McLain said Cornelius discovered just recently that an item had been omitted from the current package of maps in that area. She considered the current circumstances a good opportunity to adopt the Cornelius map amendment.

Councilor Hosticka said that created difficulties. The Community Planning Committee could not vote no on the ordinance and Hillsboro’s 3 map amendments, and also approve Cornelius’ map amendment. It unnecessarily confused the issue to include the Cornelius issue in the ordinance.

Chair Park consulted Larry Shaw for his advice. He asked him if the Committee did not locate a vehicle for the Cornelius map amendment, if they would create a quasi-judicial situation with just one site.

Larry Shaw, Metro Senior Assistant Counsel, said there was a risk. There were an extraordinary number of changes in Ordinance No. 01-892. Therefore, there would be many map changes in the pipeline. The worst that could happen would be it might require the Committee to wait for another vehicle. Ordinance No. 01-893, which could go before MPAC for discussion, could be added to the current vehicle at a later time.

Chair Park said the question, to address Councilor Hosticka’s concern, was whether it would have been more appropriate to have included the Cornelius map amended with Ordinance No. 01-892, instead.

Mr. Shaw said it would be appropriate to include with either ordinance or to a future ordinance.

Chair Park suggested the Committee listen to the presentation before making a decision.

Ms. Bernards reviewed the Cornelius letter and their reasons for submitting the map amendment.

Councilor McLain added that she received telephone calls late last week from Cornelius. They were very concerned that they had missed the map amendment in their original review and called Metro staff and asked them to include the amendment in the same package of map amendments. The city was trying to complete their compliance and the 2040 map changes. She did not care about the details of the process, as long as it was completed properly and allowed all the councilors to vote the way they wanted to on all the pieces of the ordinances.

PUBLIC HEARING

Diana Franklin, 420 NE Jackson, Hillsboro, OR 97124, represented CHAT (Citizens of Hillsboro Action Taskforce). The CHAT believed Washington County was looking for a buyer for property it owned (the #2 River Road property). To achieve their goal, Washington County enlisted the help of the City of Hillsboro. The county needed the designation of the property to change. The CHAT posed the following questions. She asked if securing the highest price for the property from a commercial buyer in the public’s best interest. She also asked at what cost would the public pay for a change in the designation. The CHAT believed the city was doing nothing more that spot zoning, and using Metro and the amendment to Title 4 to achieve some of Washington County’s goals. The group believed spot zoning was counterproductive to Hillsboro’s new 2020 visioning process that hundreds of citizens and many city staff developed. The CHAT believed it was too early to allow a change in the property designation. Instead, they should locate an industrial buyer. Protection of the railway system that ran parallel to the site was paramount. Traffic studies should be performed on both Tualatin Valley Highway and River Road before they create a commercial area that would further congest those important roads. She drove the roads every day, 20 minutes to travel from Ruud Bridge Road to Minter Bridge Road or ¼ mile. Buses that carried small children further congested that route. A commercial designation with access to both roads would add to the congestion. There was precious little industrial use in Hillsboro, not to mention the entire Metro area. The region should not allow spot zoning to eliminate what was left. Concerned citizens who recognized that the city produced a lot of talk but little action in terms of making changes organized the CHAT. As the 2020 visioning process proceeded, CHAT felt an obligation to monitor and assist where necessary. The group wanted to encourage the city to follow through with the comprehensive plan and implement the plans that were the heart of Hillsboro.

