MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, October 30, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  David Bragdon (excused)

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.

Councilor Hosticka asked about the implementation of Measure 26-29 and why the committee was talking about parks in that context. He said he wasn't saying it was good or bad policy, but that he didn’t understand how it related to the heading of implementing Measure 26-29. Second, Councilor Hosticka asked if anything in the policy being discussed would have implications for the Urban Growth Report (UGR).

Chair Park said they would have to get some additional information from Dan Cooper, General Counsel. Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, said the measure talked about residential neighborhoods. It talked about adverse and good things that happened in neighborhoods and taking appropriate actions. He said he suspected that was where the committee made the connection of parks as an amenity for livable neighborhoods.

Councilor Burkholder said ensuring access to parks was directly mentioned. The part the committee needed clarification on was the step from there to a policy that said we were going to develop standards. That was the jump that needed to be discussed. Mr. Benner said there was already language in the Regional Framework Plan (RFP) about requiring a Parks Functional Plan. There was no timeline associated with it but it said the council would do a Functional Plan for parks. In such a Functional Plan, he said, there would be some level of service standards. Parks had worked on this but it had not culminated in something that has come back to council for action. Mr. Benner said the name of the chapter was Residential Neighborhoods. When one looked at the accessibility to neighborhood services provisions, there was a section on commercial and government services. This is where he would put parks, he said. There were two separate notions there that were contained in the chapter but the title was called Residential Neighborhoods as opposed to implementation of Measure 26-29.

Chair Park said the obvious connection to the UGR was not being able to upzone anything in residential neighborhoods. He wasn't sure if there had been a ratio that had been established.

Councilor Hosticka said the reason he was asking, in this context, was when the committee talked about Centers, part of the discussion was if you wanted to have a refill rate you had to do something about Centers. He knew parks was one such an item. His question was, he said, was there anything in this policy that would limit the debate over parks when they came to discussing the UGR. He asked if when the council adopted the policies under Title 12 where they now driven to a certain number or certain range of numbers or was it an entirely independent discussion.

Mr. Benner said that was a good question for a future capacity review. There was a requirement after Metro adopted a Parks Functional Plan with level of service standards. The next time you did the UGR capacity calculation, you would ask the question, how much land should we set aside for parks. You would then have a new Functional Plan, with level of service standards to help you determine how much land you should be setting aside for parks. Then there would be an effect on the UGR. He said he didn't think there was an effect now because the council had not adopted a Functional Plan or set level of service standards. Councilor Atherton said it still has an effect. He noted that the number related to existing on the ground experience minus Forest Park. Mr. Benner said that was true.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 15, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

2a.  UPDATE ON TABLE 1 NUMBERS. Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Planning Department, spoke to a new, Table 3.07-1 (distributed and included as a part of this record). The difference, she said, was that Oregon City represented a 1,756 unit increase from the previously listed number which put them just over 2,000 units more region-wide than the original 2,017 target number. Oregon City also had a slight increase in the jobs; they were well over on their jobs target, over 50,000 more than they had originally targeted. Ms. Bernards added that staff was waiting for the City of Wilsonville to submit their final capacity numbers, then the table will be complete.

Councilor Burkholder asked how this table related to the capture rate. Ms. Bernards said these numbers represent what was in the previous round of assessing the capacity of the boundary, five years ago. This was the region's capacity now. The capture rate would be things that would be in addition to this beyond 2017. Councilor Burkholder said if these numbers went up, how that would effect satisfying the need for the next round. Mr. Benner responded that they would need to get the calculations from the Planning Department but if the UGR numbers in front of them were based on lower numbers on the chart, and the numbers rose because they were learning that the existing urban growth boundary (UGB) had a larger capacity then the gap, the unmet need went down. They were related, he said. Councilor Burkholder summarized that this would change the UGR with the new numbers. The additional capacity would drop.

Ms. Bernards added that when they were first looking at the UGR, they had a different number for Oregon City. It may not make as dramatic a difference as 1,700 units.

