MINUTES OF T11E METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, July 17, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Bi11 Atherton, David Bragdon, Rex Burkholder, Carl Hosticka,

 Susan McLain and Rod Monroe

Members Absent:  None.

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

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the June 19, 2001, Community Planning Committee

Meeting

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  JPACT

Councilor Monroe mentioned the decisions at JPACT's last meeting (July 12) on the 150% List for the $38 million in discretionary dollars for the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) for the region. The staff recommendation was accepted, and then JPACT had several amendments that had the affect of adding to the list, so it was now a 180% List (approximately). The final decision will be made in September.

JPACT also discussed the state passing HB 2142, providing $400 million in state transportation dollars for bridges, maintenance of roads and highways, and some for new construction. How this region's allocation of those dollars would be developed was discussed.

•  WRPAC

Councilor McLain reported on the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) meeting of July 16"' where they looked at the Goal 5 criteria for the mapping they hope to have completed regionwide. WRPAC also reviewed the work of the Goal 5 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Subcommittee of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and WRPAC, and also looked at the MTAC recommendations to the Council that had been passed at the MPAC meeting. WRPAC agreed to most of those, although they changed one and they added two more suggestions, which would be written up by Metro staff and passed on to both the Natural Resources Committee and the Metro Council. WRPAC also discussed utilities regarding Title 3, and is scheduled to continue that conversation at their next meeting.

Councilor Atherton, regarding the utilities discussion, asked if any direction came out of that discussion, particularly by BES representatives. Councilor McLain said there is no product yet, but they agreed that the Title 3 language was a good place to start and indicated they have some support for the criteria itself, but are checking to make sure that with Goal 5 elements that they don't need to have additional criteria or additional threshold for some of the issues.

•  Natural Resources

Councilor Hosticka said the Natural Resources Committee would meet July 18th to try to take the next step on the Riparian Fish and Wildlife Conservation Protection Restoration Program. One of the issues people were asking was if this was a state land-use planning or a federal Environmental Protection Act program, and the answer was that it's Metro's program, trying to meet both objectives. The next day the committee would be looking at the reaction received from the public and the various TACs regarding the criteria for significance of resources, and would take action on a resolution that would direct staff to map the entire region using some criteria. The committee had suggestions for changes in those criteria, and commentary about the process. They would look at all that and make decisions on how to move ahead, and Councilor Hosticka said he would like the public to be engaged in this as much as possible.

3.  Resolution No. 01-3089 - For the Purpose of Endorsing the Findings and Recommendations of the Corridor Initiatives

Richard Brandman, Deputy Planning Director, Planning Department, gave a brief overview of this resolution, speaking to the staff report. Passage of this resolution, he said, would adopt the work program to study the 18 corridors identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as those that needed further refinement. Mr. Brandman used a large map (identified as Corridor Initiatives Project, Location of 18 Corridors for Study, and too large to be included in this record) in his remarks.

He said the two corridors moving forward into the Major Corridor Refinements recommendation within a five-year time frame are the Powell/Foster and the Highway 217 Corridors. This resolution was not specific as to which would be first; there were still discussions that needed to take place with jurisdictions regarding timing issues, highest priority, as well as finance. Mr. Brandman pointed out that Exhibit A to the resolution adopts the work plan for this project, adds the Barbur Blvd./I-5 Corridor Project (which was inadvertently omitted from the RTP last year), and notes, besides the Powell/Foster and Hwy. 217 Corridors being recommended for approval, that additional funds will be needed to actually perform these studies. Metro is seeking both Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) moneys to enable these two projects to move forward during the first five-year planning process. The resolution also directs staff to prepare the ordinance that will actually amend the RTP to comply with Corridor Refinements, and staff expects to bring that back before this committee in the fall.

There was discussion about why the 1-205 Corridor and the 1-5 Corridor were split into sections. Councilor Burkholder asked staff why Hwy. 217 was a recommended corridor when it ranked so low in the technical scores, and why 1-205 South, which ranked higher, was not recommended for this next study within the time period but placed under Other Corridors. Mr. Brandman responded that in ODOT's judgment, the interchange studies which were recommended here were the priority for which should move forward in this time frame.

