MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, November 19, 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 1:18 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING. (The minutes were distributed and made a part of this record.)

3.  CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEMS FROM NOVEMBER 8, 2002 (reference Ordinance No. 02-969).

Councilor Burkholder said the 4% figure was supported by data Metro had gathered to date showing a range of 4% - 6%. He requested the study be added to the work plan for 2003 that analyzes the role of vacancy rate in the availability of affordable housing for our region. (A copy of a memo to Councilor Burkholder from Kelly Ross of the Home Builders Association was also distributed and made a part of this record.) Councilor Burkholder recalled a discussion from the previous meeting about the Urban Growth Report, including land for parks, needed land for schools, and whether the vacancy rate was at the correct number, as well as whether it should be used at all. His concern, he said, was whether the vacancy rate was required by state law in meeting the need and what number would provide for the friction rate of people moving from one home to another. He offered this amendment because the decisions on schools and parks were made based on studies that laid out actual numbers, and he said he felt information should also be presented about how the vacancy rate affected housing need. He recommended the lower rate of the range the data showed to use for cautious decision making. He added that it was hard take land out of the urban growth boundary once it was in, and that the 4% number could be defended. Councilor McLain questioned the 4%-6% vacancy rate, and said one of the reasons she had voted against having a vacancy rate was that there was no accuracy in the rate. She agreed with the need for a study and that it was reasonable to assume there would be some vacancy. She reminded the committee that they were making a 20-year forecast and that they could not possibly use up any vacancy rate that had been offered so far unless the entire forecast was completely off. She said after some discussion she would move to accept the lowest number they had heard, 2.5%.

Councilor Bragdon believed there was in fact a vacancy rate, and said he would support Councilor Burkholder’s amendment. He believed it was a market rate and a functional reality that at any given time people have not moved in and out at the same time. His discomfort was what was the right number. He thought the 5% proposed was high and since reviewing the data, he felt 4% was a reasonable number. He said the proposal to study this further and have some more insights from industry people would be very healthy. He summarized that a vacancy rate was a factor that really did exist in the real world and it ought to be included in the calculations and said he would support the amendment.

Councilor Hosticka said he was opposed to having a vacancy rate because the purpose of a vacancy rate (he quoted the bold type under Goal 10 in the Kelly Ross memo mentioned above) was to “allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density.” He said he continued to believe that the 20-year land supply did allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density, and they did not need an additional factor added in order to give people the opportunity to have that flexibility. He said the absence of data made him even more cautious. He said there was no current policy, only a staff recommendation to use the vacancy rate. He felt they were making policy at this point and he was going to approach it from that point of view. Councilor Atherton said they were making policy on the fly without adequate data, and he was against this unless there was background information supporting it, that they were setting a dangerous precedent. He felt they would be much better served by having no vacancy factor as the 20-year supply was more than adequate. He urged a no vote.

Councilor McLain agreed that a study should be done before the next Urban Growth Report on exactly how the vacancy rate fit in to the calculations. With this motion, she was trying to give credence to the fact that there should be a vacancy rate in the report. She noted that staff had given information that there were locations around the state that had used 2% - 2.5% as a vacancy rate with no comments from either commission or LCDC staff that it was an inappropriate number. She said they had every right to pick a conservative number today because it was not a state law that the vacancy rate should be part of the formula. She requested a vote for a 2.5% vacancy rate.

Councilor Monroe commented that Metro’s planning staff was renowned as maybe the best planning staff in the nation and had spent a year working on this, and came up with a fairly conservative vacancy rate of 5% as a recommendation. Now, he said, the committee thinks they can pick a better number. The truth is, he said, the minimum vacancy rate for single family runs 2.5%, but for multi-family it runs at about 7%. The combined minimum vacancy rate of all the numbers they had seen was 4.1% to a maximum of around 9%. He said they should support staff’s recommendation unless there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He said he would support 4%.

Councilor Hosticka responded that staff had submitted 3 or 4 different numbers in the Urban Growth Report and said they picked this number, not that this number was the most scientifically sound. They said, in fact, that there were a number of data points and considerations, and they picked that number. Nothing more. Councilor Bragdon said, having looked at what data was available and recognizing there were different ranges on different types of housing, that the ECONorthwest report talked about historical rates in this region between 4% and 6%. He said they had to base their decisions on the best data they had at any given time so he would not be supporting this amendment, but would support the 4%.

Chair Park said he would support the 4% rate because the data given to them in the report.

Councilor Bragdon commented that he had previously asked for time to review the MPAC recommendation about park land, which was an aspirational number he shared. He noted that his discomfort during those discussions had been whether there was sufficient commitment behind that aspiration, both financially and in regard to other financing tools. He believed there was not, and said he could not subscribe to an unsubstantiated aspirational number. He said he was not proposing a different number and reiterated Councilor McLain’s words that this conclusion should not be construed as not wanting parks. He said they had to be realistic so he was sticking where they were previously.

Councilor McLain said she could support this motion with a direction to staff to work with the jurisdictions to standardize a form for submission of data for the Urban Growth Report. Councilor Atherton asked how they could accept the UGR and calculate the number of units if they were not clear on the forecast. He recalled commenting at the previous meeting on recent conversations with Tom Potowski, a state economist, about an upcoming report on projected population growth for the three county metropolitan area using standard demographic techniques and looking at current unemployment migration patterns. He said this report would be available on Thursday.

Councilor Monroe commented that they needed to accept the UGR as amended many times today so staff could figure out where we are. He said that wasn’t to say that it couldn’t be amended further in the future. The committee system at Metro allowed amendments not only in committee, but on the floor at the main council meeting, so this wasn’t being carved in stone, it was simply giving staff the necessary instruction so they work the numbers.

Councilor Hosticka agreed with Councilor Monroe. He said the reason he made this motion was so they could proceed with their work because they knew that on Thursday, they had a number of people who wanted to come talk to them about the work they had done up to then. He said as Councilor Monroe pointed out, if there was new information gained that threw their work up to then in serious doubt, they could go back and revisit it. He just wanted to keep the process moving with people feeling somewhat comfortable. He said they had all been on both sides of 4/3, votes but at some point they had to get together and move as a unit, which was the spirit in which he presented this motion.