Councilor Hosticka paraphrased what Gil Kelley, City of Portland Planning Director, said at the public hearing the previous evening. He said Mr. Kelley was saying the Portland had met their Table 1, Title 1 numbers and he was upset that other jurisdictions were being allowed to not meet their Table 1, Title 1 numbers. Councilor Hosticka did know what Mr. Kelley was referring to and what the implications were for what they were doing here.

Chair Park asked Ms. Bernards to explain how Portland's numbers were calculated that were different from anyone else's. Second, he asked her to relate the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) discussions over Table 1 numbers.

Ms. Bernards said they had a region-wide total for dwelling units that had been exceeded. When the original 2017 numbers were put together, it was assumed that there would be no expansion to the UGB. They, in fact, expanded about 4,000 acres so that changed the capacity as well. The City of Portland, when it did its calculation, didn't use its zone capacity; it used its comprehensive plan capacity. That was the number Portland gave Metro. Metro was using zone capacity, so they compromised and met at a point in between because not all of the comprehensive plan capacity would be realized. It was generally higher than the zone capacity because the zone changed as development occurred. The City of Portland met their targets. In the discussions of how we would address the shortfalls in different jurisdictions’ targets, would we make them go through the exceptions process, would we look at the target as a whole, was it a region wide target or specific targets, MTAC said they should be looking at the regional picture as a whole. With the changes, Title 1 now created a 2017 baseline. Jurisdictions can't downzone without a corresponding u zone. They can't lose any capacity that this table says. Overall there were jurisdictions that didn’t meet their capacity targets and some that were over their targets. With the additional 4,000 acres, it created their 2017 need that they had identified. They had met their capacity as a region.

Councilor Hosticka asked if Mr. Kelley was saying that some jurisdictions hadn't met their capacity and that by issuing a new table he was implying that we were saying this was okay.

Chair Park said there had been a discussion about this issue at MTAC, and he said he was not pleased that Mr. Kelley decided yesterday to say something different from what Portland had been saying in those meetings, which was, we should be looking as this as a region, a regional number and not individual jurisdictions. Both Councilor McLain and Councilor Monroe were there when the original Table 1 numbers were set.

Councilor Hosticka added that Beaverton and Clackamas had not hit their numbers. Chair Park said Milwaukie was an example of a number that was put together as a best guess. Ms. Bernards said Milwaukie didn’t have as much of a reach in their housing target as their job target. Some of the targets were ambitious for the jurisdictions, she added. Even the jurisdictions that came up short made attempts to upzone. In fact, she said, some of the ones that fell the most short were the ones that tried the hardest to find the capacity elsewhere. Chair Park said Beaverton was an example. Ms. Bernards said Washington County went through an extensive process to reach their target and in the end they met their regional goal.

Councilor McLain said first, they needed to remember what Mr. Benner said, when he indicated the Table was now different in it configuration and it had a different purpose. It was no longer a beginning table; it was a table in process and it will always change. Those original numbers were our best guess about what the possible capacity would be after each and every jurisdiction looked at them several times. The numbers came back to them, there were adjustment made. They adjusted it because they wanted to work with the jurisdictions to determine what they could realistically do. They asked the jurisdictions that question before they did anything with the Functional Plan. Second, Councilor McLain said, the only thing that concerned her was if she hadn't seen an exception. There was an exception process, which they had agreed upon and explained why. As far as she as knew, they had seen all of the exceptions. Ms. Bernards said the only exception that might come before council was the City of Durham with minimum density. Staff was working with the jurisdiction to come up with an alternative to an exception. Councilor McLain said this chart was a capacity chart to show how much each of these jurisdictions believed they could do with their zoned capacity. Ms. Bernards said that was what was in place on the ground now.

Councilor McLain said they had spent time talking about Portland's different numbers and the fact that they had a zoned capacity and a comprehensive plan capacity. We were choosing when we used which number, and she said that disturbed her. The zone number was what they could depend on, what the jurisdiction can do and what they could depend on. We knew this minimum had to be built. If that number could be used for all of the bases, she suggested putting another column in, which allowed for comprehensive plan capacity. She said she felt we must use the zone number as the base. We could use the other number in a narration. What did that mean for Portland, she asked. Ms. Bernards said she thought they still achieved their target, it was just slightly lower.