Larry Derr, 53 SW Yamhill, Portland, OR, represented CHAT and referred to his letter of testimony submitted to the Community Planning Committee today. He also referred to an attached article from The Oregonian, Communities should think outside the (big) box. (Copies of these documents can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) He mentioned 4 basic points. One, in approaching a Title 4 map amendment, Metro’s first goal should be to protect the status quo. The Title 4 map was adopted with the input and concurrence of the affected cities and counties, and was not mandated from above. Metro should only amend the map for valid reasons, not because of a jurisdiction changed its mind. Valid reasons were related to the purpose of Title 4 – to protect industrial and employment land. At a minimum, it should be shown that industrial use was no longer needed or feasible on the land. That was not done. Two, increasing the value of property was not a valid reason to amend the Title 4 map. The current request was driven by the desire of Washington County to sell its property for the highest price. Big box retail land was worth more than industrial land. However, that was one of the primary reasons for the Title 4 protection. In almost every case, industrial land for big box retail would be more valuable than industrial land that was not so available. Market forces would prevent the lesser-valued industrial use in favor of big box retail. Market demand and a desire to maximize land value cannot be a reason to amend the Title 4 map. Third, Metro would put the cart before the horse. Hillsboro and Metro staff said the land was better suited for big box commercial than industrial use, and commercial was more in keeping with planned development patterns in the area. However, then they said that no change would be made at the local level until and unless planned and zone amendments were processed that accounted for all relevant issues. One of the issues, acknowledged by everyone, was serious traffic congestion on Tualatin Valley (TV) Highway. It was illogical to conclude that industrial use was no longer viable on the property in question and to argue the same conclusion could not be reached until more study and inquiry was completed. Hillsboro should conduct the study and inquiry, first. If it concluded that planned and zoned amendments to permit big boxes were justified, then it could adopt the changes conditioned on a change to the title 4 map. Metro could only justify in reversing that order if it was willing and able to conduct the full inquiry into the suitability of the change. Four, he urged Metro to delete the county property form the map amendment. If Metro decided to proceed the agency should allow a change only after full compliance with the exception process and criteria. The city did not demonstrate the initial Title 4 map designation was an error or that changed circumstances rendered it no longer suitable. If Metro acted before full city review, the agency should do so only as an exception to the Title 4 map, not as an amendment to it.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 534 SW 3^rd Ave., Suite 300, Portland, OR 97204, staff attorney for 1000 Friends of Oregon, also represented the Regional Industrial Lands Supply Advisory Committee, which was driven by concern from private and public sector industrial employers that the Metro region was losing industrial land. Much was being squandered on commercial and other retail developments. That was one of the primary reasons Title 4 was adopted as protection. She considered amendments to Title 4 serious business. She cited Hillsboro’s past positions on the sanctity of there industrial areas. She was involved in many conversation with them regarding ugb and urban reserve issues. When asked if they could rezone any of their industrial lands for other uses (including housing) they were told that would not be possible. Hillsboro had not yet complied with Title 4 to ensure its M2 zone and comprehensive Plan maps would prohibit large-scale retail uses in the zone. However, the staff relied on the assumption that at some future time the M2 zone and map would comply with Title 4. Therefore, merely removing the industrial designation now would not ensure big box retail on that site. She said the issue was premature and asked why they wanted to amend the maps now. Metro should wait until Hillsboro’s zone and map complied with Title 4. She was concerned regarding how easy it should be to remove a Title 4 protection. The request before Metro was not for a technical adjustment or mapping error. Instead, it would change the intent of the initial land designation on the 2040 Growth Concept Plan with the consent of the city. She was not sure it qualified as a simple map amendment. Under the code, it looked more like an exception. It should be processed as an exception. The 2 code provisions cited by the Metro staff, one was titled exceptions and the other referred to criteria that were appropriate for exception to the employment area map. Therefore, she suggested Metro process the request as an exception. It was not a mere technical change to the industrial employment area map.

Alan Rappleyea, 155 NE 1^st Ave., Hillsboro, OR, 97124, represented the Washington County Commission. He said Washington County supported Ordinance No. 01-893, the staff report reading and Hillsboro’s decision to move forward with Title 4 compliance. He referred to a letter of testimony submitted to the Community Planning Committee today by Washington County, approved today by the Washington County Commission. He also referred to a letter of additional testimony submitted to Hillsboro by Washington County. (Copies of these letters can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) Washington County proposed refinement of Title 4. Now was the only time to do it. Currently, Washington County and Hillsboro were in the compliance mode. They are submitting their ordinances, plans and maps to Metro to demonstrate compliance with Title 4. To achieve compliance they suggested Metro change the inappropriately designated property by removing it form the Title 4 map. He referred to Title 8, which allowed cities to request changes to industrial employment area maps as part of the compliance procedure. There was no other specific procedure for changing the industrial maps. Washington County did not believe the amendment needed to be part of the exceptions process. Right now was the correct time to move forward. He referred to maps. They reflected what was in place. The M-2 zone allowed all commercial uses. They already allowed commercial uses on the same property. That was why the Home Depot was located next door. Washington County merely conformed the map to what was expected on the property. Hillsboro did not need to change Title 4 until it came about. They could, and did, have commercial use next to the property. The maps reflected the local decisions. Washington County considered the issue a legislative, not a quasi-judicial, matter. Otherwise, Metro was requested to get involved in the nitty gritty details of a plan amendment process. That was not an appropriate role for Metro. It should be left to the local government to decide through a plan amendment process. That was what Hillsboro had vowed to do. Washington County supported Hillsboro. Washington County also supported the idea that industrial land should be preserved. However, they did not believe the property under consideration was industrial land, based on the surrounding uses. The prior use was a county road facility that moved to a better location. The county had to sell the property. There were no secrets. The county used a public process to auction the land. They searched for inquiries and were negotiating with Lowe’s to develop the property. It also reflected the change that occurred on the property with spaces that were currently vacant. It would not be used for industrial property because of the surrounding situation. Therefore, Washington County merely asked Metro to adopt an ordinance that allowed Hillsboro to proceed with the plan amendment process and the development application process to address the issues that concerned CHAT and the others who provided testimony before the Community Planning Committee.

