MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, October 29, 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 2:10 p.m. He noted that the last public hearing for the Community Planning Committee would be held tonight.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING (DAMASCUS COMMUNITY CHURCH):

5.  DWELLING UNIT AND JOBS TARGETS (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit A). Councilor Burkholder reviewed Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 02-969 (Title 1: Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation) and the purpose and effect of the stated amendments to the Functional Plan. A copy of the exhibit is included in the meeting packet; a colored set of the exhibits used for discussion was also distributed and is make a part of this record.

Chair Park distributed Table 3.07-1: Target Capacity for Housing and Employment Units – Year 1994 to 2017, also included in this record. He noted that with the addition of Wilsonville in the updated Table 1 numbers, the region hit its capacity requirements. Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, summarized the nature of the changes to Title 1 and the reasoning behind those changes. The council first adopted Title 1 as a target, before it directed cities and counties to take actions to increase the capacity of their residential lands. Almost all of the cities and counties’ work was now done, Mr. Benner said, and the new table reflected their achievements. The new numbers exceed both the housing and jobs targets from the old Table 1. The new Table 1 lists the capacity that Metro wants the cities and counties to maintain. There is a provision for a local government to trade capacity or make small adjustments but, by and large, it has to keep the capacity that is the new Table 1.

Responding to a question from Councilor McLain, Mr. Benner further explained that the council’s analysis of the capacity of the existing UGB was based on the revised Table 1. This was the beginning of Metro’s capacity analysis, he said. The Executive Officer had not recommended that the council adopt measures to increase the capacity beyond those numbers. There was some new language that attempted to improve the region’s refill rate, and, if the region was successful at increasing the refill rate, Metro would be able to take advantage of that improvement during the next periodic review, but it was not part of this capacity.

At the suggestion of Councilor Bragdon, the committee agreed to change the title of Table 1 from “Target Capacity” to “Zoned Capacity.”

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, said the mixed-use targets were a subset of the old, overall jurisdictional targets. At this time there is no proposal for a specific mixed-use target, he said. The Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) discussed this change, and the committee may wish to return to a mixed-use target or a Centers target.

Councilor McLain complimented Mr. Benner on the clarity and conciseness of the Purpose and Intent statement in theTitle 1 amendment.

Councilor Atherton recommended adding the issue of carrying capacity to the Purpose and Intent statement. He proposed amending the second sentence as follows: “Title 1 intends to use land within the UGB efficiently by increasing its capacity to accommodate housing and employment within the carrying capacity of the land, water and air resources of the region, and its educational and economic resources, and that achieves a desired quality of life.” He said the proposed language came directly from the Metro Charter. A copy of Councilor Atherton’s amendment is included in this record.

Councilor McLain recalled that similar language was included in the Regional Framework Plan in addition to the Metro Charter. The committee discussed whether Title 1 of the Functional Plan was the appropriate place to add Councilor Atherton’s proposed language. Chair Park asked Councilor Atherton to research how his proposed language fit with the current Framework Plan, and whether its inclusion in the Functional Plan would be redundant.

At the suggestion of Councilor McLain, the committee agreed to remove the phrase “or its designee” from Title 1 Section 3.07.120(A).

Councilor Hosticka noted that Section 3.07.120(C) prohibits a loss of capacity if a city annexes county territory. However, he said, a city may provide services such as parks or resource protection that were not provided by the county. Did Metro want to discourage that type of action, he asked, or was the intent that the city would make up the capacity elsewhere. Mr. Benner said there are three opportunities for a city to make adjustments to its capacity if necessary: 1) amend the zoning district boundaries and make up the capacity internally; 2) transfer the capacity to another jurisdiction; or 3) go through Metro’s exception process.

Councilor Burkholder noted that Section 3.07.140(D) has a different reporting requirement date than Section 3.07.120(D), and he recommended that the committee review all of Metro’s reporting requirements for local cities and counties, and discuss whether it would be better to ask for everything at one time or spread it out over the year.

Chair Park asked how Section 3.07.140(B), which refers to minimum lot size allowed, would apply to cities with flexible zoning ordinances. Mr. Benner said in those cases, a number is probably pegged the city or county’s capacity analysis. Chair Park questioned the utility of the language, saying there might be another way to approach this issue.