Chair Park asked staff to depart from the chamber and make their calculations on the 4% vacancy rate and bring them back. He called a 10-minute recess for that purpose at 1:46 p.m. The committee reconvened at 2:05 p.m.

Chair Park said he would explain the process when staff arrived with the new maps. In the meantime, he asked for an update from Mr. Donovan on the public comment process.

3a.  Public Comment Process, UGB. John Donovan, Metro Council Communications Officer, distributed a large blue packet on the public comment process and summarized its contents, saying it was a final compilation of public comment materials that he wanted the councilors to be sure to have as they moved through the final stages of the committee process. He said they had seen a lot of the material at their meeting on November 5, after the close of the public comment period on November 1. He pointed out Appendix C, a region wide map of the notice areas from the 105,000 notices that went out to property owners in August and early September. He also noted news clips since June on Urban Growth Boundary discussions, and ad copy, which appeared in The Oregonian and community newspapers throughout the region, August through November. He said there was also a complete set of all of the public comments received August 1 through November 1 in the council office that councilors could direct people to if they wanted to see it. He introduced the new Elmo camera system that would allow the entire room to view the specific maps being referred to in discussion. Chair Park thanked Mr. Donovan and the communication staff for their work. He said this had been one of the largest Goal 1 public involvement efforts in the state.

4.  UGB AMENDMENT AREAS – COUNCILOR AMENDMENTS (reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit N). [Please note that on site specific motions, the motion number is matched to a map with the same number, said maps included as part of this record.] Chair Park recapped: the current capacity within the boundary is 183,300 dwelling units; the current demand is 220,700 dwelling units; and the current need is 37,400. He said that was the amount of dwelling units they would need to look at expanding to outside the boundary. Councilor McLain reminded the committee they also had a Centers policy and others besides the 37,400 dwelling units. She said it would take a combination of amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary and Centers policies that are also part of that total. She added that they did not have to add new acreage for every dwelling unit. Chair Park said the most noteworthy thing to him was the fact that they had an increase in 2.7% that they were trying to accomplish within their centers that took care of approximately 6,000 dwelling units of need that will not have to be sought outside the boundary. He said the current number for need, through a combination of efforts, is 37,400.

Chair Park said they were getting to the end of a two-year process with the completion of the first Periodic Review, Task 1, and finalizing the prior need of 1997-2017. He said the current work was for 2002-2022 so it was a multi-year effort. He added that the committee had been working with the state through the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), trying to get clarity to this process. He said the goals of the committee had to be accomplished as outlined by the state, by the commission, and also as required by state law that there are certain areas they have to look at and urbanize for maximum efficiency, and they have to apply the 2040 Goals that Metro has of having a compact region with open spaces, access to nature, a good economy, all the issues that makes this area special that they are trying to keep that way. He said they have and are continuing to work on a Centers strategy. There was a study going on, a work program that would be part of the ongoing Task 3.

Councilor Monroe expressed his concern that the pressing need for urban expansion was on the west side that had been growing most rapidly and had the greatest needs for housing and industrial lands. He was concerned that they were starting where the need was the least and where it would be the most difficult and take the longest to serve. Councilor Hosticka asked for clarification and updates on the changing numbers as they went through the process and what each amendment meant regarding land and the need.

Councilor Burkholder said it was the right starting place because their charge was orderly and efficient development of the urbanized area. He acknowledged that some thought they should be doing things differently, or not expanding at all, doing more in community centers. He said legal requirements and policies adopted and implemented by the Metro Council in the past, and implemented by the jurisdictions within the urban growth boundary, was the logical place. He said they need to look at large enough areas that make sense. As well, this area of the region is the area that does need more industrial capacity and employment capacity. Sixty some percent of residents of Gresham and of Clackamas County have to travel away from home and out of their county in order to find work. That is illogical from a regional perspective and it creates incredible transportation costs and in transportation forms that can’t really provide viable options for people so they drive their cars. He said he heard over and over in the public hearings, “we don’t want this to happen but we know it’s going to and we want to be in control of it.” He said he was very impressed by the public testimony received in the Damascus area about the future the people see making for themselves. Even though they would like to live a rural, idyllic lifestyle a little bit longer, people know traffic is getting worse and they realized they need to take control of that.

Chair Park, apologized that he had not mentioned that the committee would go through the sites, then allow staff the evening and the next morning to make the adjustments to the numbers. General Counsel Cooper agreed. At the request of Councilor Hosticka, Chair Park traced on the map with a laser pointer the areas in Councilor Bragdon’s motion.

There was discussion on having an urban growth boundary expansion south of the county line which raised questions about the green corridor. Chair Park said they would have additional discussion about this.

Councilor Hosticka said he could support the motion under certain conditions. He said he had asked legal staff to prepare some conditions (distributed and included as part of this record). Councilor Hosticka said the major thrust of his conditions was that the planning process for this area be led by the people of the area and not planned for them by some outside force, and he outlined each of the nine conditions.

There was discussion on which jurisdiction had authority to do land use planning in that area, and also on the possible incorporation of a portion of the area into a new city. It was going to take some time and things would evolve, but without a legal existing entity out there or one that may be formed in the future, it was difficult to specify how one could have a condition that would require involvement by something that doesn’t exist. Councilor Hosticka asked if they could also say that it would not be urbanized until such an entity does exist. Mr. Cooper expressed a concern that it may then put a condition, that if it doesn’t fulfill, it means you have got a null set urban growth boundary. He said as a general matter, they advised the council before that having, in effect, a no plan means undoing a UGB amendment that has been adopted by the council and is probably not permitted under Oregon law. He said a strong indication, a timing, if something does get created, a transfer of authority to the new entity is certainly something you have the authority to, do and amend that condition if something does get incorporated.

