MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, October 8, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 1, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

3.  PROPOSED CENTER WORK PROGRAM. Mary Weber, Community Planning Manager, spoke to her memo of October 8, 2002, MPAC and MTAC recommendations and responses on residential Urban Growth Report (distributed and made a part of this record). Ms. Weber reviewed the elements of the Residential Urban Growth Report (UGR) that had been discussed at the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) meetings, those elements being the capture rate, environmentally constrained land, schools, parks, and the under build rate. Metro was required by statute, she said, to prepare a housing need report that spoke to whether or not Metro was accommodating the types of housing that the forecast required. That report had not been available at the time the MTAC discussed it but was available now. She summarized the capture rate discussion at MPAC and MTAC. The crux of the issue was, should Metro, in the Urban Growth Report, look back twenty years or five years. The recommendation by MTAC was that Metro look back five years. The Executive Officer recommended looking back twenty years. MPAC agreed with the Executive Officer's recommendation and recommended 68%.

In response to a question from Councilor Hosticka, Chair Park suggested that Ms. Weber clarify for the committee how this folded into the UGR, the 2.2% bump in the refill rate and how that tied together, which she did. There was discussion on the refill rate. Another reason to bring this before committee now, Ms. Weber added, was to give the committee an opportunity to revisit the numbers. They were now hearing the recommendations through the MTAC/MPAC process. Rather than waiting until the end of the month to hear them, those entities wanted to inform the committee now. Also, she said, if there were additional things the committee would like staff to present, expand on or do more research on, this was the opportunity to let the staff know.

Councilor Atherton asked about the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) data and if the lack of information was from the Portland area or nationwide, and a discussion ensued on ADUs. Ms. Weber said staff had used the numbers from the American Housing Survey for cities in this metropolitan area and then averaged it for the region. At the time they didn’t have complete or consistent statistics on ADUs for the region. Councilor McLain asked if the state had acknowledged that number, and Ms. Weber said she thought they had accepted the number during Periodic Review. Councilor McLain said she felt this was a weak area and that this issue needed further discussion. She asked if there was updated information on national averages of these types of units and if staff could make some reasonable calculations on where they were different in this region on that type of infill. Ms. Weber said she would come back with additional information.

Chair Park asked, given that they will have additional questions about under build and the reporting method and the capture rate data, if it would be possible to do something similar with ADU data. Ms. Weber said staff had made a recommendation that they would like to collect that data from local jurisdictions. What she understood was that ADUs were not stated on building permits. The under build was easier to get, she said. Mr. Dick Benner, Legal Counsel, clarified that in the absence of regional data, national data could be used. If there was neither regional nor national data, then the appropriate thing was to treat accessory dwellings in the refill rate. If you have different national data and regional data, it was wiser to go with the regional data, he said. Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said the statute gave a choice between the data collected over the last five years within the region, a longer time period or a wider geographic area as long as you could satisfy a test that the wider area or the longer time period would provide more accurate, complete and reliable data.

Councilor McLain asked about infill and redevelopment concerning schools. The response from MTAC was acknowledgement that there was a movement toward developing smaller and more efficient schools, and there was discussion on park and school integration. She asked Ms. Weber to clarify her memo, saying she wanted to find out how schools fit into the Centers strategy. Ms. Weber said she didn’t think schools directly fit into the Centers strategy and further explained why schools were listed. There was no direct connection between the amount of takeout for schools and the Centers program. Councilor McLain referred to Tasks 3 and 4 where they spoke to developing definitions for different types of centers, and said she was trying to make a connection on how they could relate these items to the UGR.

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, said the basic message that MTAC was saying was that overall in the region they were trying to accomplish a more compact form, that the acreage requirement for schools should be predicated on them trying to accomplish that, and the experience they were seeing out there was more compact. That was MTAC’s recommendation to MPAC. MPAC flipped and went the other way, he said. They were more swayed by some of the school representatives at the MPAC table who said they really ought to be pursuing the ideal level of acreage for these schools, not a more compact form. As it related to Centers, he said he thought that there was a minor connection to Centers. The number of schools in Centers would be very small and therefore the acreage implication associated with Centers was pretty small. Schools were generally out in the neighborhoods. He said the linkage between these two was that ultimately the Council needed to adopt the UGR and all its factors. MPAC had flagged at least four of those factors – schools, parks, capture rate and refill rate. Ultimately the Council needed to adopt every one of those factors that led to a bottom line conclusion of what was the UGR need. The connection to the Centers work program was that was the one area in the UGR where they had recommended that Metro be more aggressive than historical, 2.2%. In order to be more aggressive than historical, you had to have actions to accomplish that. They thought the Centers code and the Centers work program were sufficient actions to support that extra aggressiveness but that was also something the Council needed to adopt.