Councilor Atherton noted the reference to rail service in the Washington County letter. However, there was not adequate space to build a siding. He asked if there was any plan to use the rail line as part of the commuter rail.

Mr. Rappleyea said he was not certain, but he did not believe the property would be used as part of the commuter rail project. The height differential and road intersections on that property made the sidings unfeasible.

Frank Angelo, 620 SW Main, Suite 201, Portland, OR 97205, represented Angelo, Eaton & Associates and the Washington County Facilities Management Division. He worked with Washington County on the project and planning issues related to the site for the past few months. A basic fundamental question was whether the site was an industrial sanctuary. It was not. He sited the map submitted by Hillsboro and described the surrounding commercial and residential uses. Hillsboro appropriately identified the area in the northern part of the city, north of Cornel Road, as their employment and industrial area where they anticipated the bulk of the employment and industrial activity would occur. He mentioned traffic and Mr. Derr’s comments. However, the record did not include any information regarding a traffic impacts. Mr. Rappleyea said the appropriate time to examine traffic impacts was when and if a development application was submitted. A traffic report would assess the impacts of any potential future use on the site. He mentioned Councilor Atherton’s comments regarding commuter rail. The site, which sloped up from TV Highway, would be difficult to equip with a siding for service. Therefore, the site would not be connected to existing rail service in the area and would not be part of the commuter rail project. He concluded by supporting the staff’s recommendation to remove the Title 4 designation from the site.

Councilor Atherton asked if the width of the existing rail right of way was 90 feet or 120 feet.

Mr. Angelo did not know the exact number but said it was a single track of less than 100 feet.

Councilor Atherton said the potential was there to use the right-of-way for alternative rail transportation. He mentioned Hillsboro’s industrial sanctuary north of Cornel Road. He asked what type of transportation was planned for north of Cornel Road.

Mr. Angelo said he was not an employee of Hillsboro. However, he mentioned a number of substantial improvements in that area (extension of Brookwood, light-rail service, etc.).

David Lawrence, 123 W Main St., Hillsboro, OR 97123, Hillsboro Deputy City Manager, said Hillsboro Mayor Tom Hughes wanted to attend the Community Planning Committee meeting. However, he was part of the transportation delegation headed to Washington D.C. Mayor Hughes discussed the issues with Councilor McLain. He referred to a letter of testimony submitted to Metro today by Mayor Hughes. (A copy of the testimony can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) He paraphrased some of Mayor Hughes’ testimony. He added first, that the whole area was originally designated industrial in the 1970s, when none of the area north of Cornel Road was in Hillsboro or the ugb. It was not even contemplated at that time. Second, Hillsboro did not think it was a case where Metro should make a detailed siting decision on a business. Instead, it was a case of Metro deciding whether the protections in Title 4 were warranted to remain on the property. Mayor Hughes felt strongly it was not a case of regional Title 4 protection for any of the sites. He would ask strongly that Metro remove it from the process. Hillsboro was very vociferous about protecting its industrial sanctuary and their very strong industrial MP park zone, and around the light-rail lines. Hillsboro has not requested that Metro remove any protections from those areas. Hillsboro did request that Metro approve the ordinance for the 3 sites. They initiated changes to the M2 zone to eliminate the allowance of commercial uses. However, it had not passed the city council. It was challenged by CHAT. Mayor Hughes lived in the residential neighborhood south of the site. Many CHAT members and citizens who were involved with Hillsboro’s 2020 Visioning supported Mayor Hughes. Hillsboro simply included all the industrial designations. In hindsight, if they had known the process, they would not. They would have looked more at redevelopment opportunities. He encouraged the councilors to visit the site and view all the neighboring retail establishments. They would realize it was not a key industrial site. No manufacturer would have considered locating there. Hillsboro and Mayor Hughes urged the Community Planning Committee to adopt Ordinance No. 01-893.

Councilor Atherton referred to Mayor Hughes letter and the question of a regional concern. He referred to the industrial sanctuary and impact on transportation issues and asked if Hillsboro initiated any traffic studies on impact of industrial versus commercial at that site on TV Highway. He said that was a regional interest for Metro.

Mr. Lawrence said no. However, those issues were included in Hillsboro’s overall RTP update and local transportation plans documents. Any development in Washington County required a detailed traffic study by the developer, which utilized Metro traffic modeling, combined and reviewed with Washington County, submitted for review by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The city required all traffic safety and capacity improvements to be made at the time of the development. Plus, they charged a traffic impact fee or systems charge in Washington County. There was no way to avoid looking at the detailed traffic issues.