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, said all but one jurisdiction had taken care of this, so that if a minimum lot size was in place, the jurisdiction could partition it in half, at the very least. This was one of the many ways in which they tried to make land use most efficient; it would not stand alone.

Councilor Atherton asked if a jurisdiction could amend its Title 1, Table 1 numbers if it had a large number of accessory dwelling units, referring to Section 3.07.140(C). Mr. Benner said additional capacity from accessory dwelling units would show up as part of the refill rate. A jurisdiction could amend its capacity if it could demonstrate that its refill rate was consistently higher than anticipated.

Chair Park said the work that had been done looked good, and he then asked for the original target numbers on dwellings units and jobs. Mr. Cotugno said in the original Table 1, the dwelling unit capacity was 243,993 and the jobs capacity was 461,633. In the new table, the dwelling unit capacity was 244,297 and the jobs capacity was 516,240. He noted that the new target was for the newly expanded UGB, which accounted for everything to date including the 1998 UGB decision.

Councilor Burkholder noted that during the public hearings, there was testimony on how jurisdictions’ height restrictions reduced the efficiency of their land use. He asked if this would be addressed in Title 1. Chair Park said height restrictions were part of Title 6 and would be discussed at a later date. He asked if the committee was comfortable with the revised Title 1, other than Councilor Atherton’s concern about carrying capacity. He added that the committee would not actually vote on the language until November 5^th.

Councilor McLain said the language regarding transfer of capacity made a lot of sense and clearly stated Metro’s goal. However, she said she had not heard much discussion yet from Metro’s partners. She thought the criteria were sufficient because they required the transfer to be to the right design type. Capacity transfers would be even more difficult than UGB transfers because they attempted to address function and geography.

Chair Park asked Councilor Atherton to flag the location in the Framework Plan where his carrying capacity language may be appropriate, if he decides to bring the issue back to committee. Councilor Atherton agreed, and he asked if it would be possible to define regionally significant industrial areas more elegantly than “relatively rare.” Mr. Cotugno responded, saying Title 1, Section 3.07.130 was simply a list of one-sentence descriptions. Regionally significant industrial areas were fully defined in Title 4.

3.  RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS POLICY.

•  UGMFP Title 12 – Protection of Residential Neighborhoods (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit C). Councilor Park said Title 12 is a new item in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). It implements Measure 26-29, which prohibits Metro from increasing densities in designated single-family neighborhoods.

Councilor Burkholder reviewed Exhibit C (Title 12: Protection of Residential Neighborhoods). A copy of the exhibit is included in the meeting packet, as well as in the colored handout. In addition to implementing Measure 26-29, Title 12 attempted to increase efficient provision of services on the neighborhood level.

Councilor Hosticka said Section 3.07.1240(C) appeared to be a new mandate on other units of government. He said he knew that some jurisdictions already shared school and park facilities, but asked if Metro would require all jurisdictions to do so under this language, and, if so, had MPAC and Metro’s regional partners reviewed it. Councilor McLain said MPAC had held this discussion during the writing of the Regional Framework Plan, and included language in the Framework Plan regarding shared facilities. The Title 12 language was intended to reflect the language in the Regional Framework Plan.

Councilor Atherton said his first reaction was that this was not within the purview of Metro. Metro did regional planning, he said, which was different from community planning or city planning. This was the common sense work of cities and neighborhoods, and he was not sure it should be included in Metro’s language.

Councilor Bragdon, regarding Section 3.07.1240(A), asked how the level of service for parks would be implemented in areas that were already built out, and if Metro’s actions would reflect the diversity of parks service levels such as hiking trails, tennis courts and pools which required different levels of service. Each community tailors its services to its constituents, he said. Mr. Benner said the Regional Framework Plan requires Metro to adopt a functional plan for parks that would address such standards, but it did not say what those standards were. Mr. Benner added that Mr. Charlie Ciecko, Regional Parks Director, would probably say that much work has gone into the development of such standards, but they were not ready for adoption. Mr. Benner said he presumed that before any standards were recommended to the Metro Council, they would have to address the issue of built-out communities and their opportunities to provide additional parks service. Section 3.07.1240(A) did not require any action by local jurisdictions. They would not have to do anything until after the Metro Council adopted the Functional Plan requirement.