After further discussion on schools and their relation to Centers, Chair Park said the code language was part of what was going to be suggested be adopted and going to LCDC to show that they actually would be able to achieve the 28.5%. If the committee had extra ideas such as the ADUs that fit in the Centers question, they needed to get this through the whole process. He said he understood this had been through MPAC and MTAC. If there were changes in this code language that the committee would suggest, he asked that they let him know, so it could get turned in as part of the work materials. He also noted that some committee members had asked to have a discussion on the UGR itself.

Councilor Bragdon asked where in the materials that would be submitted was the emphasis on transportation funding as the priorities in the MTIP reflected, since that was supposed to be a stimulation to Centers, and how did Metro get credit from LCDC for that. In response, Brenda Bernards, Community Planning, spoke to her October 8^th memo, Community Planning Committee Discussion on the Proposed 2040 Centers Work Program (also distributed and included as part of this record)

Chair Park asked if the committee had questions about the UGR. Councilor Hosticka suggested asking councilors if they had anything they wanted to flag for future discussion so staff was ready with information. He flagged the 5% vacancy rate saying he was interested in knowing what that other number was and how it was accounted for in the UGR and what the significance of it was in terms of the overall estimate of need. Chair Park asked why they were calling the vacancy rate out separately. Councilor Hosticka said MPAC noted the question about the capture rate. 1000 Friends of Oregon had raised the question about under build. Chair Park said they had talked about the schools and the parks. Councilor McLain didn’t understand the summary about parks, the reasoning and methodology. She wanted to understand what the findings were to support the number and encouraged discussion about the amount of acreage for parks. Ms. Weber called their attention to a June 3, 2002, memo from Mr. Cotugno on 2002 Urban Growth Report Methodology (a copy of which is included in this record) which addressed the methodology and general approach that was taken in the Executive Officer's recommendation. Councilor Burkholder asked if this was a way for MPAC to say they wanted to have a parks requirement, a number of acres per person. Chair Park said if the 1,000 acres for parks were added, as suggested by MPAC, and that did not materialize, how could they ensure they hadn't created more of the problem that was driving people to want more parks without assurance that they were actually getting them. Ms. Lydia Neill, Community Development Planner, said Chair Park was correct, that it was a set aside, that it did nothing to develop more parks; MPAC had had that discussion.

Councilor Burkholder suggested a discussion on the draft table on net vacant buildable acres for jobs. There was a short discussion, and Chair Park then said they would have a recommendation from MPAC on October 23^rd and could have further discussion on the elements. Councilor McLain said it was important that people understand that staff did a very good job. She said this was not a critique, it was looking at the good staff work and trying to figure out how to utilize it and understand it.

Brenda Bernards, Community Planning, talked about policy and the MPAC and MTAC recommendations. She talked about the refinement report and the directions these policies would take including getting to the extra 2.2% refill rate. MPAC and MTAC did not give any comments on the policy itself or the policy direction, their comments dealt with Title 6 and the strategies, she said. The local governments were concerned that if they were already going through Periodic Review it would be good to tie Metro's strategy into that. The MPAC concern was that that would prolong this whole strategy. MPAC made a recommendation of five years for all the strategies. Ms. Bernards said she felt this would be very ambitious to have complete individual strategies for 37 Centers in five years. Ms. Weber added that it was not clear in the MPAC minutes if MPAC meant to say that they would like all to be done in five years. She suggested getting clarification from MPAC on this issue.