Chair Park asked Mr. Benner to explain the difference between a zoned capacity and a comprehensive number. Mr. Benner said it was the comprehensive plan that ruled. Eventually zoning had to come into conformance with the comprehensive plan. Zoning can authorize a lower density than the comprehensive plan over the short run but could never exceed the density that was allocated in the comprehensive plan. What often happened, he said, recognizing in a typical urban growth boundary that there was land inside the city and there was land in the county that hadn't been yet annexed without urban services, when the annexation occurs or the services were extended, it was upzoned to the full capacity of the comprehensive plan. That made it a bit more difficult to determine what the capacity was. Mr. Benner said he didn’t think it was an either or question using either the current zoned capacity or the comprehensive plan capacity. What the Planning Department had wisely done was treat local governments in the region based upon their own experience. He noted that everyone did it differently. What he thought the City of Portland seemed to do was respond to an application coming before it, and at that time it would make the adjustment to the zone density to come into compliance with the comprehensive plan density. Recognizing that this was a 20-year assessment of capacity it was probably reasonable to do it that way.

Councilor McLain said she wasn’t sure what Mr. Benner’s answer meant. She was trying to make this document have consistency. It seemed that what he said was that it was okay to know that they were different. It was okay to take advantage of whatever narration you knew. It would seem that if you were going to use the comprehensive potential that we would have to measure what that potential had produced in the last year to five years and use that in the findings. If they were capable of doing that then let us use it, she said.

Mr. Benner said there had been discussions over a long period of time with Metro’s Planning Department and Portland about this, and there was a record of those discussions. Initially Metro took the position that the number had to be based on the zoned capacity. The city said yes, but here was what we‘ve been doing over a long period of time. That persuaded Metro’s Planning Department that that was enough to say okay, we can expect this then for the next twenty years. Councilor McLain said if Portland had that record of one to five years of how much the city had produced with the ability to utilize that comprehensive plan, then it would seem that that would be in the record. That should stand the test.

Mary Weber, Community Planning Manager, Planning Department, said this was a complicated issue for all of them. They had had a lot of discussions with the city of Portland as well as talking with the state of Oregon. The state blessed Metro and gave them permission to use the city's comprehensive plan capacity for the UGR, and that was what was currently in the UGR. Councilor McLain said that made her feel more comfortable. Chair Park said his reaction was more what they had agreed upon in terms of MTAC and the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC).

Councilor McLain said the fair share issue had always been problematic. She said she wanted to continue to monitor that conversation. If there were a blip on the scale where one jurisdiction was not as responsive as they said they would be, then the council needed to talk about it. She said she assumed compliance reports were going to continue to come. Ms. Bernards said there was a law now requiring them to present their compliance reports. Chair Park said the region did hit their Table 1 numbers. The regional focus was their goal.

2.  CENTERS POLICY DISCUSSION. Chair Park said he has asked Councilor McLain to help explain the amendment to Title 6, that this was the heart of what they were doing to make the 2040 Growth Concept work. Councilor Monroe, he said, would be talking about some of the transportation issues and how that would help make some of the Centers work.

•  Framework Plan, 1.15 Centers (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit G). Councilor McLain spoke to Exhibit G and reminded the committee that this was a policy center amendment to the Regional Framework Plan. Its effect would provide the guidance for what they hoped would happen in the various Centers. She summarized the purpose of the proposed amendment and noted that page 1 of the exhibit was an addition. She gave a historical overview of the 2040 Growth Concept and talked about the blobs on the map and how these had meaning to grow differently. If you had vital Centers, a vital central city, and viable neighborhoods, she said, you would have the kind of full community that you would want to live in. This was described in the Future Vision and RUGGOs documents. This policy set up some complementary language, which affected both land use and transportation and showed the connection.

