MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Portland Council Chamber

1221 SW 4^th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

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

Members Absent:  None.

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Each of the Metro Councilors introduced themselves and identified the areas they represented.

2.  OVERVIEW OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT PROCESS. Councilor Burkholder talked about the seven public hearings that were held around the region to solicit citizen input and gave an overview of Metro’s outreach efforts to ensure citizens were notified of the hearings. He stressed the importance of involving as many citizens as possible in the decision-making process. He explained that the urban growth boundary (UGB) process occurs every five years under state law and that Metro must assess how much additional land the region will need in the next 20 years to accommodate an additional 500,000 people who are projected to move or be born here. Councilor Burkholder said that the challenge was to make room for the projected growth while at the same time preserving clean air and water, a strong economy, people's ability to connect with nature, good transportation options, and great neighborhoods, all within the context of state laws and statutes and planning goals. He added that Portland compared very favorably to other metropolitan areas in terms of livability, due in part to the UGB and its effect on controlling sprawl.

Chair Park stressed that if Metro expands the UGB, that decision would not mean that cities would automatically have to annex or provide services to those particular areas, nor would it require property owners to change the use of their land. He said that expansion of the UGB created possibilities but not requirements. He described the scope of the Executive Officer’s recommendations, which called for the expansion of approximately 17,000 acres, mostly in the Damascus area east of I-205, but also including smaller expansion areas around Oregon City, Wilsonville, Sherwood, Beaverton, north of Hillsboro and near Forest Park. Chair Park then introduced Metro’s Planning Director, Andy Cotugno, to provide background on why those areas were chosen for expansion.

Mr. Cotugno explained that the Executive Officer’s recommendation had three major components. The first was an overall forecast establishing the need, the second had to do with Metro's code ensuring using land within the existing boundary as efficiently as possible, and the third component was the UGB expansion itself and the hierarchy of the state rules that apply. Mr. Cotugno talked about the growth need, population forecast, housing unit shortfall, industrial lands, job lands shortfalls, and lands adjacent to the urban growth boundary and spoke about state requirements concerning what lands must be considered first.

Before opening the hearing to public testimony, Chair Park explained that what the committee needed now was technical information, particularly any characteristics of parcels of land that Metro was not aware of, such as streams or wetlands, or other features that would make them more or less buildable.

He explained that all the information had to be submitted by November 1, when the record would close. At that point, the committee would go into work session and at the end of November would make its recommendation to the full Council. The Council would make a decision in early December, hopefully by December 5.

Gil Kelley, Portland Planning Director, spoke for Mayor Katz and Commissioner Saltzman and the Portland Planning Bureau. He said he was not at the hearing to advocate for inclusion or exclusion of any particular parcel of land, but urged the committee to get the perspectives of the citizens who live inside the UGB and to proceed with caution on meeting the state mandate.

He noted that Portland greatly benefits from a tight urban growth boundary, which is a powerful economic redevelopment incentive for areas inside the UGB that have not been developed or developed to appropriate densities. He stressed that there is still a great supply of developable land within the UGB. He talked specifically about the South Waterfront District, which he said would accommodate about 5,000 housing units, in addition to office development, greenway and parks, all within a 50-acre parcel, compared to 500 acres at the fringe of the boundary meeting minimum densities to accommodate the same number of housing units. He added that proponents of the 20-year land supply rule are building a decreasing percentage of total housing, while demand for urban living is increasing.

Mr. Kelley discussed Portland’s stand vis-à-vis the Executive Officer’s recommendations, which he said were covered in detail in the Metro Policy Advisory Committee’s (MPAC) recommendations, and urged Metro to encourage staff to do further work on Title IV; start to look at an appropriate urban forum for the region; not make use of the subregional rule; and expand the tool kit for building Centers.

1.  DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 02-969, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, the Regional Framework Plan and the Metro Code in order to increase the capacity of the Boundary to Accommodate Population Growth to the Year 2022; and Declaring an Emergency.

Chair Park opened a public hearing on Draft Ordinance No. 02-969.

Thomas VanderZanden, 15903 NW Logie, Hillsboro, OR 97124, said he represented approximately 100 acres of property owned collectively by Mark Ellerbrook (19160 SW Pomona Drive, Beaverton, OR 97007), Larry Perrin (14810 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231) and Keith Fishback (11375 NW Roy Road, Portland, OR 97106). Mr. VanderZanden supported inclusion of a parcel of land within areas 84, 85 and 86. He said that the new boundary recommended by the Executive Officer reflected a break-off in the hillside that gets very steep, with the exception of a small area of roughly 100 acres. He added that this parcel could be gravity sewer connected to the entire area and inclusion would give a better opportunity to master plan the area and would meet both legal and common sense tests.

Councilor McLain asked if bringing in the parcel of land would cause the entire area to be served with fewer pump stations and result in more efficient service. Mr. VanderZanden replied that it would and said that from all points of view, particularly roads, sewer and water, it made sense to bring the parcel into the UGB at this time.

Jim Irvine, The Conifer Group, 16550 SE 232^nd, Boring, OR 97009, spoke for himself and Dan Fishback, 40065 NW Wilkesboro Road, Banks, OR 97106. He said that the time it takes to get approval on a piece of property was becoming a greater part of a developer’s investment in infill as well as suburban development, due primarily to environmental constraints (not developing over wetlands, etc.); neighborhood bias; and issues of topography and property size in infill development. He added that there is significant pressure in Washington County on land supply and that without the current low interest rates, developers wouldn’t be able to deliver an affordable product to the market. Mr. Irvine said that he supports mixed-use development and believes more should be done. However, he said, there is a huge constraint on the ability to deliver mixed use development on a large scale because there is no secondary market that is federally allowed to use its bonds for mixed use purposes. He then focused on the 100-acre parcel in areas 84, 85 and 86 that Tom VanderZanden discussed earlier. Mr. Irvine recommended inclusion because he said it would be easy to add and utilize efficiently. He added that if the parcel were not brought in now, it was likely that it would not be utilized until such time that Abbey Creek was utilized for sewer and water, and the cost would be significantly greater at that time. Finally, he encouraged the committee to look at the issue of utilization of land, making sure that there are not orphan pieces.