Mr. Cooper continued that the Goal 5 Natural Resource Protection Issue stated that if and when Metro adopted a Goal 5 program, and it was subject to acknowledgement by LCDC, then it would go into effect and must be included. If the planning proceeded and there was no Metro Goal 5 program, the Metro Goal 5 inventory already adopted would be in effect, placed in the record and become the starting point for any Goal 5 work that would have to be done as part of the local process. State law requires a Goal 5 plan for the area as part of the comprehensive planning. He said he thought they had dealt with Goal 5 to the maximum that we can.

Councilor Hosticka, noted that these conditions would apply to study areas 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and portions of 10 and 19, so they were not written to apply to the areas up near the existing Gresham city area. He said, in concept, he would like to make these part of the motion for including this area within the urban growth boundary.

Councilor Bragdon, as maker of the motion, felt the concept was sound and he was supportive of that, but felt there should be discussion. Councilor Burkholder, the seconder, was also supportive of the friendly amendment.

Councilor McLain said it was important to make distinctions about what is already required by our Functional Plan in the way of conditions and responsibilities and requirements. She said, of these conditions, that six of them appeared to come from Functional Plan responsibilities that are already passed and in the code. As for the other three, she had a great deal of support for. Regarding the other two elements of planning, dealing with areas that don’t have elected bodies, she thought if they remembered Pleasant Valley as a model where we had FTE, Metro involvement, and funds that they tried, as partners, to put together, that they could make it work. She said it was important, as Mr. Cooper pointed out, that they don’t go too far with that language. She was comfortable with Mr. Benner’s language on the handout but said they needed to be careful that they don’t make it impossible for anybody to plan. She also recognize that Councilor Hosticka was very careful to recognize Gresham’s responsibility for some of that acreage and Clackamas County’s and others. She said she supported this amendment.

Councilor Monroe explained that this motion would keep the farmland out for now, and would separate Gresham from Damascus, and virtually insure that the Damascus core would be developed and planned by the people of Damascus in cooperation with Clackamas County. He said Councilor Bragdon’s motion to take in the whole region would put 80% or more of the housing from the entire region into Damascus. He said that would make people drive further to work because it was going to take a long time before the Sunrise Highway and other infrastructures were built. In the meantime, those people would have to go to Portland or Washington County to work, increasing vehicle miles traveled, and it would also increase developmental pressure on Clark County where they are currently very concerned about controlling growth. By forcing the growth out into this area that is not served, there will be tremendous pressure for more and more people to move north of the Columbia River, thus increasing the difficulties on land use planning in Clark County as well as the difficulties of getting across the river. He said he thought this was a prudent way to do it. By taking this area in this year, they could continue, and it could be studied and planned. A new community of Damascus could be incorporated if that was the wish of those people, and then in another few years they could take a look at other areas and see whether or not it made sense. He said the idea of a complete community was held intact by this amendment but it did not take in all the massive area of farmland out to the east.

Chair Park clarified the motion: Councilor Monroe wanted to include the Springwater 2 portion in the motion and he asked to be shown on the map how far south Springwater 2 went. His question, he said, was if the Johnson Creek water basin was included. He asked to have the southern end of Johnson Creek watershed pointed out. Councilor Monroe said he was basing his motion on discussions he had with the folks in Gresham and their need for industrial lands that he had agreed to and still agrees to. Councilor McLain asked for clarification of Councilor Monroe’s motion. Councilor Monroe said area 14 is all within, and so are areas 15, 17, 18, 19 and portions of 13. He thought all of 12 was part of the Springwater Industrial Lands so it would be in. The areas were pointed out on the map.

Chair Park asked for clarification of whether Springwater 2 was still included in the motion. Councilor Monroe wants to include the Springwater Industrial Lands in his motion. Mr. Morrissey clarified that it was not part of the motion as reflected on the map, and then Councilor Monroe verbally added, when the map came up, those parts of area 6 and area 12 that were in the Springwater proposal. Councilor Monroe said that was correct.

Chair Park asked for the areas to be drawn onto the maps for committee review and clarification. Ms. Neill, Senior Regional Planner, spoke to the large map and explained that the double-hatched area was Phase 1, all in Multnomah County. She said Phase 2 was the rest of the hatched area down around, and up towards the existing UGB, so roughly double the size. Councilor Monroe then said the intent of his motion was only the Phase 1 lands in Multnomah County. Councilor Atherton, as seconder agreed.

Councilor McLain said this amendment did not fit the criteria of how to get EFU land in, which they would be discussing at another time with other EFU pieces. She did not think this amendment helped with bringing in the rest of it in an urban reserve process that was not developed yet, nor did it help make logical sense out of the Springwater Industrial land. She said it was a situation where they were not paying enough attention to the local jurisdiction that has this industrial proposal that is so important to this area and to the rest of Clackamas County to the south. She could not find merit in the amendment as it is drawn, although she did find merit in the reasoning for it and the focus on looking around the map to make sure all of the resources did not go into one area. She said as much as she would like to support that concept she could not with this particular drawing.

Councilor Monroe closed. He said the motion brought in Phase 1 Springwater Industrial lands. He said Gresham called it Phase 1, he didn’t. He said that meant they want to do it first, and that it would be a while before they got to Phase 2. He said they do this at least every 5 years. He said it does keep the separation between Damascus. He recalled they heard testimony from citizen after citizen saying, “We are not Gresham, we don’t want to be Gresham, leave us be our own community, if we have to urbanize, let us decided how it happens, maintain separation.” He said the motion would also, for the time being, protect hundreds of acres of farmland currently in farming activity, in that middle greenbelt region that you see there. He said it would give Damascus time to organize and form a separate complete community, and it would give the transportation people, which he said he was very involved with, greater opportunity to figure out a way to pay for the Sunrise Highway to serve that area, and other highway infrastructure needs that would be critical. He said it didn’t really delay development in any way and was a more rational and logical step toward developing this region. He urged support of his motion to substitute.