Councilor Burkholder asked about the second paragraph, third sentence, and asked how it related to schools. He noted that one school district had talked about not putting any schools in station areas or Centers. If we were looking at higher populations in Centers, he said, we needed to talk about schools in Centers. We needed a different model. He wondered if this left an opening to talk with school districts as time went on and suggested that it was appropriate to have schools in Centers if there were children living there. Chair Park noted Gresham's Center for Advanced Learning.

Councilor Atherton asked about the key transportation strategies in the Centers policy, and Chair Park said that was covered in Exhibit H. Councilor Atherton then asked about the priority of investment, if it was a valuable addition to the policy statement. Councilor Burkholder asked him if he was saying that it was one of the highest priorities of Metro to invest in Centers or the fact that we should set a list of priorities for which center was first. Councilor Atherton said yes, in terms of transportation investments, we had an agreement that we were going to focus on transportation investments on Centers first and get the Centers done before we went outside.

Councilor McLain said Councilor Atherton’s comment was good. Adding the word priority in front of investment was a good idea. She said that paragraph did two things, in a Centers strategy we would prioritize Centers and this says they would build a Centers strategy. Prioritizing of Centers would come in that conversation. This was yet to come. What they were doing in putting this language in was committing to making such a strategy and making such a commitment and criteria in a prioritized list. She said Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) had to do with land use and transportation elements. They did a good job in that program to try and make sure that whatever we invested in was really going to further that land use and transportation around those Centers.

Councilor Burkholder said he didn’t think that they had addressed Councilor Atherton’s concern about the development of Centers. He asked if they could say this was something that Metro should put at the top of the list.

•  Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6 – Central City, Regional Centers, etc. (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit H). Councilor Monroe said, with Measure 26-29 and all of the testimony they had heard from the public, it was clear that if we could have a Centers policy that worked that we could reduce the need to expand the UGB. We could do that while honoring Measure 26-29 and protect existing neighborhoods. How did we enhance a Centers policy, he asked. There were a number of elements that we spoke to, such as schools ought to be near Centers, and city government offices and buildings should be in Centers. Obviously, Councilor Monroe said, Centers needed to include all of the amenities that people could walk to and they also had to be served by transportation. Every time we influence how transportation decisions are made, we ought to be thinking Centers. He gave examples of these decisions, and then said you could think two ways about transportation investments – one would be in the center to make it work, the other way would be by tying Centers together.

Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said there was not enough recognition of the fact that the transportation policy was in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). There were aspects of that RTP including TOD development. There ought to be some language that linked the policy to the RTP and said that when Metro did its strategy that it shall include an examination and linkage between Centers policy and RTP policy.

Councilor McLain agreed and said the language was in the RTP. Council had said they wanted to have it all together, she said, and it seemed to her that it would be consistent that the Functional Plan would make reference to the RTP.

Councilor Burkholder said he would support that and they should make a positive statement that said once the strategy was developed that the RTP would be amended to conform to a regional strategy. He spoke to the last page (p. 14) of Exhibit H on item 1; he would cut the word 'unnecessary' in front of regulatory barriers. The goal was to examine physical regulatory barriers, he said. On item 2, he wondered if there should be some examples of what was preferred type of development. He asked the committee about federal and state investments and how that tied into their center strategy such as special transportation areas. There was no positive statement to work with the state and federal agencies to get them to participate in the center strategy. He said he felt they needed to be more aggressive in the language.

Chair Park asked Mr. Benner to address this. Mr. Benner spoke to the question of investments by others. If you look at Exhibit G, he said, the second sentence of the second paragraph, “The regional strategy shall call for investments in Centers by Metro and efforts by Metro to secure complementary investments by others.” This called for work with the Community Solutions Team which was the five state agencies that were in the best position to make some investments in Centers. The Community Solutions Team itself worked with federal agencies to bring in some of their investments as well. You could add to the second sentence by being specific about the others, who they were, but it seemed more appropriate that that be fleshed out in the strategy itself and probably not appropriate for code language. The code language was where you say what local governments needed to do. It was covered, but not very explicit.

Chair Park said he had spoken with Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, about item #1 and he said Mr. Cotugno was talking about some of the impediments to development in the Centers. Apparently there were some jurisdictions that had a ban on mixed-use in the Centers. He suggested an outright approved use of mixed-use in Centers. He noted that the other issue was height restriction.