Keith Fishback, 11375 NW Roy Road, Portland, OR 97106, spoke in favor of including his property into the UGB because pressures from urbanization made farming the land impractical. (Mr. Fishback’s written testimony is included as a part of this record.)

Frank Parisi, Morse Bros., Inc., 1630 SW Morrison, Portland, OR 97205, said that Morse Bros., which operates Coffey Lake Quarry, was opposed to the inclusion of area 48 in the UGB because the action would begin the process of restricting industrial operations on the quarry. (Mr. Parisi’s written testimony is included as a part of this record.) In response to a question from Councilor Hosticka, Mr. Parisi said his company had been working with the City of Tualatin for about a week on this issue. Councilor Hosticka expressed an interest in meeting with him for further discussion.

Keith Liden, 400 SW 6^th, Portland, OR 97204, said that he represented the West Linn/Wilsonville School District and the City of King City. As a planning consultant for the school district, he recommended the inclusion of the Frog Pond site in area 45 into the UGB because he said it would result in an ideally-located primary school to accommodate land currently in the UGB, and would ultimately result in four primary schools, one in each quadrant of the City of Wilsonville. He said that Metro staff had recommended approval in a staff report dated July 2002. He noted that the district is concerned about an ordinance being considered to bring in multiple sites, including the Frog Pond site. They would like to keep theirs separate if possible because the criteria applied to a school site is unique. Second, as a planning consultant for King City, Mr. Liden said he supported bringing into the UGB a 17-acre area of floodplain land next to the Tualatin River, which is in the city limits but not in the UGB. It was presumably not included during the last round of expansion because it is not developable, but this has caused a number of jurisdictional and procedural issues for the city

Arnold Rochlin, Forest Park Neighborhood Association, PO Box 83645, Portland, OR 97283, said he opposed the inclusion of areas 84, 85 and 86 into the UGB. He said those areas were necessary to maintain the quality of Forest Park by maintaining the continuity of open space for the wildlife that inhabits that unique regional resource. He said he believes that the land currently in the UGB would be sufficient for the next 20 years, particularly if all the development agencies within the Metro area charged all of the system development fees that the state allowed at the rate of 100% cost. This would make it more economical to develop within the UGB. He urged the committee to withdraw its proposal to accommodate subregional needs, which he said undermined the whole concept of the UGB.

Steven Edelman, Box 91519, Portland, OR 97291, spoke in support of Metro’s recommendation not to include area 93 in the expanded UGB. He said that this area is close-in exception land surrounded on three sides by the UGB and, at first glance, would appear to be a good candidate for inclusion. However, area 93, particularly the eastern two-thirds of the main rectangular portion, would be expensive to service with sewers. Much of the study area is already developed with high-value homes on parcels of one to five acres and categorized as unlikely to be further developed. Other factors, such as Metro’s work on Goal 5, would probably eliminate substantial additional property due to the multiple streams crossing the area.

Bob LeFeber, 50 SW Pine Street, Portland, OR 97204, said he was in the commercial real estate development business and the state director for ICSC, the International Council of Shopping Centers. He said he believed that the rate of retail development was going to slow down and that he would like Metro to defer the Title IV re-write. (A copy of Mr. LeFeber’s testimony is included as a part of this record.)

Brad Miller, 4455 NE Alameda, Portland, OR 97213, introduced himself as the former Government Relations chair for ICSC. He said he had two concerns relating to the Employment Land Needs Analysis and use of that report in determining the UGB as it relates to commercial uses. The report currently predicts a small surplus of 760 acres of land available for commercial uses. The conclusion is dependent on a number of assumptions that he said he didn’t agree with. Under Metro’s assumptions, over half of the available commercial land in the future would come from vacant industrial land or refill land. Under Title IV, a lot of this land is not really available for retail use currently, nor would it be under the proposed rewrite. Mr. Miller said he concluded that if Title IV protects this industrial land, there would be a shortage of commercial land that will need to be addressed. He spoke about the need for some large lots for commercial use. He said that large format stores are able to price goods more cheaply than small format stores and that it was important to give people the ability to shop at the larger stores if they chose to. He urged that the portion of Title IV that relates to the protection of employment areas be delayed until Metro’s proposed Centers work program, which will study retail needs and how they fit within Centers and the UGB decision, can take into account the need for at least some large commercial lots within the UGB.

John Ringert, Kittelson and Associates, Inc., 610 SW Alder, St. 700, Portland, OR 97205, said Kittelson and Associates provides planning for communities and developments throughout the region. His comments related to Title IV and its limitations on retail and employment areas of 60,000 square feet. He said the limitation would result in consumers having to shop at smaller stores with higher prices and limited selections or would cause them to travel further to get to the type of product they wanted.

Andrew Erwin, 16050 NW Ramona Dr., Beaverton, OR 97006, spoke for himself and family members John Cooper, 12110 NW South Dr., Portland 97229, and Chris Browning, 4199 NW Chaparral, Beaverton, OR 97006. Mr. Erwin said that together his family owns 5 acres in area 93, which is located in an area where people want houses and close to the tech cluster of the Hillsboro area. He said the area is completely surrounded by the UGB. The western border is developed or being developed and sewer has been brought up to that boundary. The area to the south is completely built up. The Forest Heights development is adjacent to the southeast corner of area 93. Currently, 49.6% of area 93 is buildable. He addressed the committee’s concern that the area is too steep for development by noting that only 13% of the area is designated as steep slope, most of it in the northeast corner. He cited other areas in the UGB or in the Executive Officer’s recommendation that have a greater percentage designated as steep slope, such as Forest Heights, Cooper Mountain, and areas in Damascus. Since the soil is not suitable for farming and the plots not big enough, he said the only decision currently available was to sell land as 5-acre single estates. In response to a question from Councilor Monroe, Mr. Erwin estimated that 637 housing sites would be available in area 93.