Councilor Bragdon elaborated on this support to the sentiment behind Councilor Hosticka’s concept. He felt it echoed a lot of what they had heard. Councilor Bragdon thought they were all asking for what Councilor Hosticka was driving for, a lot of local involvement in the planning, some that preserves the community character, either through physical, geographical separation or the visual sorts of clues. He said this also addressed the need for having jobs nearby. It also addressed developing the center from the center out. His question about the conditions was whether there was a possibility they could move forward on some of them with the understanding of the conditions being developed in written form between now and when it actually came to council.

Chair Park assumed that with regard to the concepts within that for the local planning purposes it would not preclude Metro’s involvement or leadership in helping to plan these particular areas, especially in applications for grants, etc. Councilor Hosticka thought Metro’s involvement was appropriate but did not know whether by leadership or support. He said he thought similar to how Metro was involved in the Pleasant Valley planning process would be the kind of thing he envisioned. To echo Councilor Bragdon, he said the essence of the proposed conditions was that the local citizens expressed a fairly strong preference for the kind of development that they would like to see out there. He said Metro could not impose that on them, or in fact could they sit here today and impose anything that would likely dictate development for 20 years. So what he was trying to suggest was a process that was locally led, but supported by Metro and other jurisdictions to help the citizens of that area achieve what their views of

the kind of urban form they wanted. And with that, yes Metro would be involved and he thought they had models about the level of Metro involvement that seemed to work well for everybody. Chair Park understood the intent and supported local involvement.

Councilor McLain said her understanding was that Mr. Burton’s November recommendation took into consideration the line they had looked at regarding the separation of community between Gresham and Sandy. Her understanding was that the map reflected that and she wanted to make sure it did. Chair Park asked for clarification from staff on that. He asked legal counsel if having it on, given the fact that they had the green corridors conditions in place, automatically meant that area would urbanize or would urbanize in the affected area, south of the county line. Mr. Cooper said as each amendment was voted on, he and Mr. Benner were going to go have to go back and double check them as there was an issue raised about the effect of the green corridor agreement on Highway 26, Clackamas County, ODOT, Sandy, and Metro. If they find a problem with the inclusion of that land, they would have to come back and advise the council to take it out. If they believe it is consistent with the agreement, they will let the council know. He suggested going back to it when the answers were found.

Councilor Hosticka said area 18 was part of the regionally significant industrial areas in future maps and that is probably the area being referenced by that. Chair Park said also regionally significant were areas in areas 6 and 12. Councilor Hosticka said that, conceptually, he liked Councilor Monroe’s idea of a phased process, but it would only work in his mind if the rest of this area was in reserve status. He said it would have been his preference to deal with reserves at this time, but since they were not, it seemed to make more sense to include the entire area that Councilor Bragdon had proposed and then set up a planning process that would achieve the kind of results they hoped would be achieved in that area. Again, locally determined. Although the idea behind Councilor Monroe’s suggestion was a good one, Metro did not have a mechanism to make it work right now so he said he supported Councilor Bragdon’s motion.

Chair Park said Metro had the ability to bring in a large area and to plan it correctly and make things happen in terms of the economy, the environment and the quality of life issues. There are quite a few interesting uses in this particular area, but one thing that needs to be addressed is that the current pattern is not sustainable. There is a groundwater critical issue, partially brought on by the success of the area, in one respect, as the area is not currently restricted by state law on well drilling. Nursery businesses are dependent on five-year water rights which depend on the groundwater level. Chair Park mentioned other issues regarding urbanization and concern over it, for the long-term benefit the regional partners in that area have done a ton of work on how that area could develop. This is a great opportunity. However, he echoed some of Councilor Hosticka’s concern that it was only an opportunity. The conditions Councilor Hosticka suggested imposing, Chair Park said, were going to be very important, and not only in this area, to actually make that happen. He ended his comments with a plea for funding for the planning of this area.

There was a short discussion when Councilor Monroe asked to set over work on the Stafford area to the next day, and that the committee deal with things they could complete by 4 o’clock, i.e., Bethany or Forest Park or other less controversial parcels. He said he’d received a request by people who had an interest in Stafford that it be set over because there was a lot of discussion going on out there. He said he believed it would take longer than the 45 minutes they had left, and he respectfully requested that they go to another property first. Chair Park said the committee would take a break at 4 o’clock, and while he understood that Councilors Monroe and Hosticka wanted to go to a Transportation Investment Advisory Task Force meeting, this committee would continue their work after that break.

Councilor Burkholder respectfully asked that they continue as he had returned early from a very important and interesting out of state conference and he thought they had all agreed that they were here to make the decision, and if conflicts come up with individual councilor’s time, those councilors needed to make that choice. He said he made the choice because this was very important. Chair Park asked for the will of the committee whether to delay Stafford at this meeting and go to Bethany. He saw no objections, so said they would work on the Bethany area at this time with the understanding that they may come back to Stafford before the end of day.

Councilor McLain noted that this was a very interesting piece of property in that areas 84 and 86 were exception land, area 83 was EFU land, area 85 was high value EFU, and area 87 was EFU land. She said the council could bring in some EFU land if they could explain why that was necessary to do a better job of serving the exception land (84 and 86). She said hopefully it would not be a bad thing to the state if Metro could make some of the boundaries make sense. Also, she said, Metro had a responsibility to make sure they didn’t create urbanization that would harm the compatibility of agricultural activities that still may be going on in the area. Looking at being honest and supportive of Goal 14 and Goal 12, she said they could also make sure they could serve the exception land in the best way possible. She said there were also the issues of Metro’s promise that they would stay true to geographic and topographic issues, and also not to divide tax lots in half.

The other reason for doing this, Councilor McLain said, was the Bethany town center. She said this was not an edge community, it was a town center community and there was also a church on Springville Road and Kaiser Road so it is an urbanized area and they are trying to make a Center that has some sensibility to it, and it needed some other amenities if it was truly going to be a Center. She said this was not an easy area or an easy recommendation, and she recommended that the Bethany section as a separate ordinance because there were some issues to test. She made this motion trying to take out as much EFU land as was practical, paying particular attention to the state guidelines which state Metro has to demonstrate why this EFU land is needed to service this high value land and the exception land on both sides of it. Councilor McLain said sewers, transportation and a node for the Bethany Town Center were what this would deal with.