Councilor Bragdon said it was not a development application so it was not Metro’s role to review the traffic impacts. However, he referred to the need for industrial land in the region. He asked Mr. Lawrence to explain why before Hillsboro requested more industrial land but now they wanted Metro to remove it.

Mr. Lawrence said the issue was what types of industrial land Hillsboro could effectively include in the regional economy. He referred to clustering and the needs of the community. Washington County was trying to design places like the industrial sanctuary with land-use certainty, to avoid conflicts between residential, industrial and commercial. Industrial did not work for the site.

Councilor Bragdon asked if it was a question of timing and history.

Mr. Lawrence said yes. He referred to the original Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan completed in the 1970s. Times changed since then. Hillsboro now included more industrial land than before. The types of industry also changed. He cautioned adding another rail line. A 42-inch high-pressure water line beneath the right-of-way served Beaverton and Tualatin Valley Water.

Councilor Hosticka asked Mr. Rappleyea about a vote of the Washington County Commission.

Mr. Rappleyea said at a work session this morning of the Board of Washington County Commissioners with a discussion of the proposed testimony today. Commissioner Schouten did not favor the testimony or the sale of the property to Lowe’s.

Councilor Hosticka asked if it was an official vote of the Commission or just a discussion.

Mr. Rappleyea said it was just a general discussion.

CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Councilor McLain said they separated the Hillsboro site from the other map amendments in Ordinance No. 01-892 because it was only site that generated public testimony. Metro needed to hear from the citizens. She added that Metro had no desire to become part of the local Hillsboro planning department or commission. The agency was trying to decide if the site was truly a map amendment. If not, she asked whether it should be included in an exception process. Metro assumed the local took appropriate action. However, Metro had to make sure Title 4 compliance and map changes brought before the agency made sense. Metro was not trying to do Mayor Hughes job, which he did so well. However, Metro had to meet its responsibilities (functional plan compliance). She only had a problem with 3 of the 12 Hillsboro map amendments. She had stood on the site in question. All the industrial sanctuary land north of Cornel could create traffic problems. It might be better to spread it out. She said the residential and commercial would create more traffic than industrial. She asked why Hillsboro would remove industrial land from sites 9 and 10 and then add industrial land to site 11. They were approximately the same size and location from the railroad tracks, TV Highway and surrounding residential areas. She considered all those issues/questions. The case made by Hillsboro was fairly compelling. Circumstances were different from the 1970s. That was why it was important to bring the issue before Metro for public comment and review.

Councilor Hosticka questioned the legal implications of changing the map.

Mr. Shaw said the 2040 Growth Concept map usually had general areas. The original intent was to be general not specific. Local governments were responsible for setting the boundaries for Title 4. Converting local maps to Metro maps caused map errors. Once the boundaries were set, local comprehensive plans had to be consistent with them. The local jurisdictions wanted Metro’s overriding map be consistent with where they thought they were going regarding zoning applications they were currently considering, but had not made a decision about.

Councilor Hosticka asked if map changes affected Metro’s overall bean counting.

Mr. Shaw said yes.

Councilor Hosticka also asked if it restricted use of the land in any way.

Mr. Shaw mentioned the requirement for consistency between the Metro 2040 Growth Concept map and local comprehensive plans.

Mary Weber, Manager – Community Development, mentioned the reconciliation of land supply and how Metro counted jobs, etc. Mr. Shaw was correct to note it would change.

Councilor Atherton paraphrased Mr. Shaw and said it was not a mapping error. The fact it was designated industrial was a circumstance change for Hillsboro. Yet they originally intended it to be an industrial area.

Mr. Shaw said yes, and mentioned Hillsboro’s current industrial zoning from the 1970s.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned the purpose of Title 4 and the desire to have an industrial economy in the region (blue collar, manufacturing jobs). The region should always consider the need for new industrial land. It also reinforced existing retail centers and not squandering land for a series of strip malls. Determining the proper role for government in the process was the difficult part. They might need to discuss how Metro and the region was performing relative to Title 4 and the 2040 Plan. The 2040 map was a conceptual, not zoning, map. He mentioned access to rail freight service and the current economy. He believed the map was a change of circumstance. He wanted the Metro Council to discuss the Title 4 issue with MPAC. Encroachment and strip malls continue to happen.

Chair Park recommended moving Ordinance No. 01-893 forward based on its current configuration. It would be forwarded, along with Ordinance No. 01-892, to MPAC for discussion and consideration, and then would go before the full Metro Council. That was the procedure for map amendments. He suggested reconsideration of Ordinance No. 01-892 to amend the Cornelius request into it so it could move ahead also. There was not public concern regarding the issue.