Regarding Hwy. 217, he said, there was considerable discussion on the ranking for traffic and congestion and because it didn't score as well but it seemed to be worse. There was the strong interest on the part of the jurisdictions as well as the public, with probably 80% of the comments received on this process asking to have something done on Hwy. 217. Ms. Wieghart said this was the only project they received letters about except for the county coordinating committees.

Councilor Burkholder said he hoped corridor planning was not looking at just freeway expansion but included parallel system development, transit service, etc. He wanted to be clear that when a corridor plan was done, that mobility in the general vicinity around the highway is looked at and that there are many different responses to dealing with the mobility issue that aren't necessarily capacity related. Mr. Brandman said that was correct.

Chair Park opened a public hearing on Resolution No. 01-3089 at 2:30 p.m.

1.  Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, City of Tigard, spoke in support of the Corridor Initiatives project. He said the City of Tigard has been working with Metro staff on the Washington Square Regional Center Plan for approximately three years, that the Tigard City Council adopted the Plan in 2000, and had delayed implementation until a plan could be developed. Tigard was also looking at the Corridor Initiative as a coordinated approach, and he said they have applied for a state TGM grant for details around Washington Square; as part of that plan they have done extensive detailed analysis on the future transportation needs and funding, and are looking at funding programs for roads and the infrastructure there. The Washington Square Regional Center, as Metro recognizes, is anticipated for extensive growth, he said. Transportation throughout that area is critical. Not only the elected officials of the community but the citizens, as well, recognize that unless solutions are found to all the roads, including Hwy. 217, the Plan will fail and their neighborhoods will be impacted. That is important to the community. This corridor has been slated for improvement for a long time, he concluded, and the Tigard community supported it.

2.  Don Baack, of Hillsdale in southwest Portland, commented that he heard about the Corridor Initiatives resolution for the first time the previous day. He said he's been involved in transportation issues in southwest Portland for a long time, Metro staff had been out speaking to the community and not mentioned it, and he had heard nothing nor had any chance to give input. He felt the whole process was null if the citizens didn't have a chance to comment. Mr. Baack said he didn't feel the Barber/I-5 Corridor needed a full study but needed to sort out an on-ramp to I-5 southbound, and that would have major implications for the West Portland Town Center because the intersection at Capitol Hwy. and Barbur was terribly congested. He asked the committee to consider modification of a full-blown study and look at just making sense out of an on-ramp. That would make the process of the Town Center and the terrible intersection near it very, very key. The second issue Mr. Baack addressed was the regional connections in the area of the 1-405/I-5 intersect. This was first brought up, he said, by the citizens involved in the South Portland Circulation Study, that they asked for alternatives for regional connections here, and he didn't know if this was included in the Corridor Initiatives project or the adopted RTP, but said it was far more important than the South Portland Circulation Study which was about land development and this was about transportation. Mr. Baack submitted a map to be distributed called Regional Connectors, I-5 & I-405 (now part of Powell/Foster Corridor Study), and made a part of this record. The uncertainties of transportation on N. Macadam because of the difficulty of getting in and out of it, the regional connections, and the Hwy. 43 connections were very key, he said, to have sorted out relative to what we can and cannot do in terms of capacity.

Chair Park asked Ms. Wieghart to encapsulate the public process done for the Corridor Initiatives project. Ms. Wieghart replied that there was an extensive process, and efforts were primarily focused on the jurisdictions and the elected officials representing those jurisdictions, so they would provide to Metro what they had heard from their constituents. Metro staff attended each county Coordinating Committee twice, first to brief them and then to address their specific questions and receive their priorities. In Clackamas County, because of the slightly different method of operation, Metro staff also attended the Clackamas County Mayors and Managers meeting twice. As part of the MTIP public outreach, i.e., the newsletter and a mailing, the Corridor Initiatives project was mentioned and it was also mentioned at

public hearings. Considering that this was an 18-corridor regionwide prioritization study, and not actually undertaking an individual study at this time, staff felt the notification and public comment period adequate.

Mr. Baack said he had never heard of the county Coordinating Committee. He said they must work in a complete vacuum.