Councilor Bragdon said this proposal had some appeal to common sense. He said that sometimes when dealing with EFU, the state law is somewhat different than that, and, without making any pre-judgements about it, he thought it would be the more prudent course so as to not jeopardize 02-969.

There was discussion on the process of separating these areas from Ordinance No. 02-969, and Councilor Bragdon said it was not his intent to stop the conversation on this area. Discussion of the area continued.

Councilor McLain said they might as well do the same thing for the School District piece. Chair Park said that was already in a specific identified land need ordinance that would be first read at council November 21st.

Councilor Hosticka commented that he had been concerned about this area so he went out and spent considerable time looking at it and this proposal most fairly reflected his concerns. He said, unfortunately, the topographical features did not show up on a flat map. He noted that he had first been concerned that they have a large enough area to master plan, but that it seemed to him that this was an area with natural boundaries, minimizing conflict, and that it was large enough to actually plan for it, and it could be efficiently served.

Councilor Monroe said he supported this proposal as well as it was the logical thing to do. He said having Abbey Creek be a buffer between agricultural activity and urbanization made a lot of sense. He said the natural buffers made sense and this proposal did that so he supported it.

Councilor Bragdon said he had voted for similar variations in this area before, and thought there were some pitfalls. He said the appeal to common sense and the natural buffers and natural lines and existence of a town center nearby made a lot of sense and he would support it again, but not without some trepidation that they were not going to see it come back for similar reasons. He said the descriptions of the conditions here and the features of the site were once again compelling.

Councilor Burkholder said for similar reasons he wished to do a little more investigating, so he would abstain.

Chair Park said he voted no on the EFU portion a few years ago because it didn’t include the exception lands. He said he could support this motion based on that criteria and he also said he thought it would meet state law. He did express concern that by extending beyond in area 87, they were pushing the envelope in serviceability and legal requirements. He said he understood that, but he did not believe that the way the law was interpreted would allow that to occur. He said the question would be, not necessarily on this piece, but on other areas that were flat, etc., where did you stop the concept that it made that piece of exception land more serviceable because it lowered the cost and therefore we would continue farther out. He said that was why he could not support this particular one, but might if one came back with a smaller amount.

Councilor Hosticka said he could not address the legal issues but wanted to address the practical issues of are 87. He said given the natural boundaries around are 87, it seemed to him that if it was not included in this proposal it would cause lots of problems for everyone because they would have farming areas which were separated from other farming areas by natural features but are abutting heavily urbanized areas. This may be one where the law may not make sense, he said, and said it seemed to him that they should do what made sense from their perspective and see if the law could sort it out.

Councilor McLain said she had voted against this four times over the last 12 years, and now she was going to vote yes. She said if they were going to serve the west side any time soon, they had to make sense out of state law and maybe push a little on the interpretation that they were using of it, and that they had to make sure they looked at both legal and common sense aspects. She said they were looking to make sure there was a natural boundary that made sense, but areas 84, 85 and 86 were brought, there would be urbanization surrounding area 87 on one side, and a creek and ravine on the other. State law said they had to try to make sure that the boundaries assured that agricultural could be compatible with what they had done. She said leaving area 87 out did not take into consideration that agricultural compatibility. She said this also made some sense for transportation and other issues besides sewers.

Chair Park asked if Councilor McLain’s motion included or excluded the Beaverton School District site. Mr. Cooper said it was included in this motion and would be included in a separate ordinance if the council adopted it, and it would also be included in its own separate ordinance. He said it was in for two different reasons in two different vehicles with alternative findings. Chair Park clarified that it would not create any handicap for the school district. Mr. Cooper clarified that the crosshatched area was not included in this motion.

Councilor Monroe said area 94 was exception land within the boundaries of the City of Portland but not in the Urban Growth Boundary. He said it was appropriate for high-end housing, which there was also an occasional need for. He said it made eminent sense to bring this in and it was also very near employment in downtown Portland and in Washington County. He said executive types that might buy homes up there would be able to get to work very quickly. Chair Park clarified that he was talking about all of are 94. Councilor Monroe said that was correct, and it was all exception land. Councilor Hosticka asked if local jurisdiction had commented on this area. Ms. Neill said she recalled that Portland had not chosen to serve this area because they would have to provide services through Forest Park. Councilor McLain understood they had water from the west and asked for clarification.

Councilor Burkholder opposed this motion because sewers would have to come up Balch Creek Canyon which was a key component of the Forest Park ecosystem. He said the Audubon Society had a sanctuary on Balch Creek as well which had some species of trout in it within the urban area that reproduce there. This area has a rating of least suitable in terms of urbanization, he added, and it has an incredible potential impact on Forest Park if it’s developed at the densities for which it is zoned. He said the Audubon Society was against this specifically, and the City of Portland did not want to build a sewer line up Balch Creek canyon because of the environmental impacts of that as well as the cost to service a very small area.

Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, clarified for Councilor McLain that the alternatives analysis for servicing for water, sewer and stormwater to this area scored as being moderately difficult for all three due to the steep slopes throughout the area. He said he understood most of the sewer would have to come up through Washington County if this area were to be served in the future.

Councilor McLain said there had been comments during the testimony at the public hearing on sewer and water and serviceability issues. It was her understanding that there was water to this area now, and there are two very large subdivisions that do have water. She said they are inside the city limits and have been since 1970, and that there are issues with slopes and protection of nature, they have environmental zones that would not allow them to build to that type of density. She said as Mr. Monroe had pointed out, this was not the 10-to-the-acre type of spot because of those slopes. She said they needed housing of all types and she did not think this should be considered as the 10-unit-per-acre type of 2040 growth that they may need in certain areas. She said she would probably support this although she wished Councilor Monroe would be more specific about the differences between areas 94-1 and 94-2 on the large wall map because the small maps were different. She said she would support this and review them more specifically. She said there were services and the capacity was there.