Councilor Park said Section 3.07.1240(C) stated “shall provide” for shared use, not “shall require.” He interpreted the language to mean that Metro “shall not preclude.” The “possibility of” shall be provided for, but not the actual use. The committee agreed to his interpretation.

Councilor Burkholder responded to Councilor Atherton’s concern and said Measure 26-29 said that Metro would work to ensure that people had good access to public services, both on the local and regional level. Some of the changes Metro was requiring were not improving quality of life at the local level, and that was a regional concern.

Councilor McLain said Councilor Hosticka raised a good question, but she felt comfortable that Sections 3.07.1240(A-D) came from discussions with Metro’s partners. As Councilor Burkholder said, they asked Metro to help them provide these facilities in their areas in a way that was fair. The purpose of Title 12 was to implement Policy 1.16 of the Regional Framework Plan, she added, and this was an interim step; the next step would be to talk to MPAC about exactly what type of service provision would work. An MPAC subcommittee asked Metro to put this language in the Framework Plan.

Councilor Atherton asked if he was correct that the Regional Framework Plan did not require Metro to develop minimum levels of service standards for parks or any other service for a community. Mr. Benner said that as a general matter, he did not think so, but he would have to go back to check the language in the Parks Functional Plan. The Regional Framework Plan may say that Metro must have minimum levels of service standards for parks, Mr. Benner added. Councilor Atherton said he was very concerned about this language. It had not been vetted in the communities to any significant extent and he said he was very concerned that minimums could quickly become maximums.

Councilor Hosticka said he would compare the language in Title 12 to the MPAC subcommittee report before the committee’s vote next week. He knew that the subcommittee discussed a number of these issues, and that some issues were quite contentious. He said he would flag the language for further committee discussion.

Chair Park said the committee would make its final decision on Title 12 at its November 5^th meeting, after receiving MPAC’s final report.

•  Framework Plan – Residential Neighborhoods (reference Ordinance No. 02-969,Exhibit B). Councilor Burkholder reviewed Exhibit B (Policy 1.16 Residential Neighborhoods), saying that Exhibit B stated the broader policy derived from Measure 26-29, while Exhibit C attempted to implement the policy. A copy of the exhibit is included in the meeting packet, as well as in the colored handout.

Councilor Hosticka asked if the language in Exhibit B came directly from the ballot measure, and Mr. Benner read from Section 1(4)(A) of Measure 26-29, “Livability Protection: The Regional Framework Plan shall include measures to protect the livability of existing neighborhoods, taking into consideration air pollution, water pollution, noise and crime, as well as provision of an adequate level of police, fire, transportation and emergency services, public utilities and access to parks, open space and neighborhood services.” Exhibit B paraphrased the measure’s language, Mr. Benner said. Section 1 of Measure 26-29 stated that Section 5 of the Metro Charter was amended to add the following provisions for protection of livability of existing neighborhoods: “The Regional Framework Plan shall include measures to protect . . .” It was up to the Metro Council to decide what specific measures to take.

Councilor Hosticka said according to Measure 26-29, the Regional Framework Plan shall include measures. It did not say Metro shall include measures. If someone wanted to read the measure in an extreme format, he asked if he or she could say that the people told Metro to reduce noise and crime, and to take whatever measures necessary to do so, such as forming its own police force or establishing noise standards on lawn mowers and leaf blowers, or was it limited to the existing functions of Metro. Mr. Benner said it was limited to the functions of Metro because it did not amend Metro’s functions, as stated in the Charter.

4.  URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN (UGMFP) TITLE 11 – PLANNING FOR NEW AREAS (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit K). Councilor McLain reviewed Exhibit K (Title 11: Planning for New Urban Areas). A copy of the exhibit is included in the meeting packet, as well as in the colored handout. She asked Mr. Benner to explain the omission of earlier language in Title 11, Section 3.07.110(C). Mr. Benner said that when MTAC was discussing Title 4, it agreed upon limitations on the creation of new parcels in order to protect regionally significant industrial areas. MTAC recommended that the same minimum lot size from Title 4 be applied on an interim basis through Title 11.