3.  Ross Williams, Citizens for Sensible Transportation, addressed the committee saying his organization was created as Sensible Transportation Options for People to oppose the Western Bypass. He testified in favor of including the Hwy. 217 corridor in the Plan. Commitment was made coming out of that process, he said, to do something in that corridor and while he said he was concerned about what would ultimately come out of the Corridor Plan, the reality was that unless something was done, and instead of something useful it may be something stupid like going back to building the Western Bypass. That sentiment was still out there in Washington County, he added. There was a need to move forward so that people's frustration didn't cause them to act in an unhelpful way, he said.

Mr. Williams also spoke in support of the Powell/Foster corridor for different reasons. There are studies taking place in Damascus looking at how to serve that area, he said, and we need to get on with looking not only Damascus and the areas immediately around it, but what the impacts will be all the way into Portland on whatever decisions are made. In both of these studies, he said, he believed there was a need for people to start looking at them, not simply as corridors that get people from one place to another but what kind of place will be left behind for the people who live along those corridors. Hwy. 217 interferes more with transportation in Washington County than it now facilitates it; he said he didn't think that was the intent when it was completed. He said his most recent idea was that we should stop building Soviet-style roads; we need to start designing roads that are in communities where people live, and what they look like and how well they serve the community are as important as how well they serve people driving through it. He said he hoped the Corridor Initiatives study would start to move in that direction, and was more hopeful about Powell/Foster; on Hwy. 217 a lot of damage had been done that can't be fixed in a hurry but it needs to be considered as the process moves forward.

4.  Edmond Kristovich of Hillsboro said Chair Park had been at the land use and transportation part of his committee (unnamed), and that he knew how they felt about the old Western Bypass. He asked rhetorically if “old” meant it was gone forever from consideration. Portland was probably the only major city in the United States that one had to drive through to go from one place to the other. He said it seemed a good idea to consider alleviating some of the corridors. If there were a bypass around it, there wouldn't be so many commercial people on the highways. Mr. Kristovich said he had recently visited friends in the San Fernando Valley in California and in the middle of the day he said he could drive 25 miles, at 65 miles an hour, from one city to another without having to go through them or encounter traffic. Alleviating congestion by going around it should still be considered as an alternative. We are growing, he said, and we don't have a lot of money as some of the other places in the country, but bypassing Portland should still be an option.

There being no further testimony, Chair Park closed the public hearing.

Councilor Bragdon said he thought Mr. Hendryx and Mr. Williams had some interesting comments on Hwy. 217 and where Mr. Brandman mentioned how people have written to say, "Do something about Hwy. 217," that that doesn't automatically translate to adding more lanes to the highway. He said that was important to remember, that these studies are to be comprehensive problem solving issues that are related to other development.

Councilor McLain said the first time this project was explained to this committee, she didn't feel the criteria or prioritizing were explained well enough. After speaking with the Planning transportation staff, listening to today's discussion and reviewing Exhibit A, she said she now felt very comfortable with this study going forward.

Chair Park said in February/March 2001 that the Metro Council passed a resolution requesting that all projects first have local jurisdiction approval prior to coming before them, so that the local process was completed. This project is now in the in-between area. The next complete cycle of this project should address the local and the Metro accountability.

Councilor Burkholder asked to make two points. First, looking at Exhibit A, it did not say that the projects listed in the Other Corridors column will have nothing done on them. He felt it important to let people know that. His second point was how the new 16 new corridor studies would be paid for in the future. Staff has been asked to share their thoughts on this and then they would go to TPAC and JPACT for advice on how to fund these. These are very expensive, and the process is expensive. Looking for local and state partnership on these was critical, Councilor Burkholder said, to make sure it happens.

Mr. Brandman reiterated that the funding requests currently submitted to both the MTIP and TGM are primarily for the public involvement.

Chair Park agreed that the public involvement piece was very important, and said the Metro Council was trying to work through that, given the budgetary constraints. The public did need to be involved. Councilor McLain said she would never vote on any Corridor study if it didn't have a public involvement piece. She agreed with Chair Park that the Metro Council is aware of the need and budget for public involvement, and reiterated that this project is not at that stage yet, but at the in-between stage.