Councilor Monroe said they needed to understand what was Metro job and what was the city’s job. He said their’s was to decide if it was appropriate to bring into the UGB; it had been inside the City of Portland for 30 years. They have the most restrictive rules in terms of developing fragile areas and they are not going to allow development on steep slopes and are going to make proper determination of lot size. They will decide when and if it can be served. He said it was not logical to have an area within the City of Portland that was outside the UGB. If this area ought to be a part of Forest Park, then the City of Portland should have bought it long ago and added it. He said it is unfair to landowners to have the area inside the City of Portland and not allow them to do anything with it.

Councilor Hosticka said his only evidence was a jurisdictional comment from Al Burns of the City of Portland Planning Department on October 31, 2002, that said study area 94 should not have been included. He did not know what that meant exactly, but interpreted it to mean that the City of Portland did not support it. He said he had seen a number of other areas where local jurisdictions had a different opinion than Metro, and regardless of who was right, bringing in an area that the local jurisdiction did not want to deal with created more conflict rather then less. He said he was more likely to defer to the local jurisdiction’s wishes.

Councilor Burkholder reiterated that Metro had standards and policies to use to rate the most appropriate areas to bring in. He said staff reported that the analysis of Goal 14 factors rated this as least suitable, and it was also rated as least suitable as related to 2040 Fundamentals. The Metro Council did need to make the best decision for the region, and sometimes that was in conflict with the local jurisdiction’s desires, but when staff actually told them this did not help achieve 2040, or was the least likely to help achieve 2040, they should listen.

Councilor McLain said Portland appeared willing to accept the study area within its service area. The relative size of the area seemed to be what made it difficult to serve with maximum efficiency. She said they were dealing with a multitude of conflicting values and making interpretations of what state law and maximum and moderate efficiency means. She thought this one deserved a look because there were maximum restrictions about what you could do in an environmentally sensitive area.

Councilor Bragdon commented that there were a few anomalies here, i.e., why would the City of Portland annex this and then not think it should be in an Urban Growth Boundary. He said the Metro Council could possibly rectify this historic anomaly of where lines were drawn 20-30 years ago with a positive vote.

Chair Park said this one troubled him greatly in the sense that, although it was in an environmentally sensitive area, it was within the City of Portland. He understood being within the City of Portland but outside the Urban Growth Boundary allowed it to be nothing but larger lots, and that if brought inside the boundary the potential existed for them to come up with a development plan that required septic systems rather than a sewer line. He said it may be that a low level development could still work with nature in that particular area. He noted that water service appeared to be there, and said at a lower level of development, the traffic concerns that he had heard about Skyline Road, etc., might be addressed. He said the key issue was the fact that it did lie within the City of Portland.

Chair Park said this was one of those areas he would like to look at later to see what the conditions should be on these particular pieces of property were to make sure that it does meet with what they were trying to accomplish. Maybe Portland already had it covered well enough, he said, but wasn’t sure.

Councilor Monroe apologized and said his original motion should have included the little piece of area 89, northwest of the area 94, that it was exclusively exception land and it was very similar. There was conversation off microphone which is not in this record. Mr. Morrissey added that it was two acres, seven dwelling units and was part of the Executive Officer’s recommendation that was appended to his original recommendation.

Councilor Monroe indicated the area on the large wall map and said it was a little triangle of land that was landlocked and ought to be brought in. He urged approval.

Chair Park called for a short break and reconvene. A short discussion followed regarding Councilors Monroe’s and Hosticka’s attendance at the Transportation Investment Advisory Task Force meeting. Councilor Bragdon said what this committee was currently doing was a big job, that it was the number one job they have, and they had made a lot of progress and they should keep pushing through. Other committee members had made special accommodations in order to do this work today. Councilor Hosticka said his presence may not be required for long at the other meeting, and would most likely be back. Councilor Monroe said he had no problem with the committee working in his absence, but urged that they continue the policy they had adopted that if a motion did not get four votes, they would set it over until the next day. Councilor Hosticka asked that areas 62, 63 and 64 not be considered without him.

Chair Park called a 15 minute break at 3:52 p.m. The committee reconvened at 4:30 p.m.

Councilor Burkholder said he’d heard quite a bit of testimony from the public on this so he’d agreed to bring forward this amendment on their behalf. During the Alternatives Analysis, he said, it was found that study area 93 as a whole was considered least suitable for development because on the east side there were very steep slopes and it would be difficult to service. The west side of area 93, however, was fairly flat and serviceable. This seemed logical to bring in as Exception Land, he said. Chair Park commented that he’d heard testimony both in favor of this site and also against it as there was some question of serviceability. He said he hoped for clarification the following day.

Councilor Bragdon said in the Executive Officer’s August 1st recommendation there was only one part of the Stafford Basin area that he raised, and while it wasn’t recommended he urged the committee to take a look at it during the public hearings, and they did. What came to characterize this site, he said, was that it helps the new Town Center in West Linn, which is on the edge rather than in the center as a Center should be, and which includes retail and a variety of housing, and their city hall, as well. This area is all exception land and is being developed in large lot configurations that are not at all supportive of the Town Center. Councilor Bragdon then said this would be a good inclusion into the UGB and he recommended a yes vote.

Councilor Atherton said one of the key principles was to listen to local jurisdictions who would have to provide service, and what the extent of their planning would be and whether the citizens would want it. That could be decided with an annexation vote, he said, but right now this area is not included in their comprehensive planning program, and the city has repeatedly communicated they did not want this area inside the UGB. This contribution to creating a town center is their decision, not Metro’s, he added. The topography falls away from the eastern boundary of 37. West Linn wants to create a Town Center closer to the Willamette River, he said. There are opportunities to doing that. Adding this land creates uncertainty and moves away from that Centers proposal. Councilor Atherton said this would do a great disservice to City of West Linn, especially to their ability to build something exciting along the Willamette River. He said he thought this was very ill advised and urged a no vote.