Councilor Hosticka asked if Section 3.07.110(C) apply only to industrial land, or to all land. Mr. Benner said it applied to all land. There was a similar provision in the existing Title 11. The new MTAC language from Title 4 would actually be added to Section 3.07.110(D).

Councilor McLain said, in her opinion, the Metro conditions of approval were mandatory if the council planned to consider the requests currently in front of the council. The council has received requests for very specific types of land use. The council cannot vote in favor of those specific uses unless it adds conditions that would protect the land. Title 11 was probably the most important section in the Functional Plan, she said, because it actually implemented the good ideas in the rest of the plan.

The committee expressed no concerns about Title 11.

6.  RESIDENTIAL UGR – CAPACITY (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Appendix item #3). Chair Park reviewed a memo from Lydia Neill, Principal Regional Planner, dated October 28, 2002, regarding factor sensitivity in the 2002 Urban Growth Report and MetroScope refill results (distributed and made a part of this record). Councilor Burkholder asked why MTAC recommended a change in the capture rate from 68 percent to 69 percent. Mr. Cotugno said the recent five-year history for housing capture rate supported the 69 percent capture rate that MTAC recommended. The Home Builders Association also recommended using the five-year history. State law instructed Metro to use the previous five-year history, unless a longer history would provide more reliable information or if action would be taken to achieve the different rate. MPAC recommended the 68 percent capture rate, based on the twenty-year history. There was a lot of fluctuation in the capture rate every five years, and MPAC felt it was more appropriate to smooth out those wild fluctuations.

Chair Park asked if the region was capturing more jobs than housing, and therefore accidentally building satellite cities. He realized that Metro staff did not have enough information yet to give that type of feedback. However, the 2040 Growth Concept stated that the region did not want to create satellite cities. He recommended looking at the question during Task 3, perhaps as part of subregional.

Councilor Bragdon said there was an interrelationship among capture rate, redevelopment rate, and the leapfrog development style and Metro needed a better understanding of the extent to which economics drove redevelopment.

Councilor McLain said during the last cycle, the capture rate was set at 70 percent, which was pretty close to 68 to 69 percent. Capture rate also related to Metro’s strategy for Centers. Could the region develop strong, working Centers if the population swings to outer cities such as Canby and Sandy, she asked. To her, the capture rate was not just a number; it was a goal. Was Metro’s goal to continue sending more residential growth to smaller communities, and make people commute into the region for jobs? If having good Centers was still a Metro goal, why would they change that goal and assume that the region would do less in the next five years? The council should look at the numerous data sources available and determine its goal.

Chair Park said Councilor Burkholder raised a good point that 80 percent of the growth will occur within Metro’s existing boundary, and 20 percent will be in the new areas. A one percent change in the capture rate produced a swing of 3,200 dwelling units; approximately 2,560 of those would potentially go into the current UGB and would be available for Centers. As Councilor McLain said, the council needed to decide where it wanted the growth to go and in what form.

Councilor Burkholder said the real issue was the differential between the jobs capture rate and the residential capture rate, not 68 versus 69 percent. On the one hand, you could say that there were a lot of unemployed people and more jobs would not be bad. But on the other hand, would the council get stuck in a cycle in which it expands the UGB to try to provide enough residential area for the people who might come here for all the jobs that might come here? Would the region then grow at a rate faster than it could accommodate, he asked. He noted that during the last ten years, it has been very difficult to accommodate the annual 2.5 percent growth rate in jobs.

Councilor McLain said during the last UGB expansion discussion, the committee looked at the location of jobs in Vancouver and in Portland, and they looked at the location of residential growth. The council had to consider what types of jobs could be located in the smaller communities, based on their available space. They needed to look at the new data available on job in order to make a better, more educated forecast than they were able to make last time.