4.  HB 2142 Criteria

Chair Park explained that this agenda item was a $400 million funding measure recently passed by the Oregon state legislature, and signed by the Governor. Mr. Cotugno spoke to Enclosure B-1 from the agenda packet and explained that this was somewhat of a schematic of a process and set of criteria as a starting place to get feedback on those questions. ODOT had set a deadline for feedback of July 27^th, he added, so they could act at the commission level on August 9^th to begin. They're on a very short time frame – they have to adopt their final list of projects by February 1, 2002, so they've backed that schedule up to draw these conclusions. They're very interested, he said, in having an open process, they've been very proactive in contacting interest groups, MPOs, Area Commissions on Transportation the state has set up elsewhere in the state, to get input on the whole process. This is the very beginning of that process, so this step, setting up the criteria, is very important because it will set the rule for what they're going to follow in the rest of the process. The entire $400 million is to be committed by February 2002, he explained.

Mr. Cotugno said JPACT asked TPAC to develop comments and asked to see a draft of those comments prior to the TPAC meeting July 27^th. He said he intended to draft a first cut of comments for TPAC for July 27^th meeting, which was also the deadline for submitting comments to ODOT. He said he would appreciate any comments from this body for inclusion. Separate from that, ODOT has organized another committee to give them advice on how to develop an appropriate STIP process, and Mr. Cotugno said he

happened to sit on that committee along with other government representatives and interest groups, statewide. This committee met the previous week and was going to meet again the day before the submission deadline, so he said he would share his understanding of the process and where ODOT was heading, which he then did, again referring back to Enclosure B-1.

There was a short discussion on different projects and how they would rate under certain criteria.

There being no further comments from the committee on the process, Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to reiterate the time line. Mr. Cotugno said staff would have a first draft of a letter for mailing July 20^th to the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee on transportation (TPAC), and that letter should be finalized at the July 27^th TPAC meeting. July 27th is the due date to ODOT for that letter. The next key date, he said, is submittal of the candidate Preservation and Bridge projects by September 7^th, so a similar TPAC review process will be done at their meeting August 31^st. That's to identify the field of projects; the current schedule calls for adoption of the Preservation and Bridge projects by October, and Modernization projects by November. He said he had a feeling those would get merged. This schedule would give JPACT and the Council adequate time to weigh in on these.

5.  MTIP Review – JPACT 150% List

Mr. Cotugno said there were some revisions made by JPACT to the 150% List originally presented to the committee and a new version was distributed (and made a part of this record). He then explained the list, and said it was still changing as people reviewed, questioned and commented on it. He said at the time the Council List was developed, the technical rankings were still in draft form and some of those have changed. If the Council's objective was to have their list continue to exist, he suggested time be spent to refine it with the technical rankings, and suggested a dialog. There was a discussion on the 150% List as well as policy questions raised on the Council List, and Mr. Cotugno said staff would be happy to work with Councilors Monroe and Burkholder again to refine it.

Mr. Cotugno said staff planned on soliciting input from this body as well as JPACT on where to place modal emphasis. Councilor Burkholder cautioned the councilors to think regionally.

Terry Whisler, TIP Coordinator, Planning Department, responded to a question from Councilors Atherton and Park regarding project ranking, saying the current round of projects is ranked lower than the same projects garnered two years ago.

Chair Park asked the councilors to get their comments on the criteria to Mr. Cotugno as soon as possible. He said the councilors should be thinking about two tiers, 1) within the categories, e.g., Road Modernization projects, Boulevard projects, etc., and how they would rank with each other; and 2) projects within those categories, how they would rank them. Another question that needs to come back is what projects can be moved over to the 2040 List HB 2142. Chair Park said he was also curious to know what projects could be placed in different categories in order to use different funding sources.

6.  Status of Periodic Review Subtasks

Mr. Cotugno mentioned that 6-8 weeks ago this committee asked for an update of the compliance status of all the local governments, and staff prepared and the committee reviewed a matrix showing each element of the Functional Plan and where each jurisdiction stands on compliance. Staff developed a series of compliance letters to the jurisdictions, with each councilor receiving copies for their district, asking them to notify Metro on when they expect their new deadline to be and ask for an extension of their deadline.