Chair Park commented that one thing he was contemplating was if Forest Grove, West Linn or Gresham were entitites in and of themselves such as Prineville or Pendleton, they, like everyone else, would have to provide for their own urban growth boundary. No jurisdiction escapes that responsibility in Oregon, it’s just part of the planning system in this state. One of the tools available to West Linn, he said, was voter annexation. Even though this area may be brought into the UGB, they still have the option of whether they want to incorporate within their boundary or not. He reiterated that no one escapes responsibility of urban growth boundaries.

Councilor Burkholder asked for clarification that Clackamas County had originally requested this site be included in the UGB but then reversed that position and is now opposed to bringing it in. Mary Weber, Community Planning Manager, said correspondence from the county stated they would like to see all of Stafford brought in at once and master planned as a whole. They had not commented specifically on area 37, however. Chair Park said he thought the amendment sheet on this prepared by staff was not correct in that regard. Councilor Hosticka referred to a recently received letter from the Clackamas County Commission that he thought was restating a position, but he couldn’t say exactly, and asked that this letter be included in the record. Mr. Cooper told the committee that the comment record was closed for the purpose of work sessions in front of this committee, but the record would reopen Thursday, November 21, 2002. He cautioned the councilors to not attempt including new information until the record reopened. The letter Councilor Hosticka referred to is consequently not included in this record, but has been placed in the public comment file.

Chair Park asked if there were any more proposed amendments for the Stafford/Wilsonville areas. Hearing none, the committee moved on to the Tualatin/Wilsonville sites.

Councilor Hosticka said this area was known as the Tonquin Industrial Group, and was all exception land, and, in fact most of it has already been dedicated to industrial uses except for one parcel. The land has been modified by gravelling, etc., he added, and was serviceable by transportation. His purpose in making the motion, he said, was to recognize its industrial character and add it to the industrial inventory if it’s in the UGB. The uses of the land could be upgraded significantly, he concluded.

Councilor Bragdon said he supported the motion as he thought it helped the industrial needs for jobs creation in the region. Councilor McLain said she also supported the motion.

There was discussion on the fact that the lower bottom portion was actually study area 49, and the map for the record was marked as such.

Mr. Cooper said Planning Director Andy Cotugno had reminded him that staff may be coming back to the committee when they get to the conditions on this to deal with the proposed right-of-way for the Tualatin/Sherwood connector. Chair Park thanked him for the reminder, and asked that any right-of-way concerns or other conditions that may be applicable be brought up as they arose.

Councilor Bradgon said this area was recommended for inclusion by Executive Officer Burton. It is entirely exception land, he said, and is related on two sides to urbanized areas. It’s also been requested for inclusion by the West Linn/Wilsonville School District for two school sites, as well as inner neighborhood residential development. Chair Park said, of all the sites, this is, as far as he knew, the least controversial.

Speaking to his motion, Councilor Hosticka said he’d learned that 99W is a new level of service, which is what the ‘W’ on the map meant. These are exception lands that are next to the Tualatin industrial area, he said, and would be brought in for industrial use purposes. The area north of 99W was originally included in the Executive Officer’s recommendation, but that area is contiguous to a wildlife refuge so he was not proposing to include that portion at this time.

Councilor Burkholder asked staff if the triangular piece of area 61 was not cutting property lines, and Mr. Tim O’Brien said it was part of a tax lot that was already within the UGB and this amendment would bring the entire tax lot into the UGB.

To his motion, Councilor Bragdon said this parcel was also recommended by Executive Officer Burton in August, that it rated suitable for development based on Goal 14 factors, it meets all the 2040 Fundamentals except for #2 relating to Natural Environment; the designation is industrial, it’s adjacent to the Coffee Creek correctional facility, and would be suitable for Regionally Significant Industrial Area status. As this committee knew, he added, the region is short on industrial lands and this would serve part of that purpose.

Councilor Hosticka asked if another portion of this area had not been discussed and considered previously, a part that was close to the Clackamas County line and he asked if that had been recommended as an amendment by any councilor. Councilor McLain said that was the area marked on the black and white map entitled McLain #1, Study Area 49 (also included as part of this record as map McLain #1) as a possible Industrial Land Proposal. (The area in discussion was marked by the clerk on both maps, for the record.)

Councilor McLain said she would like to discuss this area as she thought it fit in and related to the area being considered. Staff chose the railroad line to mark the recommended area, she said, but the record includes testimony and correspondence that if this parcel isn’t considered and included, it will be lost because Clackamas County is on one side and Washington County is on the other. If it were brought in, it would be done by county line versus a railroad line. Testimony also stated it was an industrial-type area and it was felt more could be done with industrial because they would be within the UGB. Washington County now has some strange regulations on it because of the fact that it’s outside the UGB. That is in the record and she did ask staff to look at it, and she said it was an oversight on her part. Staff did produce a map which showed it was 6.4 acres of vacant buildable industrial land.

Chair Park asked legal counsel if they saw any issues on this piece. Mr. Cooper said, recognizing that Councilor McLain said it was exception land and not having the record memorized, he didn’t see anything jumping out to say not to include it. To be fair, Councilor McLain said, it was in a Mineral Extraction zone, so she said she wasn’t clear if it was resource or exception land. Chair Park said the map said it was exception land. Ms. Weber said staff had looked at these pieces, but the committee would decide how much of the jobs land they would recommend at this time. When jobs were looked at as a whole in subregional analysis, this area as well as pieces north and other areas would probably have the same values and characteristics as this site. She couldn’t give the committee any reason not to bring it in, but said there were probably more parcels exactly like this one in this general area, and that in subregional analysis, a tighter look at job land had not been done yet.

Councilor Burkholder recommended keeping with the original motion at this time. Councilor McLain agreed, and said she would not move the McLain #1 parcel at this time. She asked to have on the record, however, that railroad lines have no more value than a Multnomah, Washington or Clackamas County line. She said they needed to look at the topography and the surrounding property.

Chair Park asked if there were any more amendments in the Tualatin/Wilvonville area. Not hearing any, he moved asked for amendment in the Sherwood area.