Scott Hamilton, 7270 NW Helvetia Rd., Hillsboro, OR 97124, said he had been a resident of area 81-84 for 16 years and had lived in Washington County for 48 years. He said he agreed with expansion of the UGB in general. As an electrical contractor, he had seen diminishing availability of sites for affordable housing and he supported bringing in as much property for housing as quickly as possible. His primary concern was livability at the edges of the UGB, particularly as it was affected by traffic produced by increased density. Mr. Hamilton said he would like to see a provision for residents to make proposals to limit truck traffic and traffic speed in the area. He summarized by saying that density had provided dangers to people living at the edge of the UGB and that these dangers needed to be addressed.

Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association, 15555 SW Bangy, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said he had concerns with the number of areas in the UGB and the capacity of buildable land, which he said was significantly less than what had been projected in the urban growth report (UGR) and the Executive Officer’s recommendations. He recommended a reexamination of those areas and a correction of deficiencies as identified by the Home Builders Association. He said the association supported efforts to bring homes and jobs to Clackamas County but had concerns about trying to do too much in the Damascus area. He spoke to infill and redevelopment and the anxiety among neighborhood residents regarding how neighborhoods would change and density would increase. Mr. Ross summarized by recommending that Metro reduce the residential capacity of land in Damascus, because of the high development cost, and to seek additional time from the state’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to pursue a more balanced plan. (A copy of Mr. Ross’ testimony is included as a part of this record.)

Geri Kraft, Kraft Pact, 1528 46^th Ave. SW, Seattle, WA 98116, said she was representing her family, which owned property just outside of the UGB near two areas recommended for inclusion by the Executive Officer. They owned 130 acres along the south side of Dairy Creek, just north of study areas 76 and 77 into the UGB. Her grandfather bought the family farm in 1938 and operated it as a dairy farm. All the property owners currently lived outside Oregon and the farm’s income barely covered real estate taxes. About 70% of the farm was in a flood plain, leaving about 30 acres of developable land. Her family supported the Executive Officer’s recommendation to include areas 76 and 77 into the UGB. She said that Dairy Creek would make a natural boundary and obvious separation between urban and rural lands and that the flood plain would make good park or recreation areas for the City of Cornelius. She said she would like to see the land developed cohesively and not a piece at a time. (Ms. Kraft submitted a copy of a map, included as a part of this record.)

Jerry Grossnickle, Forest Park Neighborhood Association, 13510 NW Old Germantown Rd., Portland, OR 97231, said he lived in area 89. He said the association supported the Executive Officer’s recommendation to not include the area into the UGB. He said that the area provided drainage from Forest Park to farmlands in Washington County and supported a large diversity of wildlife. Much of the land was designated as exception land, but was rural/residential. He suggested using the top of the hill above Abbey Creek as a natural boundary rather than Abbey Creek itself. Mr. Grossnickle submitted written testimony, included as a part of this record.)

Ken Sinansky, 14125 NW Old Germantown Rd., Portland, OR 97231, said he opposed inclusion of area 89 into the UGB, and spoke to some of areas 86 or 87. Area 89 had steep slopes and multiple landslides had occurred in the area. Development of area 89 could degrade tributaries and impact wildlife. (Mr. Sinansky submitted written testimony, included as a part of this record.)

Chris Smith, 2393 NW Pettygrove St., Portland, OR 97210, asked the committee to expand the UGB the least amount possible in order to protect lands outside the boundary. He added that, to the extent that Metro might make large additions to the boundary, complete communities should be kept in mind and to address imbalances in housing and jobs. They should ensure that jobs and housing were more tightly coupled. He stressed the importance of providing industrial lands within the high-tech cluster.

Jill Fuglister, Coalition for a Livable Future, 1220 SW Morrison, Ste. 535, Portland, OR 97205, said a coalition panel had developed a set of principles regarding the UGB expansion and asked the committee to consider those principles, as follows:

-  Metro has not exhausted all opportunities to use land more efficiently while protecting environmentally sensitive lands within UGB. Expansion should occur only when all opportunities for accommodating anticipated growth inside the UGB were exhausted.

-  Implement specific strategies to refocus energy within the UGB, thereby reducing and/or eliminating the need for future expansions, such as: explore zoning code impact fee and design guideline audits, new incentives for redevelopment and infill of underdeveloped, vacant and polluted lands.

-  If Metro were to expand the UGB, bring in and plan areas as whole communities consistent with the 2040 vision. Any expansion decision should establish comprehensive standards for development of the area as a condition of expansion.

(Ms. Fuglister’s written testimony is included as a part of this record.)

Michael Anderson, Community Development Network, 2627 NE MLK, #202, Portland, OR 97212, urged Metro to fulfill its responsibilities outlined in the regional affordable housing strategy before considering any further UGB expansion. He said a UGB expansion was a real solution to the region’s affordable housing crisis. He said expanded development did not equate with greater affordability. He said low-income residents were being forced to the outer rings of the Metro area, where they were without good access to jobs, transportation and essential services. He recommended using the regional affordable housing strategy as a first resort. If Metro were to opt for the proposed expansion, there must be safeguards in place to ensure a mix of all housing types in residential areas. Tools to ensure affordable housing included voluntary inclusionary zoning, a speculation tax and other tools to capture a portion of windfall profits reaped by an expansion.