Councilor McLain said she had a copy of one letter from Washington County she found disturbing in that they asked for an extension beyond December 2001. She said it was also disturbing to see how extensive their list was and that they were asking for another extension, when the last time they asked for one, they had said that was absolutely the last time they would ask. Councilor McLain said she wanted to talk with Ms. Weber at a later date, or have a discussion at the committee level, to discuss this, as it was an extremely important issue. She thought the only letters Metro would be receiving at this time would be exceptions, and she thought the council shouldn't make any decisions on these until they had a policy decision on how to treat them. Councilor Park said he hadn't seen any responses; Councilor McLain said she would have the one she referred to copied so all the councilors could see it.

Chair Park explained his understanding of code was that the council asked that these compliance letters be sent to the jurisdictions in order to meet their portion of compliance. He asked Dan Cooper, General Counsel, if this explanation was correct. Mr. Cooper said it was.

Mr. Cotugno said staff would like to come back to another committee meeting to review the draft Centers Report, done with funds from LCDC and Tri-Met, and done by EcoNorthwest, evaluating real development progress on Centers and the impediments and what things can be done to overcome those impediments. In a similar fashion, the Regional Industrial Land Study is nearing its concluding steps and staff would like to bring that before the committee, as well, for their review. These are two bodies of work in which staff will need key decisions.

Responding to a question from Councilor Hosticka regarding industrial lands, Mr. Cotugno said when the Regional Industrial Land Study is for the tri-county region, Clark County (in Washington), Columbia County and Yamhill County, and those parties all participate in that process. When Metro makes UGB decisions, Columbia County is not considered.

Mr. Cotugno said Councilor McLain and he had spoken previously about the Phase II Alternatives Analysis work and he said he believed they had reached a conclusion that there are two kinds of questions to ask ourselves about prospective UGB expansions: 1) should we be doing something on a subregional basis and, if so, on what basis and how, and how do we get to a conclusion on that, and 2) if that answer was yes, how do we make sure we're following the Goal 14 factor requirements. Currently we're in a MetroScope modeling process to evaluate alternative urban forms, some of which could not be and some of which could be on a subregional basis, and we're hoping that will help illustrate some of the pros and cons of some of the different kinds of decisions on those different bases to arrive at a conclusion.

One question, he said, for what lands do we study on the west side is what lands do we study for a MetroScope modeling process that will lead to, then, a conclusion of do we need to do something on a subregional basis. Staff is in the midst of collecting alternatives analysis information for all the other territories; the question is do we start collecting that type of information for the west side areas or do we hold off on that until we have a broader conclusion of whether or not we even need to tackle the question on a subregional basis. From a Work Program timeline point of view, that question is still pending. If that information is going to be collected on the west side, he thought a deadline of doing so by the end of the calendar year ought to be set.

Chair Park said the question has been, how much is enough, where was the magic line to cut off how far west to go. That hasn't been identified by criteria yet, he said, and parallel work has staff gathering Goal 5 data. He said he thought enough land should be studied so that when decisions are made, the council can concentrate on the decisions and not have to stop to ask staff to gather missing information. Chair Park then asked Mr. Cooper if he had a concept of where to come up with a stopping point. Mr. Cooper said that could not be answered briefly, that Goal 14 had been described by many people as a rule designed to make it possible to stop any Urban Growth Boundary amendment that somebody wanted to

challenge. It's complicated enough, particularly in the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) appeal process, that there's always an opportunity, it seems, to find a way to say somebody didn't do enough alternatives studies, and therefore there are grounds for sending it back. It's not a simple equation.

Councilor McLain said she felt there were policy decisions that staff couldn't move forward on until this committee made some decisions, and she felt it timely to discuss that at this meeting. The first element, she said, was that she assumed that the Planning staff would know from the state within the next week or two, in writing, on the periodic review process whether the one-mile was enough. If not, we are faced with making choices again and not knowing where the state will stand.

The second element, she continued, was that we are in a process now where Goal 14 update has not been completed and will probably not be until the Measure 7 issue is decided. We are faced with walking a very small tightrope in dealing with Measure 7 and the Goal 14 update. Policy questions and technical questions need to be asked.

The first policy question, she said, was do you want to divide the MetroScope work and the alternatives productivity study (or Alternatives Analysis Study) in such a way so that people understand that one is just a model, and some of the same underlying work can be utilized, but the model can be more expansive. The second part is the Alternatives Analysis work that will turn into findings, and will be the technical basis for decisions made in 2002 for what are reasonable or not UGB decisions, after looking at the Needs Analysis. If we try to do both pieces of both, and they are very different, we need a one-page executive summary that explains the difference between the two, and we need to give direction to staff to do that.