Councilor Burkholder said he wanted to take out the word unnecessary because someone could say, we needed that, and therefore you won't review it. He suggested an assessment of regulations.

Chair Park said he felt Councilor McLain could attest to the TOD project on the Center Oak project.

Councilor Burkholder said Vancouver, B.C., had encouraged skinny towers. In their fire codes, they were allowed to have the stairways going in the same column. In the United States you had to have them separated. Therefore, your building had to be bulkier and bigger. You couldn't do a skinny tower that didn't block people's views. He noted that the City of Portland was trying to emulate that regulation. Was it necessary, he asked, and could you meet the same goal with different regulations.

Chair Park asked if anyone had come up with any thoughts on how to add the priority concept to the Centers. Mr. Benner said he would take the second sentence of the second paragraph, which currently read, "The regional strategy shall call for investment in Centers by Metro. . " and revise it to read, "The regional strategy shall place a high priority on investments in Centers by Metro…" Councilor Atherton concurred with Mr. Benner's wording. Chair Park noted that the language was acceptable to the committee; therefore, he asked for it to be added. He also heard general agreement on better linkage with transportation.

Councilor Burkholder then referred to Exhibit H, p. 13, and joint jurisdictional Centers. He asked if the committee wanted to include something in there as to how that might function. He asked was actually responsible for developing and implementing a strategy when you had multiple jurisdictions sharing a center such as Washington Square, or did they need to worry about that issue. Chair Park said that was a good point, that there were Centers that had multi-jurisdictions.

Mr. Benner said there might be a practical answer, that the legal language said, "Each city and county that had a center would have to respond to this. They would be working on it on a schedule established jointly with Metro." For example, he said, with Washington Square, Beaverton and Tigard would work with Metro and agree on a schedule for the two of them to develop a strategy.

Councilor Burkholder said that under special transportation, he noted in the Centers study that they received, it mentioned discouraging retail use along state highways and the benefit of commercial office space along the corridors. Did they want to include one or both or neither in this discussion, he asked. Both statements came from the Centers study, he said, and he suggested flagging that issue and having a discussion with staff.

Chair Park said he wanted to make sure they weren’t getting in too deep. He wanted to say something about housing in Centers but he realized that might be getting into the next step. Councilor Burkholder’s concern would be flagged, Chair Park said, and he then noted the regionally significant lands piece discussed at MTAC. We don't talk about the effects of the new sections of Title 4 and the opportunity to help direct commercial towards Centers. He noted testimony they had heard on this issue. He asked Ms. Weber what the thoughts were from MTAC and staff on how to direct commercial towards Centers or if it would be directed toward Centers.

Ms. Weber said they did not know how the whole element of commercial, office development, retail that looks like office, office that looks like retail products were on the landscape and how it played into 2040. They had more information on industrial land and the body of knowledge they have on different housing types and the like than on this issue. The committees had not recommended a map so they didn't know how these components played out. They thought that in Task 3, they would really like to see what had been happening over time. It may be the activity had been in the employment zone instead of the industrial zone. What was appropriate? We had employment areas along corridors that were near Centers. Maybe, it was not a bad thing that we have an office product near the center, there was good access to the center for those retail services. They did recommend in the Centers report in the work program to look at the relationship between corridors and Centers and what activity would go along in those corridors. They wanted to know more about how best commercial activity played out on the landscape as it related to overall development in the Centers and preservation of those targeted industrial areas. They don't know that right now.

Chair Park asked if Bob LeFever made some suggestions about a commercial work program. Ms. Weber said yes. Mr. LeFever, who was the President of the Oregon Chapter of the International Shopping Center Association, would like to see a similar analysis that was done for the real study done for a commercial product. The question that had come up, she said, was what was commercial.

Councilor McLain said it was her understanding that this issue would be part of Task 3. We needed more work on that issue. We needed to go back to our own documents and see what we have learned. There were some elements that were instrumental in beginning this dialogue in Task 3. She said she believed staff was on the right track.