Jim Labbe, Audubon Society of Portland, 5151 NW Cornell Road, Portland, OR 97210, gave the following suggestions:

1)  Conduct baseline natural resource inventories to determine which areas to protect, enhance or restore.

2)  Ensure ecological integrity and biodiviersity of those areas over time.

3)  Preserve and restore natural stream flows to ensure healthy watershed function.

4)  Preserve and enhance an interconnected network of wildlife corridors within the UGB and to adjacent rural areas.

5)  Provide a full range of parks, have funding plans in place to ensure parks and open spaces were integrated into the urban landscape.

6)  Prohibit development in all natural hazard areas.

Mr. Labbe distributed a visual aid to the committee regarding development in Forest Park.

Ross Williams, Citizens for Sensible Transportation, 1220 SW Morrison, St. 535, Portland, OR 97205, said that it was important to make the most efficient use possible of land within the UGB. He said Metro needed to provide needed land for industrial and commercial development. He recommended eliminating under-use of land by transforming surface parking lots into structured parking and finding incentives to achieve that goal. He recommended reducing demand for parking by encouraging people to bike, walk and use mass transit. He opposed expansion of the UGB as long as large amounts of land within the UGB were under-utilized.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3^rd, St. 300, Portland, OR 97204, opposed expansion of the UGB in five years, other than for specific identified land needs. She said the recommended refill rate was unambitious. She said that Metro staff would be expending energy on implementing the Regional Framework Plan, and not crunching numbers for the UGB. She said that Metro should focus on how to use employment lands more efficiently and discourage one-story commercial buildings. She said Metro should engage in a discussion with the agricultural community, that agriculture had needs just as any other employment industry. Gresham and Multnomah County in the Springwater area had adopted tools to establish a permanent border on the east side of Gresham to protect nursery industry and to focus scarce infrastructure resources to where urbanization should occur, which was a good model for other parts of the region. Ms. McCurdy provided specific recommendations to reduce the need for residential land such as increasing the residential refill rate from the Executive Officer’s recommendation and increasing residential capacity. She said 1000 Friends supported bringing the Damascus/Boring area into the UGB, including 57 acres of exception land for industrial use, the Springwater area. They did not support including the Shute Road area, by which she said there was no logical boundary to stop the progression to North Plains and beyond. She said the Executive Officer’s assessment of industrial land need required further review, based upon new information released in Metro’s report on performance measures. (Ms. McCurdy submitted written testimony, included as a part of this record.)

Alex Dorsey, N/NE Economic Development Alliance, 4134 N Vancouver, Portland, OR 97211, described the geographic area covered by the alliance. She asked the committee to look at the economic impacts of the expansion, as there was room for infill and redevelopment within the current UGB. She spoke to vacant properties in northeast Portland areas zoned for commercial, residential or mixed-use. She said over 900 abandoned homes had been renovated or rebuilt in the last seven years. She asked the committee to look at the impacts of expansion on poor communities and communities of color. With each expansion, poverty wasn’t diminishing but migrating. Such migration to the outer core of the region forced people to come back into their former communities to use public and social services, resulting in an inaccurate calculation of dollars required to serve certain areas. She asked the committee to closely examine existing codes that allowed vacant properties to lie dormant for lengthy periods and codes that triggered improvements beyond the ability of certain business owners.

Rob DeGraff, Portland Business Alliance, 221 NW 2^nd, #300, Portland, OR 97209, said the Portland Business Alliance had been a long-time supporter of Metro and the 2040 Plan. Their concern was to focus on the adequacy of the region’s supply of land for jobs, specifically industrial lands. They supported MPAC’s and the Metro Technical Advisory Committee’s (MTAC’s ) recommendations to include additional land for jobs in the UGB near existing economic clusters. Based on the Regional Industrial Lands Study (RILS), the region’s need for industrial land was significantly greater than the additions recommended by MPAC and MTAC. They supported Metro’s pursuing a Task 3 to the Periodic Review in a work plan that addressed a regional economic development strategy and worked with partners to respond to the plan and to the market. Metro should not develop a regional economic strategy of its own, he said. The RILS study indicated that a significant percentage of commercial land need in the last decade was met by converting industrial zoned land to commercial uses. That finding had sparked work on Title 4 that, if adopted, would appropriately make such conversions more difficult to accomplish. The required projections on industrial and commercial land should change. The additional land recommended by MPAC and MTAC did not meet the industrial land shortfall. The Goal 5 program was expected to have significant impact on the region’s buildable land supply. The Alliance supported taking into account the effects of that program prior to the next periodic review.

Chair Park asked if the Alliance was willing to wait for the issues to be sorted out in a Task 3. Mr. De Graff responded that is was important to consider those issues in a Task 3 and not try to make a decision by the end of year. Councilor Atherton said he didn’t think there was a proposal for Metro to develop its own economic strategy. Mr. DeGraff responded that Metro did not have the expertise to develop a regional economic strategy and partners who were already working on such a plan should be consulted and have their work incorporated into Metro’s process. Councilor McLain asked Mr. DeGraff to clarify that Metro still had important contributions to make in the regional economic development strategy process. Mr. DeGraff assented.

Kim Vandehey, 17207 SW Siler Ridge Lane, Aloha, OR 97007, said Washington County needed areas to develop in the next twenty years, such as the northern portion of area 65. He said it was exception land, all utilities were available and wildlife corridors would be preserved by Goal 3. He said the region needed a variety of housing and variety of locations. People should live close to parks, he said, and his area had just received a new park. Washington County used State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds to build roads and he didn’t see that changing. He said the area didn’t have good soil, so was difficult to farm. He said he represented six property owners and seven parcels totaling 120 acres, which could all be master planned. He said area 65 was left out by mistake in the mid-70s when Washington County planned the area, and he would like to correct that. (Mr. Vandehey submitted written testimony, included as a part of this record.)