Ms. Bernard said MTAC had additional comments on a new Title 12 having to do with neighborhood Centers. They needed a definition of neighborhood Centers before they could move ahead. It was a clear recommendation that they have another level of Center. MTAC was also interested in the reporting on the Centers progress and that Metro tie their reporting to LCDC’s reporting requirements. In Title 4 there was also some Centers code language directing development to Centers, she said. She added that in MTAC’s discussion on the Centers work program, they proposed that Metro look at three Centers as pilot projects. She suggested looking at two Regional Centers and one Town Centers in a pilot program to establish the strategies for the individual centers.

Councilor Burkholder said the list of tasks for Centers policies looked complex and costly, and said he assumed it would be in next year’s budget discussion. Ms. Weber said it would be and that the Planning Department would provide several options. She further clarified some of those options. She added that there was a grant that could be started after the first of the year to get some of those things moving.

Chair Park asked that the committee be thinking about strategies and code language changes that they think would be useful. He suggested the special transportation area as one of those items.

4.  PERIODIC REVIEW TASK 3. Mr. Cotugno spoke to a draft resolution requesting an extension of Task 2 or a new Task 3 (a copy of which is included in this record). He asked direction from committee on how they wished to proceed. Chair Park said the Council had a retreat scheduled on October 17^th so no action could be taken before the October 18^th Council meeting, but that it was his understanding that a signal from this committee would be enough to get it onto LCDC's calendar.

Ms. Meg Fernekes, DLCD staff, said she had given that guestimate of October 18^th to Mr. Benner. The quality of Metro’s submittal would dictate the dispatch with which DLCD could address it, she added, and the cleaner and the easier it was, the better. She said they would try to get a placeholder for Metro to come and talk to the Commission even if the Commission didn't take an action at that time. Discussion followed on Metro’s submission to the Commission, and Chair Park said the resolution would be further discussed at the next Community Planning Committee meeting on October 15^th.

5.  SUPPLEMENTAL UGB RECOMMENDATIONS. Mike Burton, Executive Officer, said he was coming back to the committee for refinement to his August 1st recommendation. He said he felt it was incumbent upon Metro to make a decision on the UGB in December. There would be a new legislature in the new-year that planned to have a discussion on land use and he said he thought Metro would see a lot of proposed changes. Metro needed to be at the table to make certain it had a context in which to do that.

Mr. Burton then reviewed his recommendations on additional employment/industrial lands (a copy of the news release is included in this record), and he reviewed the chart of recommendations. He said Gresham had requested an increase in their acreage for jobs and that they put together a program called the Springwater Development in Area 6. Gresham was working with Multnomah County to address an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to determine the edge. He said he felt they had done a good job in their proposal as to where they would have those jobs. He suggested the committee review the IGA when it came forward. He noted that Multnomah County Commissioner Naito had been working on the IGA to make sure it satisfied what Metro would want to adopt. With the intent of Gresham to assure that they could accommodate both types of industries in the area, he urged acceptance of the recommendation to add those acres for job purposes to the Urban Growth Boundary expansion area. Mr. Burton then talked about land in the City of Boring that was currently zoned rural industrial and the mill site, which could be turned into an employment area. The acreage was 944 gross with a net of 57 acres for jobs. This was vacant area. He said he thought there was greater opportunity for conversion of other areas for additional industrial and employment jobs. There was also housing in that area. It made sense to have that area brought in for purposes of employment.

He continued with his recommendation on Area 61, in the Tualatin area, which was a change. He said they wanted to remove the north portion of Area 61 contiguous to the wildlife refuge. This was 55 acres; and was a change that the jurisdiction would concur with. He then talked about Areas 42, 47 and 48 which had all been recommended. Area 47 and Area 48 were at one time a quarry and resource land. The logical thing would be for the county to rezone that land. The other option would be for the Council to bring the land in to the UGB on the assumption that it would be first tier or first stage for industrial area. Right now there was no specific plan. He suggested that Area 42 needed to be looked at further. Until there was some planning for that larger economic zone, he suggested they wait until they had further information about what would happen to Borland Road. Cornelius sites 75 and 76 were exception land areas. Cornelius was in a difficult situation with job base. Mr. Burton urged the Council to plan in next year's budget to provide staff to work with Cornelius to find ways to figure out what they could do to increase job options along the northern tier. The piece of EFU land between the two exception lands potentially could come into the UGB; the question was whether or not they could make the case for an identified specific need there. So far they had not been able to make the case. He said he felt this had to do with the limitations on staff. Likewise, he said, Forest Grove had requested a land swap, swapping out a wetlands area and rezoning some residential land inside their current UGB for job purposes and then adding a piece of EFU land for additional residential purposes. He said it seemed to him that they should encourage Forest Grove to rezone the residential property to jobs opportunity, that it made sense. He said he felt that Forest Grove had adequate space for the housing they would need without having to go out and add in additional housing in the EFU area.