Councilor McLain said the issue was not confined to the Hillsboro sites. Metro would have to face the issue across the region and needed to reach a consensus regarding how the agency planned to change the circumstances or fix the problem, if it was considered a problem. The only way she could vote forward the motion today was because she knew it would receive MPAC review. It was important that Hillsboro, and others who plan to make the same types of map change suggestions, make their case with their partners. It would affect those other regional and town centers. It was not an issue that affected just one jurisdiction. She also hoped Hillsboro would address why they added and subtracted seemingly similar sites. That was also important at the regional level. She asked to make the Community Planning Committee meeting minutes available to MPAC so they could see the discussion the Committee engaged in and the citizens’ testimony.

Councilor Bragdon supported a discussion of reinforcement of retail centers and the conservation and wise use of industrial land in a broader policy context, not just case by case.

Chair Park said Metro had a role to play in housing and industrial jobs land in a regional context. He did not think this rose to the same level. He anticipated Councilor Bragdon’s broader discussion.

Councilor Hosticka voted no because he was not sure what the right thing to do was. When in doubt, he voted no. He also preferred to have a general discussion of the issue before he would feel comfortable voting yes on the motion.

Councilor McLain agreed with Councilor Hosticka’s tone. The Committee would still have the opportunity for that discussion because the ordinance would go to MPAC before proceeding to the Metro Council. The Committee still had an opportunity to vote on it after they had regional exposure of the overall larger issue.

Councilor McLain seconded the motion.

Councilor McLain seconded the motion.

5.  RESOLUTION NO. 01-3037, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ON THE WILSONVILLE-BEAVERTON COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT

Ross Roberts, Metro High-Capacity Transit Manager, provided an update of the project. He referred to information in the meeting packet.

Councilor Hosticka asked if Clackamas County was comfortable with Washington County being the lead planner of that project.

Mr. Roberts said yes.

Councilor Bragdon asked what the official name for the project was.

Mr. Roberts said Washington County referred to the project as the Washington County Commuter Rail Project because they moved into the preliminary engineering phase. There had not been an official name change for the project. Staff could certainly convey that the Committee would like to see the project name remain Wilsonville-Beaverton Commuter Rail Project.

Councilor Bragdon did not question the substantial level of effort and resources Washington County contributed to the project. Instead, he just considered how the rest of the region viewed the project. He wanted to make sure it had significance beyond Washington County.

Chair Park said it was regional support that got the project moving, and that would help keep it moving. Therefore, Councilor Bragdon’s point was valid. Hopefully, that would be conveyed.

Mr. Roberts said yes.

Councilor McLain suggested a naming contest might produce an even better name.

Mr. Roberts said staff would ensure the inter-governmental agreement said Wilsonville-Beaverton Commuter Rail Line.

Councilor Bragdon did not want to degrade Washington County’s hefty contribution to the project. However, other jurisdictions were also involved. He considered its public marketability and continued regional support that would strengthen the project.

Mr. Roberts said it might receive a new name prior to going into operation.

Councilor Hosticka mentioned the Environmental Impact Study clearance and asked if the project carried any Endangered Species Act implications.

Mr. Roberts said no. The environmental assessment completed a thorough analysis of all the waterways the line passed through and found no Endangered Species Act implications. It was fairly well documented along with a variety of other environmental impacts.

Councilor McLain seconded the motion.

Chair Park mentioned a freeway project in the Seattle area and the potential of secondary growth effects. He asked if that issue was addressed or if it remained a concern.

Mr. Roberts said a commuter rail project had different land-use effects than for a light-rail project. The commuter rail stations were primarily park-and-ride oriented. There was some walk access but not a lot. It provided connectivity between regional centers instead of creating places along the alignment.

Councilor McLain supported the project but stressed it was just the first stage in a complete commuter rail system that Metro hoped would connect to McMinnville, Forest Grove, Hillsboro and back to Beaverton. She did not want to close off those opportunities along the way.

Councilor Bragdon addressed the comments of Chair Park and Councilor Hosticka. Unlike the Seattle project, there was very little construction involved with the commuter rail project. It was basically an operating project and adding frequencies to a line that already existed. It added transportation capacity but did not shape land-use planning like light-rail.

Chair Park said the secondary effects question addressed what would be the growth pattern that could occur as a result of the commuter rail project. That was a land-use part of the connection. He asked if such a project put growth in potentially habitat areas.

Mr. Roberts said the line connected regional and town centers. It traveled from the heart of Beaverton to Tigard to the Washington Square area to Taulatin. They were all centers. Therefore, the growth that occurred, if it occurred, would be centered more in those areas, which was in accordance with what the region was trying to accomplish.

Chair Park said that did not necessarily include the federal government.

6.  PERIODIC REVIEW/METROSCOPE PRESENTATION – INFORMATION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF

Ms. Weber referred to a handout, Using MetroScope to Explore Policy Options. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor Atherton referred to MetroScope as the black box. He was concerned metro was putting so much into it and assuming it would provide all the answers. He assumed she was trying to explain that it would allow the Metro Council/Community Planning Committee to examine scenarios.