The second policy question is if we do not know or have not agreed what subregional areas we're looking at, how do we study for subregional need? Mr. Cooper brought up a point she thought was telling, and that was that the last time we went to court and someone appealed Metro's decision, it wasn't what we studied that they talked about, it was what we didn't study. Councilor McLain summarized that it wasn't how much, it was where and what we studied. What we don't study would be just as much a part of any brief. What are the subregional needs and can we agree on what those subregional areas are, she asked.

Councilor McLain said she thought it important for this council to decide if they're going to study subregional needs, how do they do it and in what order, if they want it to stick. It won't work if they do it wrong. If staff is going to study St. Mary's, we have to prove that we're studying the rest of the resource land or the same type of resource land as St. Mary's, and we can't do that without a criteria or a nexus. We have to get to it in a policy way, or through deciding what those subregional areas are first, one of those two ways. She thought it was a poor idea to send staff or anyone out to study anything on the west side until that's been decided.

Chair Park said that was the crux of what was being discussed, i.e., how much is enough, and he felt staff had made the case in the St. Mary's piece that there is enough of a criteria to the west and to the south so as to say study to the wetlands and no further. On the north side, however, he said, regarding soil classifications, where do we stop moving west, and he agreed with Councilor McLain that at some point the Alternatives Analysis turns into findings, and there is concern how that will be received.

Councilor Bragdon said these were all good questions that have been inched up to several times and yet never seem to be resolved. His concern, he said, was Phase II. Phase I was very clear: one mile. There were rational descriptions on the areas that were excluded of why they were excluded. He was uncomfortable, he said, with Phase II and why some areas are being studied and others weren't. A rational criteria was needed that explained why some areas are being studied in the subregional context, what qualified them for study and therefore excluded other areas.

Mr. Cooper said once you're beyond the non-resource land and into the resource land, it's not a question of what you studied and why, but why you didn't study something else. By taking everything on the non-resource side of taking everything with a mile and making a first cut on it, we've satisfied that require­ment for the non-resource property. You can't now go into resource land and not do at least some similar level of comparison study. Within each category on the priority hierarchy that's set on the statute, you must demonstrate why the land you've chosen is superior to the land you didn't choose. Councilor Hosticka asked if the reason to any resource land at all would be because of some subregional need that is yet to be defined. Mr. Cooper said that was correct. He said he operated under the assumption that there was sufficient exception land around the edge of the region to fulfill whatever need there was if they didn't take subregional factors into account. Just because land is studied is no reason to bring it into the UGB, Mr. Cooper added, but if you want to bring land in, you also have to have studied everything that was equal to or of a higher priority and you have to demonstrate why this land was better than anything of an equal priority and why you could exclude sufficient lands of a higher priority to show why you didn't bring them in.

Councilor Hosticka asked why look at resource land at all before we answer the subregional question. Councilor McLain said that was a good question, and she felt that subregional areas should be discussed, that this body needs to make a decision on that issue. Chair Park said if we don't do subregional, then we've defaulted to the exception lands' only piece which falls primarily in Clackamas County.

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, Community Development Section, Planning Department, said staff has prepared a series of new maps showing soil types, flood plains, and she added that she's also received information on irrigation districts that could raise the value of the land. She said presenting this information on maps could make clearer to the committee why staff has made a few tentative selections of what the consultant should study around the UGB.

Councilor Atherton asked where in the scheme of all this was livability, building complete communities, places where people actually want to live and invest. Mr. Cooper said the statutory priority for adding land to the UGB does not speak of that as a factor, it speaks of whether or not it's possible to provide an urban level of services and to include land in the UGB. If there is sufficient exception land to meet the need, you stop there, and you don't get to say you’re bringing in farmland instead because you think you get some other regional values that you’ve decided are more important than the state hierarchy for bringing in land.