The City of Hillsboro was asking for approximately 200 acres of EFU under an identified specific need process, Mr. Burton continued. They identified a specific need in this case related to a specific type of technological employment that required non-interruptible electrical sources, accessibility to certain types of exotic gases and then coverage that needed to happen through police and fire services. This was not related to a larger cluster but had to be in that specific area. It was a fairly narrow specific case. He suggested the Council ask Hillsboro how they would house any jobs that occurred on that site. That housing should be provided within their current existing housing opportunities within Hillsboro without having to expand the boundary, he said. This had not been done before; therefore, he suggested that this be put in a separate ordinance if the Council was going to consider it. Mr. Burton then suggested having legal staff review it as well to see if it meet the need. He said he thought Hillsboro was working to create that. He suggested asking Hillsboro to follow-up on the same process that Gresham had done with Multnomah County as to what Washington County would do with the City of Hillsboro to determine how they were going to accommodate the relationship with that area to the industry next door which was agriculture. The total recommended acreage was 555 acres of jobs in the net. That was short of what had been identified as a potential need. Mr. Burton said he was not doing this in the context of a larger economic development plan or aspirational planning that he felt Metro should do, but what was required by law. This would help get a little further down the road. It did leave the question in the next year through Task 3 or other types of actions the Council may take to address those larger questions. Chair Park said part of this was work that the committee had asked for in terms of looking for properties that were in the exception areas that had less than 10% slope.

Councilor Bragdon asked, on the specified land need, if the Executive Officer would recommend particular conditions to ensure that such land would be used for that specified need rather than another use. Mr. Burton responded that he was not sure what they could do to assure that. If it was identified as land that was needed for a particular type of industry then there should be conditions. Mr. Benner clarified that Metro did have the authority under Metro code to impose conditions on land coming into the boundary and he suggested tailoring the conditions to the proposed need. Mr. Burton said he would provide Council with language for that specific need. He said he would ask for a separate draft ordinance as well. Chair Park said he had asked Mr. Benner to come back with some examples of specific identified land need so the committee would have an idea about what the level of the test that would be required.

Regarding the City of Hillsboro, Councilor McLain said she hoped Mr. Burton would hold off on his request that housing match jobs until the committee had further discussion. She didn't want to see too many limitations on Metro’s ability to deal with proposals. Mr. Burton and Councilor McLain discussed Hillsboro, the Forest Grove land swap and Cornelius.

Chair Park said in the discussions that were going on in the Gresham area, Gresham had very much been a partner with Multnomah County in trying to come up with some type of way to harden the green line and protection of that agricultural industry. He asked Mr. Burton if he was aware of similar discussions between Hillsboro and Washington County. He also wanted to know why Mr. Burton had not recommended "the flower pot," the exception lands to the west of what he was recommending. Mr. Burton said he did not know if Washington County had had discussions with Hillsboro. Councilor McLain mentioned an exception land parcel on Evergreen Road, which was right on the corner and included a large church. She said she had also heard testimony that if that exception land on the corner got brought in, that the folks next to it, along Evergreen frontage, should be brought in. Another parcel was what was called the “flower pot” by Sewell Road at the end of the Hillsboro Airport runway. Testimony had said that it was parcelized but there were 20 to 40-acres parcels that could be assembled. There were owners who felt caught between urbanization and the airport. It was exception land and it was first tier, she said. Mr. Burton said that was part of what the city needed to come and discuss with Metro. On a larger basis, the state needed to go back and review all of the zoning areas. The Council needed to ask the questions to the City of Hillsboro and DLCD. Councilor McLain said they had asked those questions previously. The point was that the Council needed to remind themselves that they still had to go through the same whole criteria and discussion about Tier 1 properties. Chair Park said Councilor McLain made a very correct point.