Curt Hinck, 16820 SW Silver Ridge, Beaverton, OR 97007 said he was a fourth generation Washington County resident and landowner. He said his group was hoping to solidify opposition to inclusion of Area 65 in UGB. He said the group wanted to present and summarize petition signatures of those opposing inclusion of area 65 and provide a detailed land-use assessment of area 65 which took into account the petition as it related to individual landowners within 65 who did not want to develop their land. Mr. Hinck spoke to information distributed to the committee regarding Cooper Mountain.

Teri Tomlinson, 16850 SW Silver Ridge, Beaverton, OR 97007 said she lived in site 65. She said 368 people had signed the petition, 113 of which lived within site 65 (said petition with original signatures submitted and made a part of this record). Since there were 148 tax lots in site 65, 113 signatures was a significant portion. She said the petitioners were interested in saving beauty and wildlife in Cooper Mountain area. Chair Park asked if Ms. Tomlinson was within Metro’s current jurisdictional boundary or whether she paid a zoo tax. Ms. Tomlinson assented. Councilor McLain said a previous testimony had addressed the same area that included maps and support for inclusion, and that the committee would be comparing Ms. Tomlinson’s testimony with that previous testimony. Chair Park said that if Ms. Tomlinson lived outside the jurisdictional boundary and Metro were to move the UGB around the area in question, a double majority would be required before any type of development could occur.

Sharon Meek, 17855 SW Skyline Woods, Beaverton, OR 97007 spoke to a detailed productivity assessment of Area 65, which was Exhibit C of the petition submitted earlier by Ms. Tomlinson.

John Meek, 17855 SW Skyline Woods, Beaverton, OR 97007 spoke to the summary conclusions he had submitted to the committee (also with the above mentioned petition) and said it was the feeling of the people in the Cooper Mountain area that it should be preserved. He spoke to the maps on the second page of the summary conclusions and said that if wildlife areas and areas where people said they would not develop, there wasn’t much left. He clarified that in the City of Beaverton’s previous testimony regarding padding the area with a water tank, that water tank was not in site 65.

Teresa Engeldinger, 142 NE 39^{th Ave}., Hillsboro, OR 97124 said she was representing Barbara Hadley and Karen Palnick, who were interested in having their property included in study area 77, which was contiguous and just west of their subject property. She said reasons for the inclusion were in an October 24, 2002, letter already submitted to the record. Ms. Engeldinger spoke to those reasons. She said an October 24, 2002, letter from the Cornelius City Council reflecting their unanimous support of including the property into the UGB was also submitted to the record. Councilor Burkholder asked if the property fell north or south of TV Highway. Ms. Engeldinger said it fell south of TV Highway and was currently zoned AF20.

Kathie Jackson, 21800 NW Fisher Rd., Banks, OR 97106 said she was a property owner directly across the street from Ms. Engeldinger’s clients. She had investigated the property and said it had always been a commercial piece of property. She said her property needed to be brought into the UGB. She said that employment and traffic needs made it apparent how the region should grow. She said the boundaries that once served the area no longer existed. Chair Park asked for the address of property. Ms. Jackson responded that the address was 33465 SW TV Hwy. Councilor McLain said the study area was 21c/77, as Cornelius had established it.

Marcus Simantel, 2024 SW Howards Way, Portland, OR 97201 said he had submitted testimony earlier regarding his opposition of bringing in land at Shute Road and Evergreen Road (and it is included as a part of this record). He said it was already industrial land that was being farmed. He didn’t think Washington County or the City of Hillsboro had shown they were making efficient use of industrial land, and that there was a lot of open space in current industrial campuses. When looking at expanding the UGB, keeping it tight did more than protect farmland and forestland – it made the City of Portland a better place to live, with the same effect on other urban areas.

Councilor Hosticka asked about Mr. Simantel’s use of the phrase “we sprawled, the only difference was that the sprawl was within the UGB” in his written testimony. Mr. Simantel said the region had sprawled residentially in Washington County, it had sprawled with commercial and industrial development. Cheap land, cheap water, tax abatements meant large chunks of land were bought and only a small portion was used. He said areas were still vacant. Councilor Hosticka asked if the line was liberally drawn this time, could the same kind of results be expected, and Mr. Simantel assented.

Councilor McLain referred to Mr. Simantel’s written testimony regarding 125,000 remaining productive acres left in the Tualatin Valley. Mr. Simantel said that was an old number and he would try to get them a firmer number. Councilor Atherton asked if agriculture was represented in the economic development strategy group. Mr. Simantel said was not aware that agricultural interests had been represented in that group.

Jim Emerson, Forest Park Neighborhood Association and Outer NW Rural Advocates, 13900 NE Old Germantown Rd., Portland, OR 97231 said he lived in area 89, which contained tremendous wildlife diversity. Rather than repeating technical information, he said he had sentiments to apply to this process and future processes. He said many places in the United States and on the planet used to be good places to live, and parts of the Metro region were currently part of that category. In opposing UGB expansion to the northwest area, he and interested neighbors were interested in helping to make Portland an even greater city. He said that a city that expanded without any boundary, so that the economic engine driving it was diffused, did not result in a healthy downtown or healthy inner older suburbs. The quality of life and preservation of a great city through a great hinterland was as important to the long-term economic health of the region as simply selling it for short-term profit.