Ms. Weber believed there was baggage associated with the term scenario. At this point, MetroScope was simply doing research. Staff did not know what the Council would choose. The kind of direction staff wanted from the councilors regarded the big policy issues, accommodating growth. Questions might include whether the region had enough of the right industrial land in the right places; what Metro was doing to support centers, job growth, the transportation system; the ugb system. The Metro Council was at a disadvantage because urban reserves no longer existed. It was not a legal designation. It used to be the past Council’s direction to the new Council. It was the direction in which the growth management policies were going. She mentioned the councilors toolbox for alternatives analysis.

Chair Park mentioned the difference between Ursamatic and MetroScope. The big difference was Ursamatic was very specific to individual pieces of property, but MetroScope was basically blind below approximately 600 acres. MetroScope was suitable for analyzing the big policy questions not for use as a ugb tool to make decisions regarding a specific piece of property and whether it should be included within the ugb. It was for big picture questions regarding blocks of land in sections of the region.

Dennis Yee, Metro Senior Economist, said the Metro Council would have to decide the parcels themselves. He mentioned big policy questions versus specific pieces of land.

Councilor Atherton said she mentioned MetroScope was designed to accommodate growth. He asked when it showed what the limits to growth were. He asked if the model had a positive feedback loop with population.

Mr. Yee said yes and suggested he refer to the schematic handout. He mentioned land price and the population forecast. That was the feedback Councilor Atherton referred to. Yee constructed it and it best exemplified MetroScope. A lot of detail was omitted from the other measure. Kit was a matter of precision. Both were accurate but land price was more precise.

Councilor McLain said MetroScope was a tool to gather research and not a decision-making package. Metro had to agree regarding the assumptions if it was to be useable and realistic for policymakers. She referred to the assumptions on page 6 of the handout and wanted to know if that was the complete list.

Ms. Weber said no.

Councilor McLain wanted to see the complete list of assumptions. The tool was meaningless without balance in the assumptions that are put in it.

Chair Park suggested that anyone interested in MetroScope contact Mr. Yee or Ms. Weber.

Councilor McLain said it was important for all the councilors to hear everyone’s questions and concerns.

Ms. Weber referred Councilor McLain to the middle of page 3 of the handout document and the Phase 1 Research Policy Issues. She said MetroScope might require more one-on-one instruction with the councilors. Staff wanted the councilors to be comfortable with MetroScope as a tool.

Councilor McLain said the assumption that staff was filtering MetroScope through the Goal 14, Task 3 through 7.

Ms. Weber referred to how MetroScope addressed Goal 14 issues instead of circumventing them. But MetroScope could not be used alone.

Councilor McLain said she was concerned about the list of MetroScope assumptions. She referred to the assumptions on page 6 of the document, Common Assumption in every Case Study. She cited the last assumption.

Mr. Yee said he could address the councilors’ questions point by point.

Ms. Weber wanted Councilor McLain to be comfortable with MetroScope. However, it in no way replaced or represented the agency’s application and compliance with Goal 14. It was not the centerpiece of the work program. It was just a piece of fruit in the basket and added richness to the policy discussions regarding what to do next.

Dick Bolen, Manager – Metro Data Resource Center, discussed the scenarios. MetroScope was an attempt to introduce the marketplace into Metro’s policy considerations. There was an assumption that zoning alone would produce jobs. The reality was Metro did not control the marketplace. MetroScope was an attempt to test things in the marketplace. The Metro it was a tool to see how the market might react. Metro could use it to make a policy decision that would survive a court challenge and provide policy analysis to examine policy options.

Chair Park said the Metro Council reserved the right to ignore the MetroScope model if they chose to do so. MetroScope did not represent the final decision. Regarding the 2040 Plan, state and local policy had much more of an effect.

Councilor Atherton was happy he could ignore MetroScope. He mentioned Demascus and whether MetroScope would help the Metro Council analyze the impacts of various sizes of community in Demascus.

Mr. Yee said yes.

Councilor Atherton asked if MetroScope would help the Metro Council analyze the option of having farmland open space in between Demascus and the rest of the urban area.

Mr. Bolen said if Metro Council showed MetroScope land that could be developed, MetroScope would use market factors to determine a result. MetroScope had rules that had to be followed. The model was useless if the user did not know what to examine.

Councilor Atherton asked if the model would show the impact of development at the airport industrial area and the 11,000 jobs there, and the impact it would have on Clackamas County.

Mr. Bolen said that was the type of analysis the model was intended to perform.

Councilor Hosticka asked how and when the Metro Council would provide staff with direction.