Mr. Burton said he would come back one more time in November to make some refinements to his recommendation on residential. He said the Periodic Review process gave Metro the opportunity to have discussions with LCDC.

6.  PROPOSED FORECAST RANGE. Mr. Cotugno said questions had been raised about the forecast numbers, and he detailed the specifics of the forecast and the linkages between population and employment (a copy of which is included in this record). He indicated that staff needed direction from the committee on what they wanted.

Councilor Hosticka asked for clarification on the 1.1% population growth rate in the forecast, and discussion followed on the specific terms used in the forecast and their definition.

Councilor Burkholder suggested using the terms high growth forecast, low growth forecast and expected growth forecast. If we change the terms, he said, we are still left with numbers and those numbers are what we had to deal with when we start looking at this decision and we should not worry about the terms. Councilor Atherton said the use of terms affected attitude and may create bias.

Chair Park refocused the discussion. Responding to a query from him on options, Mr. Benner said Metro was not required by state law to use any particular methodology or any particular forecast, but the law required that they have one, and it must be based on sound methodology and information. He said the Council was also going to have to make their decision based upon what was in the record, and the record was still open. Currently what they had was the Executive Officer's recommendation and his forecast. The Planning Department said their forecast was based upon sound information and methodology. If the Council was to ask Mr. Benner if LCDC would accept this, he said he felt they would accept the forecast. He noted another forecast in the record from the Port of Portland. There had been discussion of this forecast in the record including documents presented today (a copy of which is included in this record). He said some questions had arisen about the adequacy of that Port of Portland forecast or the usefulness in this context. He said based on the record, the most defensible forecast Metro had was the one from the Executive Officer's recommendation. In order for the Council to do something entirely different, chose a number that did not come from either of those forecasts, they would have to have new information in the record.

Councilor Hosticka said on the so-called Port of Portland forecast that he would characterize it as the DRI/WEFA forecast because that was the group that submitted it. When he reviewed that forecast, he said, it said it was prepared for Metro. He expressed concern that it was prepared for Metro and although it was dated June 2002, he said the first time the Council saw it was in September 2002. If it was prepared for Metro, then it was Metro's forecast. If he wanted to question the forecast, he suggested bringing in those individuals who prepared the forecast to answer questions. He then said he wanted to make sure that forecast was part of the record.

Chair Park asked Mr. Yee to explain his analysis process. Mr. Cotugno said Mr. Yee prepared the Metro forecast using national and international inputs from DRI/WEFA. Independent of that, through the MTIP process, there was money allocated to update the commodity flow forecast. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was the agent for all of those federal funds so their name was on it. Metro subcontracted with the Port of Portland to produce that commodity flow forecast. Metro was not contracting for a population and employment forecast. They had to drive their commodity forecast off of an economic forecast. They chose to use that forecast because most of the commodities that go into and through the metropolitan region were not driven by our economy. Commodities were driven by the national and international commodities. They needed a consistent and complete data set for all of those forecasts that hang together. That data set had this forecast for the Portland metropolitan region. They chose that data set because the national/international movement of commodities influences the volumes going through much more so than our own economic data. We were not buying their economic forecast, Mr. Cotugno said, we were buying their commodity forecast. This was our piece of the underpinning data to that commodity forecast. Mr. Yee was not involved with the commodity forecast; it was being done for transportation purposes.

Councilor McLain said no one was questioning what Mr. Yee did. She said the committee was trying to figure out how the economic forecast and the commodities forecast relate to each other. She understood how they related but what the law said was that the Council had to take all of the information that was in the record. The Council's job was to relate to that information and figure out what it meant for their purpose. She agreed with Mr. Benner on the fact that they had to explain where the number came from, what the number was, and make sure that all of that passed the sniff test. That was what the Council was trying to do.

Councilor Bragdon said the committee needed to look at the purpose of the forecast and gave examples of how the commodity forecast might be used. Second, he said he felt the sniff test was a peer review as well as the track record and purpose of why it was being done and having a panel of people look at our forecast. He understood this had been done. He said he thought that was part of making this a justifiable number.