Councilor Atherton asked why LCDC had the council go through the exercise of the concept of master planning and the urban concept plans. Mr. Cooper said he could not answer why LCDC chose to do something. Chair Park replied that the LCDC staff embraced the logical concept of urban reserves, however the courts did not hold the same understanding. Mr. Cotugno said the priority statute that Mr. Cooper referred to says to take exception lands if that meets your needs. Once you've taken exception lands, there are still a million questions about what the place looks like, and we're tackling those questions in the Pleasant Valley area right now. All of the issues about how you actually urbanize that are at stake, there are transportation infrastructure questions, there are Goal 5 protection questions, there are productivity questions, water infrastructure, school sites, all that is being tackled right now out there as a Master Plan. It doesn't mean you go to the next very complicated step of actually designing the community to get the outcome you want. If you can't meet your need on your exception lands, and you do move into resource lands, same thing applies. If you decide to bring a chunk of resource lands inside the UGB, you've still got to design that community, too. All those same questions still apply. It's simply Step 1, Step 2 – where, and then how. The above discussion is on the where question on this land now.

Chair Park asked Ms. Neill to bring back her map with an outline of what pieces she would or would not study. Chair Park said they need to come up with a criteria that will withstand a court challenge that will come. As Councilor McLain pointed out, he said, we need to make sure to study the right areas in the right amount.

Councilor McLain suggested a compromise. She said there was a way to let the consultant do the MetroScope piece, and this body commit to discuss subregional issues, discuss the nexus and the criteria for how to go forward to make sure the rest of the land studied for the alternatives analysis is appropriate. Ms. Neill said LCDC staff had promised her that Metro would receive a letter from them this week, and if that did not happen, she would call tbem. She said they did commit to her that they would be commenting on the Phase I Alternatives Analysis work that has been completed, and they may offer some comments on the initial discussion staff had with them on some of the Phase II work.

Councilor McLain said the council has only received the tip of the iceberg on the telephone calls that would be coming in on what's going to studied and what's not going to be studied, and there was nothing that could be said in response. Her goal, she said, was that these questions be discussed and choices made soon. Chair Park said the map should be ready for review by the August 7^th meeting, if not before, but he didn't know if decisions could be made in the next week or two.

Mr. Cotugno paraphrased the committee direction to staff – right now, for Alternatives Analysis Goal 14 factor purposes, staff has direction to study all that land from Sherwood east to, there are two sets of study areas we're still discussing whether or not to study, any of that second tier of westside land. And the committee would like to see a better definition of the criteria that's been identified today. Chair Park said Ms. Neill's maps would give the councilors some reasons at least to respond to their constituents on certain areas.

Chair Park said Councilors McLain and Hosticka brought up an important point in that if we can't get to that point, maybe we don't do the study. It will have to be discussed with MTAC, MPAC and others. If we keep cooperating, we may get there.

On the subregional issue, Mr. Cotugno said this committee had started a discussion on how to define a subregional MetroScope scenario and he wanted to continue that discussion. This was not necessarily intended to be the subregions they would adopt, but was intended to start testing the subregions, to see if there's any difference, and this is something staff wants to come back on to help shape whether there's even a need to study a subregion question, not which land do we collect data on within that subregion.

Chair Park outlined what the tentative August 7^th Community Planning Committee would need to address as this would be the last meeting before the recess: a MetroScope subregional discussion, coming back with some MetroScope base cases on I-5 with some Centers discussion, potentially industrial lands, and performance measures with 2040 reengagement. Councilor McLain asked if locational adjustments could be added to that. Chair Park said he thought so, but that he could decide that later.

7.  Councilor Communications

Councilor Burkholder distributed a copy of a July 2001 National Geographic article on urban sprawl titled The American Dream, by John Mitchell (a copy of which is included in this record).

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:43 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 17, 2001

The following have been included as part of the official public record:

Testimony cards

1.  Jim Hendryx

 City of Tigard

 13125 SE Hall Blvd.

 Tigard, OR 97223

 503-639-4171, x 405

2.  Don Baack

 SWNA

6495 SW Burlingame Pl.

Portland, OR

503-246-2088

3.  Ross Williams

 Citizens for Sensible Transportation

 1220 SW Morrison

 Portland, OR 97205

 503-225-0003

4.  Edwin A. Kristovich

167 NE 12^th

Hillsboro, OR 97124

503-681-0728