Joe Angel, 356 SW Kingston, Portland, OR 97205, said he owned property at 5100 NW Skyline, in study area 94. He said that during the 1960s and 1970’, the property was brought into the city with the promise of urban services. For over 30 years he had been paying city taxes and receiving urban services. During the time that the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) mapped the UGB, the property lines were supposed to follow the ridge. However, the topographer followed Skyline Boulevard instead of property lines. As a result, part of his property was in the UGB and part of it was out, and he had been in the urban jurisdiction of the City of Portland the entire time. He had asked for the error to be fixed and had been trying to implement the necessary legislative process for the past eight or ten years. Mr. Angel said it was a unique property without slopes, was non-resource land, was right where it should be and could add density without moving the line significantly. He thought the priority for this committee should be that any time someone requested inclusion in the UGB and the property was within the city limits, the committee should deal with the matter before considering even one acre outside of an urban jurisdiction anywhere else. Chair Park suggested selling the property as open space. Mr. Angel said he wanted his six children to have part of it. He said he could log it, but he wouldn’t.

M’Lou Christ, 904 SE 13^th, Portland, OR 97214 said she lived in the Buckman neighborhood of the Willamette watershed. She spoke to her written testimony submitted to the committee (and made a part of this record.)

Stacey Rumgay Button, PO Box 1305, Sherwood, OR 97140, spoke on behalf of her parents, Keith and Linda Rumgay. Ms. Button said her parents had property east of the Coffee Creek Women’s Correctional Facility, for which they are requesting inclusion in the UGB. The property is across from the City of Wilsonville and has the infrastructure there. She said 90% of the owners of the 36-acre area in Tier 1 want to come into the UGB and work with Metro and the City of Wilsonville to have the area master planned as a commercial and industrial area. She said she was not sure which area the property was in and Councilor McLain suggested she talk to staff to be sure she had the correct study area number for consideration. Ms. Button then spoke about a second parcel, Prosperity Park. The original Metro urban reserve boundary broke this parcel in two, she said, and, after that, in 1995 the county divided the property into tax lots. She asked that the property be inclusive under one tax lot ownership and all included in the urban reserve. She explained it was an illegal tax lot as there was no ingress or egress. She said she thought it had been fixed when she presented it to the Metro Council in 1995 or 1996 and received a letter from Metro saying it would be taken care of. Chair Park said it could be included in the technical amendments. (A copy of a map provided by Ms. Button is included as a part of this record.)

Steve Morasch, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, 1211 SW 5^th Ave #1700, Portland, OR 97204, represented the Adams family whose property held a mined out gravel pit that is now in the process of reclamation, being filled with construction debris. Mr. Morasch noted Parcel #1 was in Study Area 68, and Parcels 2 and 3 in Study Area 69. He added that study area 69 was on the other side of Farmington Road and was not recommended for inclusion in the Executive Officer’s recommendation. He said Parcel 1 is shown mostly as resource land but is actually a gravel pit. He noted that land without capability of producing farm or forest products, such as this gravel pit, can receive higher priority under ORS 197.298(2). He suggested an amendment to the Executive Officer’s recommendation to include these parcels in the UGB because Parcel 1 is a gravel pit, and Parcels 2 and 3 are not needed to buffer EFU land. He added that the only other resource land around was the other gravel pit further to the south. He said the forested property to the east, Jenkins Park, is already inside the UGB, and the property directly west is exception land. Farmington Road also acts as a buffer. He said these three parcels would help satisfy a need for residential land in Washington County without impacting resource land. He encouraged the Council to consider including them in the UGB. Chair Park asked if he had applied to Washington County for an exception to Goal 3. Mr. Morasch said they had not yet done that. Councilor McLain commented that Washington County had not made a specific response regarding gravel pits. She suggested it would be beneficial for Mr. Morasch talk to them to find out where they stand and why they have been silent on the issue. (A copy of Mr. Morasch’s testimony is included as a part of this record.)

Steve Hill, 9811 SW Lynwood Terrace, Portland, OR 97225, highlighted points from a letter he said he would submit with additional information. He spoke on behalf of 22.85 acres belonging to his family as well as for Don Byers and Karen Downs. They represent 76.5 acres of Tier 1 Exception Land in Area 59, Sherwood. He said all of them would like their property included in the UGB. He said he had reviewed the reasons why it had not been included in the Executive Officer’s recommendation. He noted that according to Metro studies, all three parcels would be easy to serve for city water, sewer, and storm water. Mr. Hill pointed out that there would soon be natural gas access, and he noted that although the ground was classified as high quality farmland, a recent appraisal of the ground most often referred to the soil as poor. He said it was hardly high quality and would be better used for residential development. Farming is difficult so close to housing due to the restrictions put on them for chemicals they can use, and because of vandalism. Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Hill what the City of Sherwood’s position was, and Mr. Hill said they were generally negative about the property.

Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors (AGC), 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Wilsonville, OR 97070, submitted a letter from AGC and one from Todd R. Sheaffer, National Association of Industrial and Officer Properties (NAIOP) Portland Chapter. Ms. Cato asked that the two letters be given the same attention as Mr. Kelley, who had been allowed to testify for more than 3 minutes. Chair Park explained that Mr. Kelley had been speaking on behalf of Mayor Katz but Ms. Catto felt that everyone should be equal in front of the committee.

John Griffiths, 10245 SW 153 Ave., Beaverton, OR 97007, commented on the successful collaboration between Metro and the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District for the preservation of green space and natural areas in Washington County. He noted that Sections 65, 66 and 67 had been labeled as areas of high natural resource value. He was concerned about an impending conflict between the recommendation for UGB expansion and earlier direction on natural area preservation set by Metro in the mid-1990s. He said the residents of Cooper Mountain were looking forward to having a complete park on top of their mountain and urged that that particular vision get worked out before any expansion was considered in the Cooper Mountain area. Chair Park asked Mr. Griffiths if he felt that expansion into that area would somehow damage that vision, and Mr. Griffiths responded that the property values would make it almost impossible to complete the park by the time they urbanize.