Mr. Cotugno agreed, but said he was not saying the committee shouldn't go through that review process nor have DRI/WEFA come in and explain their forecast. He said Councilor Bragdon's point about the purpose of the forecast was extremely important to understand. He suggesting pressing DRI/WEFA on the adequacy of their forecast for Metro’s decisions, applications and use the information that they share with the committee. If the committee was interested in going through the same kind of probing of the Metro forecast, his department was the one the committee needed to probe, as they were the one that produced the forecast. If the committee wanted to hear more details, staff could provide more details, they could explain and hopefully give the committee the confidence of the underpinnings including not just the assumptions made but the historical track record of how close they had come on those assumptions. Staff needed more direction on what the committee wanted.

Chair Park summarized the discussion: 1) have DRI/WEFA come in and give an explanation of their forecast, and 2) the fact that there’s a fine line between asking questions of Mr. Yee's assumptions versus crossing over to ask him to rerun some numbers based upon changed assumptions. He said he was trying to remove temptation and keep Metro from losing their legal defensibility. He asked Mr. Benner to comment on the technical forecast.

Mr. Benner said there are assumptions that lie behind a forecast which are based upon past experience and professional forecasting. If the committee wanted to question those assumptions, he said, that was fine. If they decided they wanted to change an assumption, that could be done as well, but they would probably have to have some basis for making the change. He said he would expect with most of the assumptions that the committee would have to have something in the record to explain the change. If they were questioning assumptions, they might find one that was not defensible, in their estimation, as it stood based on what the committee had heard and that they felt the record in front of them supported a different assumption. There needed to be support in the record.

Councilor Hosticka asked Mr. Benner to interpret for him the case DLCD versus Douglas County, in which DLCD contended that Douglas County made faulty assumptions that were not supported. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) said that their decision had to be supported by substantial evidence which they defined as when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. The question, he said, was did the committee have to comb through this with a fine-tooth comb or was this substantial evidence and reasonable person kind of a situation.

Mr. Benner summarized that Councilor Hosticka was asking two questions: 1) does there have to be evidence in the record and 2) is it substantial evidence. Councilor Hosticka concurred with his summary. Mr. Benner said there had to be substantial evidence in the whole record. LUBA was really invoking a long history of case law about what substantial evidence was, essentially one had to find something in the record that a reasonable person would rely upon to reach a conclusion. You can do that even in the presence of conflicting evidence. It was up to the Council to choose.

Councilor Hosticka said he’d looked at DRI/WEFA’s assumptions, which Metro has used to rely on our staff forecast. One of their assumptions was that over the next 20 years or more, the national debt will shrink and that the federal budget will run surpluses through 2017. He said he didn’t find those to be credible assumptions based upon all of the information that he had seen in the economic record. On that basis, he said he could say this whole forecast was based upon faulty assumptions.

Councilor Atherton said he sensed from Mr. Benner’s response to Councilor Hosticka that the committee was able to exercise some judgment. Mr. Benner said the committee would have facts, possibly conflicting facts, in front of them and they would have to exercise their judgment in choosing which of those they wanted to use as the basis for their decision. Councilor Atherton said he had specific questions he would like to ask staff and Chair Park suggested he speak one-on-one with Mr. Yee, then produce a list of his questions he may have beyond that. This would address Councilor Atherton’s concern of how to get them in the record, Chair Park said.

Chair Park said it there was a desire to use another forecast, something needed to be in the record on it as well as time given for staff to be able to come back with additional information. Councilor Hosticka said he wanted the latest version of the Office of Economic Analysis of the State of Oregon's long-term population/economic forecast for Oregon State and county total populations in the record as additional data to analyze.

Councilor McLain said she wanted to discuss the forecast. Councilor Monroe said he had learned that when you hire a lawyer for advice, you should take that advice. Metro’s attorneys were telling the committee they had to have a defensible number, and the committee only has one defensible number, in their estimation, that was credible and defensible. So there are two choices, he said. The committee can accept that number and go forward or it can ask Metro’s economist and staff to go back, re-do it and come back in 6 weeks to 2 months with either another or the same number. It comes down to those two choices. Chair Park said another question would be would they also have to go back and look at capacity.