Chair Park said the committee would return to the issue of factor sensitivity on November 5^th. The key question for the committee, he said, was whether they wanted to avoid the California model in which people must commute into San Jose from far outlying areas due to the housing shortage. Were they accidentally replicating that condition by creating satellite communities, he asked. Chair Park then reviewed the residential vacancy rate, and noted that staff’s research showed an actual vacancy rate of five percent in the communities. Department of Land Conservation and Development (DCLD) staff has indicated that a rate of 2.5 percent has been used in similar studies conducted around the state.

Councilor McLain said earlier today she heard a high school freshman say that too many apartments were being built and she was tired of seeing so vacancy signs. Metro needed to keep track of the vacancy rate, Councilor McLain said. First, a five to seven percent vacancy rate was expensive, and someone was carrying that cost. Staff felt that a five percent vacancy rate was reasonable. She asked for information about staff’s criteria of reasonability. Mr. Cotugno said the vacancy rate cycles over time. When the industry overbuilds, a lot of vacancy signs and promotional offers appear. That was always a cyclical situation. If the vacancy rate is too high, Metro does not have an obligation to provide for that capacity. However, if the vacancy rate is too low, then it becomes like musical chairs because people cannot find a place to move into. The cyclical trend tended to be more pronounced for multi-family housing than for single-family housing. Staff tried to pick a vacancy rate that was needed, not a level that the market ran up to on a periodic basis.

Chair Park said he understood that apartment building owners try to maintain a particular vacancy rate range, because 10 percent vacancy means the rates are too high and zero vacancy means that the rates are too low. He noted that it was also cyclical based on interest rates: when interest rates are low it is easier to buy a house, and apartment vacancy rates increase.

Councilor Atherton agreed that vacancy rate depended on a number of factors, including business practice. He asked Mr. Benner about the legal requirement for vacancy rate and why a vacancy rate was needed in a 20-year forecast. Mr. Benner said there was no legal requirement to use a vacancy rate, per se. The legal requirement was to provide a twenty-year supply. Metro planning staff has asked DLCD if it can use a vacancy rate, and what rate could be used. As the memo stated, local governments have used vacancy rates of around 2.5 percent. DLCD did not say that Metro could not use five percent, but there should be something in the record to support the rate used.

Councilor Burkholder said the argument came down to whether it was the market’s responsibility to provide some excess capacity to ease the friction between people moving from one place to another, or whether it was Metro’s responsibility. According to Mr. Benner, Metro had no legal requirement to do so. In his opinion, Councilor Burkholder said, the vacancy rate inflated the need number unnecessarily. Five percent reflected existing conditions but not necessarily a reflection of “need.” Including a 20-year supply of land in the UGB allowed plenty of space for a little excess needed for the vacancy rate. He said he felt it was not defensible to use the vacancy rate as part of the “need” because it was actually an excess of need. He said the council should reconsider whether to use the vacancy rate at all, rather than debate particular numbers.

Councilor Bragdon agreed that five percent may be a high number. However, he said, there was a functional need for a vacancy rate. For example, when the Oregon Convention Center was running at 86 percent of capacity, management said it was running at maximum capacity. The functional need may be closer to 2.5 percent, but there needed to be a vacancy factor. Councilor Burkholder argued that Metro providing a minimum of fifteen years of additional land supply was a cushion. Vacancy rate was a market function, not something that Metro needed to provide.

Chair Park said the committee needed to look how the vacancy rate affects the affordability factor. Councilor McLain agreed. On the other hand, she said, the promotional offers were made because apartment mangers did not want to carry the cost of high vacancy rates. They needed to find a balance. She recommended that the committee tag the vacancy rate as a subject of interest. As councilors, they needed to come back with reasons for why one level was more defensible than another.

Chair Park said the committee would address all of the factors again. He noted that removing the vacancy rate would be a change from Metro’s former policy.

Regarding acres for new schools, Chair Park then asked how staff calculated the land owned by Portland Public Schools that the school district was thinking of selling. Currently that land is being used for ball fields. Mr. Cotugno said if the land was in school ownership, it would count as school acreage. If it was in parks ownership, it would count as park acreage. If the land was sold for redevelopment for housing, it would be factored into the refill rate. Ms. Neill noted that the tax code for the property would change and that was how staff would pick it up in the successive vacant land inventory.

Chair Park said he was not sure how to address this issue, but it would affect quality of life in those neighborhoods.