John Orlando, 3539 NW 120^th , Portland, OR 97229, testified on behalf of his family’s property in Area 93. Mr. Orlando submitted a petition from 21 property owners who wanted to be included in the UGB and a topographical map showing that the area they spoke of was not particularly steep (included as part of this record). He said all urban services were adjacent to the property.

Peter Finley Fry, 2153 SW Main #105, Portland, OR 97205, said Joe Angel had asked him to say that not a single inch of land comes into the UGB until all the incorporated land is brought in. He said that personally he did not support any land coming into the UGB because the need had not been justified yet. He noted that one housing unit in Irvington is 5,000 square feet and one apartment building in the Pearl, ironically built on employment land and not downtown residential land, averaged 2.4 people when, if they averaged three people, the entire housing need vaporized. He wondered what was driving the need to expand when there were already low prices and high vacancy rates. He talked about the new town scheme as a bad way to go and said if he did believe in expanding the boundary, that expanding to Gresham seemed to make a lot more sense than creating a whole new town. Mr. Finley urged the council to not expand the UGB. (Mr. Finley submitted written testimony, included as a part of this record.)

James Crawford, JWC Properties LLC/ODUS Properties LLC, 44133 NW Cedar Canyon, Banks, OR 97106, said he owns land in Area 93, designated as Tier 1 because it is non-resource land, it’s in a peninsula of non-urban land, it’s parcelized, and there is no farming there. He said he currently logs there but won’t be able to in the near future due to all of the urban development. He said it is a misconception that the area would be difficult to serve with sewer and storm drains and there is a permit pending to bring sewer to Laidlaw Road and the intersection with Saltzman, a few hundred feet away from the western boundary of Area 93. Mr. Crawford said it would be easy to extend that sewer up Laidlaw and along the dedicated right-of-way for Old Laidlaw Road. He said there is also an alternative sewer coming into Area 93 from Bower Highlands at Grenoble Lane, and they are contractually obligated to bring in a second sewer line several hundred yards to the north. He said it would be simple engineering to build a storm drain into the creek, which is where the runoff goes anyway. He noted that Area 93 is equidistant between downtown Portland, Intel and downtown Beaverton, and could become an efficient development, or if it was not included in the UGB, yuppie estates. He said he is very much in favor of his property coming into the UGB.

Chair Park closed the public hearing.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Claudia Wilton

Clerk of the Council

PRIVATE TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY MACHINE RECORDING

Donna Williams, 20956 NW Bendemeer Road, Hillsboro, OR 97124, said that she opposes inclusion of area 82 into the UGB. She talked about the fact that it is an established residential neighborhood and a working eco-system, with a variety of birds and other wildlife. The area includes wetlands and is a 100-year floodplain. Almost all of the neighbors oppose inclusion in the UGB, she said, and most signed a petition to that effect (see Ms. McClenathan’s testimony). She said she believes that very few people would be willing to sell their property for development, so in addition to the points made above, she doesn’t believe it would be a logical choice for inclusion.

Doug Dahms, 18857 SE Highway 212, Clackamas, OR 97015, quoted segments of the Fall 2002 Metro mailing on the UGB and then responded.

1)  Before adding land, Metro must analyze where it is most efficient to do so, primarily based on an ability to provide urban services such as roads and utilities.

Response: The fact is there are no highways larger than two lane, none of which have shoulders or turn lanes. There are no sewer systems, no mass transit, and no easy access to airports, major highways, major waterways, or railroad service. All of these are essential not only for businesses but also residents.

2)  An expansion to the boundary must follow priorities defined by Oregon law, first expanding onto non-resource land that has the least value for farming and forestry.

Response: There are produce farms, berry farms, tree farms, nurseries, etc. throughout the area. These will be the first things to be lost if expansion is taken out to the Damascus/Boring area. With Portland growing, this area becomes more important, not less, to supply these products to a growing metropolitan area.

3)  Only the amount of land necessary to meet determined need can be included in the expansion.

Response: It seems that politicians’ answer to everything is to throw a lot of money at it…our money. It appears Mr. Burton has the same view, only this time it’s a lot of land.

He summarized by saying the best way to help a growing Portland would be to put a freeway from the metropolitan area to the recreation areas in the east, thereby getting some of the traffic off 212 to enable farmers to do their jobs.

Kimberly Trobough, 21100 NW Bendemeer Road, Hillsboro, OR 97124, said she opposed area 82 being brought into the UGB. She and her husband are long-time residents, as are many of their neighbors. The area supports a diverse array of birds, other wildlife and trees. It is a historical area, with an Indian encampment on the north side of the road and the oldest Baptist church west of the Rocky Mountains. It also contains a creek and wetland.

Beverly McClenathan, 13780 SW Brightwood Street, Beaverton, OR 97005, said she opposed bringing area 82 into the UGB and submitted a petition signed by over 50 of her neighbors who also oppose it (included as a part of this record). She said she moved to this old and established neighborhood in 1969, and that there are not many neighborhoods like it left. Most of the parcels of land have been in existence for 40 or more years. The area supports a diverse array of birds and other wildlife. She noted that since no one is interested in selling their land, there won’t be any land available for development.

Tim Trobough, 21100 NW Bendemeer Road, Hillsboro, OR 97124, said that he is a second-generation resident of area 82 and he opposes its inclusion in the UGB. There are a lot of animals (deer, elk, the occasional bear) in the area and also flood plains. He mentioned finding arrowheads in the area as a child. It is a well established neighborhood and the residents like the quality of life it affords.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS.