Chair Park said the staff wanted to analyze 2 cases, Case A and Case B. They were the cases with the most information. The state Land Conservation and Development Commission asked them to analyze Case D: Hold the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary). While they ran the first two cases, the Metro Council could discuss adjustments to the analysis by staff.

Councilor Bragdon said the Metro Council would provide direction through the Community Planning Committee forum. Whether the Metro Committee needed to take formal action would be determined by the chair.

Ms. Weber said staff had wrestled with MetroScope for months. They tried to shape it, determine exactly what it was, and what might represent policies. The staff wanted the Metro Council to be comfortable and confident using MetroScope. At the same time, staff faced time constraints. She suggested Mr. Yee briefly review the different inputs into MetroScope. Then staff could meet with councilors in smaller groups or one-on-one. Running the base and Interstate 5 Trade Corridor cases concurrently, staff could show the Council outputs at 5 and 10 years, so they could see the result.

Councilor Hosticka said it would help if he had a list of the questions that staff considered policy questions that staff would want the policy-making body to answer. He referred to the MetroScope handout. To create policy and policy directions it would be helpful if the councilors could understand what the questions were that the staff wanted answers to.

Councilor Park said in some cases policy decisions had already been made and were ready to be put into action. He wanted to see them implemented if the Committee agreed. Then the councilors could wrestle with the rest.

Councilor McLain agreed with Councilor Hosticka 100 percent. She compared MetroScope to a gas hose that was flailing out of control and creating damage. First, the Metro Council needed to make sure staff had the right tool to analyze the right policies the councilors wanted to review and use in their decisions. They supported analyzing only the base case, without further discussions with the Committee. The scenarios cost money and might not make sense.

Ms. Weber referred to the MetroScope document, Phase 1 Research Policy Issues. Staff could describe each issue. All the scenarios were based on those 5 fundamental issues.

Mr. Bolen added that was the beginning point. The issue for staff was the 5-year increments and plotting the new need on the landscape. He referred to types of scenarios and fine-tuning. Then staff can plug in the rules, variables and transportation options.

Chair Park suggested, unless there were objections, that the Committee direct staff to analyze the first 2 scenarios, which already involved policy choices made by Metro, and report to the Committee regarding items that concerned the councilors and fine tuning of the other scenarios (maybe cases C and D). The Committee should also be aware of the time considerations.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with Councilor Hosticka. He was not sure exactly what he was supposed to respond to. He referred to the MetroScope document issues and said they did not indicate how the Committee was expected to provide direction during the process.

Ms. Weber offered to have Mr. Yee describe each issue in detail.

Chair Park preferred to do that at another time. However, he wanted to examine the form Mr. Bolen mentioned earlier during the meeting.

Mr. Bolen referred to page 7 of the MetroScope document, Policy Directions – Inputs into MetroScope. They represented the dials on the dashboard.

Councilor Bragdon said one advantage was it forced choices that had benefits and consequences. The Committee and staff had to know, up front, what some of the preferences were, in terms of those consequences.

Chair Park said they could fine tune and change the results.

Councilor McLain said Metro has a policy to protect greenspaces. There might be some protection that was not on the list. Therefore, the staff would need to confer regularly with the Committee. Metro would not develop all the items. They needed to be credible and realistic.

Mr. Bolen added MetroScope was not trying to determine the golden scenario. It was more an exploration of trade-offs. Staff and the Committee would see what the interrelationships were.

Councilor Hosticka supported Chair Park’s suggestion that the Committee approve running cases A and B. However, before the proceeded further, he suggested the discussion focus specifically on the cases the staff proposed to run next. The Committee could review each case and the associated assumptions and determine what policy decisions were implied, before staff devoted limited resources to study beyond cases A and B.

7.  REVIEW – TRANSPORTATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT (TGM) PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS – INFORMATION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF

Mike Hoglund, Metro Director of Long-Range Planning, described the TGM program and pre-application process, and referred to information in the meeting packet. He solicited feedback fro the Committee and offered to answer any questions they might have. Metro might be able to secure approximately $5000,000-$750,000 of TGM grant funding. It depended on the number of jurisdictions that were interested.

Councilor Bragdon suggested a good topic would be creative use and financing of parking, shared use of parking and how parking related to retail. The bigger picture might envision being able to use some of the TGM grants projects to reinvigorate the discussion in Raleigh Hills regarding town center planning.

Mr. Hoglund said the first suggestion was a good idea. Staff produced a shared parking handbook. However, it probably did not focus on centers, structured parking or innovative ways to increase parking. He mentioned the structure parking at the Clackamas Town Center. The staff needed to do more work in that area. Regarding the second suggestion, Metro would normally want to coordinate with Washington County and/or the City of Beaverton. He offered to coordinate that effort.