Councilor Hosticka asked legal counsel if they believed Metro had only one single defensible number at this point. Mr. Cooper said Mr. Benner’s comment was based on evidence in the record. The number presented was defensible. Whether the committee had more or not depended on what got put into the record. Councilor Hosticka had asked that the state of Oregon’s number be included in the record, he added, so that might be another number the committee could choose.

Councilor McLain she said was accepting staff’s number, that it was their best. She said she was asking for a discussion on what that number meant and how it was going to be used and said she thought that was a more productive choice since that helped the committee with other decisions for which they were using this as a foundation.

Councilor Bragdon said it was clear that the committee had some discretion in judgment calls, but it was very conditional. They could not alter assumptions based on no data just because they would like to have a different outcome. They could ask questions about the assumptions but they couldn’t engage in wishful thinking. The real judgment call in all this was to rely on the experts, he said, who had a track record for the purpose expressly at hand. Mr. Yee didn’t just have opinions, Councilor Bragdon said, he had expert analysis and credentials as well as validation by others in his profession. The seven councilors may have opinions, he added, but the discussion was who they were going to rely on. He said questioning the assumptions was fine but trying to alter the assumptions was not fine.

Councilor Atherton said Mr. Benner had said the most defensible number was 1.6. He asked if legal counsel could say if there was a defensible range of numbers. Mr. Cooper responded that he thought 1.6, based on the current record, was defensible. If the Council adopted that and sent it off to the Commission, they could be persuaded that that was a good number and the Commission would uphold it. The 1.1 and the 1.9 numbers were probably not defensible at this point, he said, because they would be hard to defend based on what was in the record. Those were not numbers legal counsel would recommend the committee choose.

Chair Park said it was time to move this process forward. If there was a desire to change the direction the committee was going, he asked them in what forum they would like more information. The DRI/WEFA report had been reintroduced into the record, the state report would also be in the record. He asked if that was enough or was there more information that the committee felt needed to be included in the record.

Councilor Hosticka said he was not persuaded that another forecast need be produced for this committee. He did think it useful, as suggested by Councilor McLain, to have a discussion on the implications of the different forecasts, i.e., what were the policy implications if the committee used the DRI/WEFA or the state's forecast so they could see what was at stake. An exchange between the committee members would be useful, he added, and then they could decide where to go with it. Chair Park said he assumed that would relate back to what it would do to the necessity for land for housing and land for jobs. Councilor Hosticka agreed and said he would be happy to talk about the economic consequences if they over or under forecast.

Chair Park said that discussion would be interesting but he was not sure how to get there, that the technical forecast said the growth rate was at 1.6%. If the committee wanted to do a policy forecast in terms of taking a different number, then they would have to be looking at policies that would give them an economic growth rate greater than what they expected to see with 1.6% population growth rate.

Councilor McLain said we were not looking for a different number. She said they had asked for a chance to talk about the number. What we are asking for, she said, was a realistic policy conversation on what it meant if you forecast high or low. When they get done with that discussion, then they could figure out what they wanted done with that information, she said. She requested giving the committee a chance to talk about this. They had done this before and it didn’t fall apart. We had a low, medium and high forecast conversation, she said, and that conversation was part of the record, and then they proceeded to the next job. She acknowledged that this was the forecast, and now asked what needed to be done with different types of polices inside the boundary and what needed to be done as far as amendments to the boundary. There were three particular pieces Mr. Benner had laid out in the decision track. She suggested having that conversation at the next meeting under forecasting. She said she thought they were taking the advice of Metro's attorneys.

Chair Park said this conversation would be either at the next meeting or the one after that. He needed to check back with MPAC. Without looking at the forecast, maybe the discussion should be actually on the population size itself, he said. Councilor Hosticka said the decision before them was how much to expand the boundary, the consequences of over or under expanding and that was what they needed to talk about.

7.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Chair Park reminded the committee of the evening public hearing in Damascus on Thursday.

8.  ADJOURN. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Christina Billington

Council Clerk

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2002

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

Attachments to the Public Record for the Meeting of October 8, 2002 (continued)

Attachments to the Public Record for the Meeting of October 8, 2002 (continued)

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.