•  Thomas VanderZanden, 15903 NW Logie, Hillsboro, OR 97124

•  Mark Ellerbrook (19160 SW Pomona Drive, Beaverton, OR 97007)

•  Larry Perrin (14810 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231)

•  Jim Irvine, The Conifer Group, 16550 SE 232^nd, Boring, OR 97009

•  Dan Fishback, 40065 NW Wilkesboro Road, Banks, OR 97106

•  Keith Fishback (11375 NW Roy Road, Portland, OR 97106

•  Frank Parisi, 1630 SW Morrison, Portland, OR 97205

•  Keith Liden, , 400 SW 6^th, Portland, OR 97204

•  Arnold Rochlin, Forest Park Neighborhood Association, PO Box 83645, Portland, OR 97283

•  Steven Edelman, Box 91519, Portland, OR 97291

•  Bob LeFeber, 50 SW Pine Street, Portland, OR 97204

•  Brad Miller, 4455 NE Alameda, Portland, OR 97213

•  John Ringert, 610 SW Alder, St. 700, Portland, OR 97205

•  Andrew Erwin, 16050 NW Ramona Dr., Beaverton, OR 97006

•  John Cooper, 12110 NW South Dr., Portland 97229

•  Chris Browning, 4199 NW Chaparral, Beaverton, OR 97006

•  Scott Hamilton, 7270 NW Helvetia Rd., Hillsboro, OR 97124

•  Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association, 15555 SW Bangy, Lake Oswego, OR 97035

•  Geri Kraft, Kraft Pact, 1528 46^th Ave. SW, Seattle, WA 98116

•  Jerry Grossnickle, Forest Park Neighborhood Association, 13510 NW Old Germantown Rd., Portland, OR 97231

•  Ken Sinansky, 14125 NW Old Germantown Rd., Portland, OR 97231

•  Chris Smith, 2393 NW Pettygrove St., Portland, OR 97210

•  Jill Fuglister, 1220 SW Morrison, Ste. 535, Portland, OR 97205

•  Michael Anderson, Community Development Network, 2627 NE MLK, #202, Portland, OR 97212

•  Jim Labbe, Audubon society of Portland, 5151 NW Cornell Road, Portland, OR 97210

•  Ross Williams, Citizens for Sensible Transportation, 1220 SW Morrison, St. 535, Portland, OR 97205

•  Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon and Coalition for a Livable Future, 534 SW 3^rd, St. 300, Portland, OR 97204

•  Alex Dorsey, N/NE Economic DEU Alliance, 4134 N Vancouver, Portland, OR 97211

•  Rob DeGraff, Portland Business Alliance, 221 NW 2^nd , #300, Portland, OR 97209.

•  Kim Vandehey, 17207 SW Siler Ridge Lane, Aloha, OR 97007

•  Curt Hinck, 16820 SW Silver Ridge, Beaverton, OR 97007

•  Teri Tomlinson, 16850 SW Silver Ridge, Beaverton, OR 97007

•  John Meek. 17855 SW Skyline Woods, Beaverton, OR 97007

•  Sharon Meek, 17855 SW Skyline Woods, Beaverton, OR 97007

•  Teresa Engeldinger, 142 NE 39^th Ave., Hillsboro, OR 97124

•  Kathie Jackson, 21800 NW Fisher Rd., Banks, OR 97106

•  Marcus Simantel, 2024 SW Howards Way, Portland, OR 97201

•  Jim Emerson, Forest Park Neighborhood Association and Outer NW Rural Advocates, 13900 NE Old Germantown Rd., Portland, OR 97231

•  Bob Van Brocklin, 900 SW 5^th , Portland, OR 97204

•  Joe Angel, 356 SW Kingston, Portland, OR 97205

•  M’Lou Christ, 904 SE 13^th, Portland, OR 97214

•  Stacey Rumgay Button, PO Box 1305, Sherwood, OR 97140

•  Steve Morasch, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, 1211 SW 5^th Ave #1700, Portland, OR 97204

•  Steve Hill, 9811 SW Lynwood Terrace, Portland, OR 97225

•  Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors (AGC), 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Wilsonville, OR 97070

•  John Griffiths, 10245 SW 153 Ave., Beaverton, OR 97007

•  John Orlando, 3539 NW 120^th , Portland, OR 97229

•  Peter Finley Fry, 2153 SW Main #105, Portland, OR 97205

•  James Crawford, JWC Properties LLC/ODUS Properties LLC, 44133 NW Cedar Canyon, Banks, OR 97106

TESTIMONY CARDS RECEIVED FROM THOSE WHO DID NOT TESTIFY.

•  Raj Saurra, 2605 South Shore, Lake Oswego, OR 97034

•  Mark Whittlow, Perkins, Coie/Retail Task Force, 1211 SW 5^th Avenue, #1500, Portland, OR 97204, submitted written testimony for this record

•  Todd Sheaffer, 15400 SW Millikan Way, Beaverton, OR 97006, submitted written testimony for this record

•  Cliff Hockley, Bluestone and Hockley Realty, Inc., 3835 SW Kelly Avenue, Portland, OR 97239

•  Judy Schneider, 31025 SW Country View Lane, Wilsonville, OR 97070

•  Katharine Lorenz, 420 NW 11^th Ave., Portland, OR 97209

GREEN YOUR OPINION COUNTS TESTIMONY CARDS SUBMITTED.

Donna Williams, 20956 NW Bendemeer Road, Hillsboro, OR 97124

Kim Vandehey, 17207 SW Siler, Aloha, OR 97007

Katharina Lorenz, 420 NW 11^th Ave., #809, Portland, OR 97209

Thomas VanderZanden, 15903 NW Logie Trail, Hillsboro, OR 97124

Jim Irvine, 16550 SE 232^nd, Boring, OR 97009

Beverly McClenathan, 13780 SW Brightwood St., Beaverton, OR 97005

Raj Saurra, 2605 South Shore, Lake Oswego, OR 97034