Chair Park asked for clarification on how one would classify Gresham Station, and Ms. Weber responded that the term Bob LeFever used was Life Style Center. They had tall, big boxes as opposed to a power center, which didn't have big boxes stacked like Gresham Station. In the case of the Gresham Station, you had sidewalks everywhere, internal circulation that was safe to use, obvious components for the pedestrian where if you went to a power center it was quite different. How those products lay out on the site was different. Chair Park said that helped clarify it.

•  Framework Plan, 1,9 Urban Growth Boundary (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit J). Councilor McLain spoke to Exhibit J, expansions in the Regional Framework Plan. She reviewed the language. Chair Park said one of the things that came up was the issue of industrial sites when you were looking at subregional questions dealing with Centers. He asked if all industrial sites had to help empower a center. Gresham had made the case, he said, that adding industrial land would help empower the regional center. Were there cases where we would add industrial sites recognizing that may not be the case? He said he wanted to make sure that the language reflected that not everything we added might help a center. Councilor McLain said that was a good comment. If they truly believed in a Centers policy, you wanted those Centers to work as well as you could, everything should blend in there. They could amend the language if they found problems, she said.

Chair Park reminded the committee that not all Centers were equal, and said an example would be an employment center versus a regional center. Mr. Morrissey said you would have to analyze a center based on certain functions when you were dealing with the notion of what helped or what didn’t help the center. For example, if you added piece a land that was so far from a center that transportation or other services were too costly or it caused transportation to interfere with development of the Center, that would be the way you would need to look at that. Regarding industrial land, Mr. Morrissey said it seemed that the case was being made on a tax base rationale not on other kinds of things that you thought of that helped Centers grow or impede their growth. He assumed the analysis would be more of a fiscal revenue analysis than a service or transportation analysis.

Councilor Hosticka said he liked having this in the Regional Framework Plan. He suggested a discussion on the proposed expansion and its effect on Centers at the next Council Informal. He said he could see relationships between location of expansions and the size of the overall expansion. He noted the EcoNorthwest Study on Centers and what facilitated or impeded development in the Centers.

Chair Park said at the same time, they needed to look at the MetroScope studies to see how those interacted as well.

Councilor McLain said the only concern she had about using the MetroScope work was how the assumptions played out and when the assumptions played out. That made a big difference on what the result looked like, she said. She thought the framework for MetroScope was more important than the summary. She asked Ms. Weber to clarify when the assumptions kicked in and how they changed over the 20 years.

Ms. Weber said MetroScope was run in five-year increments. The lag time when you added land to the UGB was five years before they assumed any infrastructure would come in. You were dealing with a rolling twenty-year supply, you were adding incrementally. This was true with Centers, as well, it was phased in over time.

Chair Park said he had gone around and around with Mr. Cotugno on this issue, on when an infrastructure actually happened. The assumptions of when infrastructure occurred made a big difference as to how these runs came out. They were all done on a five-year basis for consistency. These were indicators, not real life scenarios and they needed to be used as such.

Councilor McLain said that was how she had used them. It was interesting material but we didn’t know. The problem she had was thinking about what were the ramifications of bringing it on too quickly versus not quickly enough. What were the ramifications of the size of a site and what did you do as far as diluting the focus of your infrastructure if you had too much to do all at one time. You could plan it all at one time but as far as on the ground transportation facilities that was a different matter.

Ms. Weber said, as policy makers, the committee was going to have to decide along the way where the investments should go, Centers, industrial areas, new urban areas. Those were hard choices. MetroScope won’t give them the answers.

Chair Park asked Jim Jacks to speak to concurrency and the metering of how this was going to occur.

Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin Planning Director, said Tualatin had thought about the areas east of the city. The portion immediately east of Tualatin was farthest away from the interchange. It seemed that if anything in area 42 was going to be developed first it would be closer to the interchange. That was farthest away from where the sewer and water was. Then, they would need to make an improvement at Borland Road linking back in order to extend streets back inside the city limits. They would need to deal with this during a master planning process. Typically when an area was added, the portion of that area closest to the existing city where there were services would be the next few acres to develop. That was not the visible land, that was not the land where someone would likely first pick, they would go farther east another mile by Stafford Road by the schools and find a site to build. One of the goals they would have in any master planning process would be to figure out the sewer, the water, and transportation. There would be a lot of master planning and timing of when properties would be coming on line given where the current services would be extended from.