Councilor Atherton said he took the map of all the school sites proposed by the Portland Public School system as surplus lands, and superimposed it on the Portland Parks Department’s map of areas that were deficient in parks. It was almost a 100 percent match. The school district was selling off lands that could be used for parks in the exactly the neighborhoods that needed parks the most.

In regard to the acres for new parks, Councilor Bragdon said this was a case in which they could end up with the worst of both worlds. What was the guarantee that additional acreage added for parks would actually be used for parks, he asked.

Councilor McLain said they could ask MPAC at its meeting tomorrow. The worst possible scenario would be to add the additional acreage, not see the addition of more parks, and instead see housing built on possible parkland. She recommended flagging this issue because she did not think they could make this an aspirational number. This had to be a number that could be guaranteed. It was different from a capture rate or an infill and redevelopment rate. It was not a market issue necessarily, it was a park provision or service issue.

Chair Park noted that the chair of MPAC was quite passionate about increasing the parks number to 2,300 acres. He said he felt that parks were acquired through other methods than just system development charges (SDCs).

Councilor Atherton said he appreciated people’s passion about parks because it showed how incredibly bizarre and complicated this process becomes, because if SDCs are raised for parks, the speculative value of the bare land for parks is lowered.

Councilor Bragdon said he thought the parks number could be aspirational, as long as there was some certainty of achieving the aspiration, such as through SDCs or other means.

Councilor Burkholder asked if Metro had any verifiable information on underbuild, such as an underbuild ratio provided by the City of Portland. For example, if Portland’s underbuild rate was 85 percent and it accounted for 70 percent of new construction in the area, could Metro weight that information and include it in the underbuild calculation? He said he thought Metro had received some information from some jurisdictions. Perhaps that information could be weighted and used to develop a defensible underbuild factor.

Invited by Chair Park to respond, Mr. Al Burns, Planning Bureau, City of Portland, said in its prior reports, the City of Portland reported underbuild rates by zoning category, based on the zoned capacity (not the higher comprehensive plan capacity available through a quasi-judicial process). He said he believed that the city reported a building rate of more than 80 percent in most of the zones. A possible compromise would be for Metro to do an actual reported underbuild for jurisdictions with reliable information, and use the 20 percent underbuild number for jurisdictions with less reliable information.

The committee discussed the difference between the City of Portland’s zoned capacity and comprehensive plan capacity, and how that affected Portland’s underbuild factor. Chair Park said it highlighted the need for standardized data, which Metro has requested. In future urban growth reports, it should be possible to base the underbuild factor on actual numbers, as recommended by Councilor Burkholder.

Councilor McLain said she would prefer to use actual numbers to determine the underbuild factor. She did not understand why they would not use information that they had, even if it was not perfectly standardized.

Chair Park flagged the underbuild factor for further discussion. The committee discussed the residential refill rate and its relation to Metro’s Centers policy and the capture rate.

7.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Chair Park said MPAC would discuss the regionally significant industrial lands map at its meeting the next day. At the next Community Planning Committee meeting, Mr. Benner would talk about sustaining exclusive farm use (EFU) land that comes inside the UGB for industrial purposes. Chair Park distributed a calendar of Community Planning periodic-review related agenda items from June to October 2002, a copy of which is included in the meeting record and he noted that the Community Planning Committee public hearing on the UGB at the Portland city hall that night would start at 6:00 p.m.

7A.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS. Frank Maniatis, 12440 NW Laidlaw Road, Portland, OR 97229, said he lives in Councilor Burkholder’s district and spoke in support of adding his area to the UGB. The land in his area was not conducive to farming or forest, was provided with water, and was located near sewer lines. Mr. Maniatis also submitted a UGB Opinion card, included in the meeting record.

A UGB Opinion card was also submitted by Mr. Stan Hymel, 9355 SE Hide-a-Way Ct., Gresham, OR 97080, cautioning against development in critical watershed areas, specifically mentioned the Johnson Creek Watershed. Mr. Hymel did not testify.

8.  ADJOURN. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:49 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Committee Clerk

as transcribed by Suzanne Myers Harold

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. None.