Councilor Bragdon referred to the Milwaukie Downtown Development Association and the City of Milwaukie who where involved in a vision process for downtown Milwaukie, which related to grants for the boulevard treatment on McLoughlin and moving the transit center. There were many different transportation pieces in play in downtown Milwaukie. Money was a question for much of it, including the parking issue. That was another geographic suggestion.

Councilor McLain supported Ms. Weber’s suggestion for the implementation tools for the centers. It needed to be at the top of the list. She loved schools. However, the value from the transportation education programs was not as great as for recycling and programs in other areas. It would not be as high on the list. If there were more ideas she might support that item. She seriously questioned the term “big streets.”

Mr. Hoglund said the term would be changed. The goal was similar to livable, livable streets and green, green streets. Metro was not trying to create big, big streets. Instead, it was locational and trying to fix problems associated with big streets. He agreed. The name should be changed.

John Houser, Metro Senior Council Analyst, said, regarding the big streets program, the budget narrative appeared to indicate there would be a very high level of cooperation necessary between Metro and local government staff. He asked, at the current time, if Metro had a commitment or had interest been expressed by local governments in the region to do this type of project.

Mr. Hoglund discussed the issue with TPAC (Transportation Policy Advisory Committee). They approved and were interested in the partnership, and the case studies, where they would occur and the possible results. They were more interested in focusing on the solutions to where the case studies were and less on how they might be applied more broadly.

Michael Morrissey, Metro Senior Council Analyst, said Councilor Burkholder suggested producing handbooks that citizens could receive when local jurisdictions were involved with their comprehensive plans or other changes in response to what Metro asked the jurisdictions to do. The handbooks might ask citizens to choose from options. Also, considering Metro’s budget and how little the agency had to spend, it was potentially a significant amount of money. There was also an opportunity cost for each item. He suggested more description of the items. Staff had significant discussions with TPAC. He was following up on Councilor Hosticka’s request to be notified on a collective basis when any arm of Metro asked for money, even during the pre-application phase. The issue was more important than it appeared and deserved more discussion.

Mr. Houser asked if Metro failed to secure the proposed corridor study funding if the agency would be unable to perform any major corridor study during the next fiscal year.

Mr. Hoglund said staff determined, for a systems level alternatives analysis during an 18-month period, that corridor studies generally cost approximately $1.2 million and included a lot of public outreach and technical analysis. They also added pieces that do more community building in the corridor studies. He mentioned the South Willamette River Crossing Study and the effects on the community. The grant would provide mostly the materials and services for the 18-month period. If the did not secure the grant, the alternative was to partner with ODOT, which had little funding to offer, and local government partners along the corridors could provide some money, staffing and soft costs. The other option was the MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program). Metro had regular planning funds for staff but it would require them to reallocate to different projects. He did not know what they would propose. The concept of the corridor studies was approved in previous budgets and the Unified Work Program.

Mr. Houser cited cost issues associated with the big streets project and asked whether Metro’s local partners, who would benefit from the activity, planned to make any monetary contributions.

Mr. Hoglund mentioned a soft staff match, which could include the time committed by local governments. He planned to check on the local partners’ contributions.

Councilor McLain requested a copy of the livable streets project design book.

Chair Park mentioned the performance measures, price breaks and structured parking in historic downtown Gresham. He asked if the TGM could help them fund that and other projects. He asked how Metro could help them and other centers compete for funding. He believed other centers had the same problem.

Mr. Hoglund suggested submitting a proposal from Chair Park and Councilor Bragdon on March 16, 2001, for market analysis and other strategies designed to establish shared and structured parking in centers for better efficiency of use of parking. He addressed Mr. Morrissey’s comments by noting it was the pre-application phase of the process. The full final application was not due until May 19, 2001. He said staff did review the budget. However, he welcomed new ideas.

Chair Park indicated approval from the Committee to move ahead.

Mr. Hoglund summarized his previous comments.

8.  REVIEW – MPAC MEETING; FEBRUARY 28, 2001

Councilor Bragdon suggested the summary should indicate what was the prepared program and what was extemporaneous. The document was not representative. He suggested the staff indicate who the invited panelists were.

Mr. Hoglund referred to a handout, Community Partners Forum, Preliminary Summary. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) He heard a lot of good comments from the prepared speakers. Mr. Hoglund realized there was a lot of concern regarding what happened after those presentations. He said there needed to be more discussion, if the Metro Council decided to schedule more of these table talks, town halls and conference types of events in the future, regarding how to prepare for them. Everyone probably had a lot of ideas. He suggested new ways to manage and provide more structure for the events, such as providing invitations to speak to the elected officials and planning commission members who attended the event. He also suggested thanking them and the public for attending the event.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record

Metro Community Planning Committee meeting of March 6, 2001