Chair Park said he was curious about this from a local government perspective because of the timing and metering issues. Mr. Jacks added that there were two sewer pump stations on the very east side of the city next to the UGB. He said he wasn't sure those were sized near serving any new development outside the UGB because they were sized to serve the single-family residential that was around where the pump stations existed. It could be very expensive to develop the first acre.

Councilor Monroe asked if he had been following the Burton Transportation Task Force and its recommendations. One of the projects was going to be the I-205 project, which would add the third lane both east and west bound between I-5 and Stafford Road. It would also add a climbing lane west bound out of Oregon City. The expansion between I-5 and Stafford Road where most of the congestion was could play a major role. Mr. Jacks said he had not been following that but clearly transportation was not currently a good situation.

Councilor Hosticka said he was interested in Mr. Jacks’ perspective on that situation because it seemed to him it was analogous to what was being discussed in the Damascus area. You weren't talking about initiating development on the fringe of the current urbanized area but talking about planting a seed in a new center and growing from there. He said he thought it was a different kind of evolution than they had traditionally been involved in. We needed to think about it in different ways.

Mr. Jack said that was a good point. They had not spent real time trying to figure it out because the City of Tualatin was not supporting or opposing adding Areas 42. They felt it would be a difficult situation to deal with particularly because of the expense and current limited services. He said the timing of which properties go first was going to be very difficult. Chair Park said he appreciated the local perspective.

Councilor Atherton said when you go back to the 2040 Growth Concept and not developing around freeway interchanges, that area was supposed to remain rural. All of the experience of those who had developed around interchanges was that those freeway interchanges remained viable if you didn't develop around them. Those weren't good places to create Centers. It was also very expensive, he added.

Mr. Benner said that to implement Policy 1.9, you would need to add language to the criteria for UGB expansions. He said he would be happy to draft an amendment to 3.01.020, which had the criteria for legislative amendments. They had already talked about a change to that chapter on conditions, he said, and it seemed to make sense to do it all at once. Chair Park acknowledged the general agreement for this among the committee members.

Councilor Atherton asked about the status of developing the criteria. Mr. Benner said the actual criteria that applied to the council's decision to expand the UGB was located in Chapter 3 of the Code, and there was a bit of direction on this in the Regional Framework Plan, as well.

Councilor Burkholder commented that they were creating quite a work program here. He reminded the committee that they needed to look at funding for upcoming work programs.

4.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Councilor Atherton said he wanted to talk about the forecast. He then talked about Mr. Dennis Yee's methodology report where it said the sensitivity analysis had not been done. He said the statistical likelihood had not been analyzed and he said he thought it should be. Chair Park said they would have a discussion on November 5^th about this issue. He understood that it was not possible based on the type of forecasting that was done.

Councilor Atherton said he felt that November 5^th was too late, that this should have been resolved along time ago. From all of the research he had done, this was standard operating procedure. Chair Park said it was on the agenda next Tuesday. He wanted to know if Mr. Yee would be bringing forward anything soon. Ms. Weber said they would get Mr. Yee's analysis on Tuesday. Chair Park asked to get it earlier than that.

Chair Park then thanked staff and the committee on a job well done on the public hearings. They had gone smoothly, he said, and he noted that all of the information would be accumulated for next Tuesday's Community Planning Committee meeting (on November 5^th). Councilor McLain concurred with Chair Park’s comments about a job well done. She said Metro has a responsibility to respond back to citizens. They have to feel that the council not only listened but reviewed their requests, also. She noted some of those requests. Councilor Burkholder agreed that, once the decision was made, the council needed to respond to people about that decision. Chair Park concurred.

5.  ADJOURN. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

as transcribed by Christine Billington, Council Clerk

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.