To his motion, Councilor Bragdon said this was just west of Sherwood (and east of Ewert Road) and the portion in his motion related to a potential school site. At one time, he said, the City of Sherwood recommended this but subsequently found that at this time they aren’t going to expand the school system so have gone to a neutral or negative position on it. His view, he said, was it would eventually be a school site.

Responding to a question from Councilor Hosticka, staff said it was exception land. Councilor Hosticka then said he would go with the City of Sherwood preference and would not vote for it.

Chair Park said if this was included, it would have the condition of a school site placed upon it, and he was supportive of that. Recognizing that there were 900 acres being set aside for school sites, and since this was originally conceived as that, if, in the future the school district or the City of Sherwood perceived a different use for the site, it could be done. He said he believed the agricultural operations on there now still wanted to continue their operations.

Councilor McLain said this land is all exception land and next to the City of Sherwood boundary, with Brookman Road as the hard southern edge. She said she thought this should at least be discussed today because there is evidence for and against this recommendation in the record, and in her opinion that meant that the city council has, at any given times, had different opinions on this. She also said this had been studied at least two or three times by this agency, and that the uphill battle on this parcel was that it may not be developed right now, but just as was said on other parcels, if this wasn’t embraced on the short-term, it could still be embraced and planned for as the community saw fit. Metro was not going over the heads of the local officials, but allowing them to take this at their own pace and use their own processes and goals. The other issue that she said she felt was very important, Councilor McLain said, was regarding the 99W connector, and that although she’d seen no forward movement on that, there would be some work done on it and on a right-of-way sited because of the proposed inclusion of industrial land in study area 49 and parts of study area 47.

Her motion was made with the understanding that, if it passed, the conditions would be that the right-of-way be planned for that road before any urbanization could take place.

Councilor Hosticka said he would oppose this because the City of Sherwood had spoken several times saying they were not prepared to serve this area and that they’d done as much expansion as they thought could do now, and they had to focus on digesting the growth they’ve had and developing their Town Center. If this is brought in, it may be a futile gesture, he said, as it would be in the UGB but wouldn’t get urbanized and, locally, there would be increasing conflict as people put pressure on the area and the city may or may not want to deal with it. Councilor Hosticka also noted that this body had received testimony from other landowners in that area who were not in favor of this area coming in, particularly a person who was doing an agricultural use on the south side of Brookman Road. Lastly, he said once the committee has looked at all the areas, they’ll probably find they have enough and won’t need this one. He said he may make another motion at that point to take this piece out.

Councilor Bragdon said he understood the city to have had a variety of positions on this particular proposal, so he said, like Councilor Hosticka, he would respect their wishes and not support this at this time.

Councilor Burkholder said he would support the motion because 1) Metro was supposed to be looking for a 20-year land supply and the fact that it may not urbanize for a while was really not Metro’s concern; and 2) it makes sense in that it was easily urbanizable compared to a lot of land that had been included, such as study area 94, which the City of Portland also didn’t want to include but this committee did.

Councilor Atherton said if this body wanted to be consistent with what the cities wanted or don’t want, Metro would have to honor the wishes of the community of Sherwood and not bring this in.

Chair Park said he would support this based upon the road connection issue, talking with the property owners, and for the general overall need. He said he believed that at Thursday’s council meeting they would hear testimony in support of those conditions. He also said he agreed with Councilor McLain on her conditions, and without those conditions he would not support it.

Councilor McLain, in closing, said the terrain on the south side of Brookman Road was very different from this piece, it was exception land, the city boundary bisects the field, it was a serviceable piece and contributed to the 20-year land supply.

Chair Park and Councilor Bragdon reminded the committee of the pledge to Councilor Monroe that they would revisit any vote that was not decisive. Chair Park said the committee would now consider Cornelius/Forest Grove amendments.

Councilor McLain spoke to areas 75 and 76 with regard to providing vital town and regional centers, and said Cornelius was a community that needed more job land. She had suggested the exception land only, she said, as areas in which Cornelius could build job shops and industrial areas. They are included in the regional partners’ list, and have met the City of Cornelius’ approval, with letters received from their council. Testimony has been taken and a tour was conducted. The only controversial aspect of this area is Council Creek, of which Metro has purchased quite a bit of environmentally sensitive land, and the prospects of a regional trail being built. The City of Cornelius understands the sensitivity of this environmental land, including floodplains, creek and streamside riparian areas which have Title 3 and other conditions. Conditions will be placed on the land, she said. Councilor Atherton asked about area 77, and Councilor McLain said area 77 would be considered separately. Chair Park asked for additional comments; there were none.

Councilor McLain said the City of Cornelius had asked that this area be included as industrial land and she wanted to honor that request. She also wanted the city to understand the greater potential for this land. Councilor Bragdon asked if this vote was to officially defer area 77 to Task 3. Chair Park replied that it was. It would still be alive, he said, but in the next task.

To her motion, Councilor McLain explained the request from the City of Forest Grove to increase industrial land there. She said she also supported this trade because the parcel marked on the map as land to be added would go toward housing, and Forest Grove was willing to take the land marked as land to be removed from the UGB and turn it into industrial use. She said she thought there were transportation efficiencies in this trade, as well, and explained those. This was equal acreage coming in and going out, and was very different from any other proposal this committee was looking at, she said, and that was why she asked that it be considered in a separate ordinance.

Councilor Hosticka said he supported this as a certain (unidentified) piece outside the UGB was the only place he could see where beavers and ducks could coexist in peace.

Councilor Burkholder said this was a very innovative approach to a lot of problems, but he felt it wouldn’t hold water. It was a very complicated way to deal with an issue Forest Grove has, and he thought perhaps it wasn’t the most straightforward way to do it. Also, he said he thought it was contrary to land use law and probably wouldn’t success, even it the council did adopt it. He wondered if the committee wanted to endorse this and send it on, knowing it would probably be rejected out of hand. He said he understood why it was being put into a separate ordinance, but asked if this committee felt that was appropriate.

Chair Park said he would support this because he thought it was one of those cases where the law and common sense diverged. He said he recognized that this wasn’t as clean as some of the other parcels the committee had looked at and that there were concerns about this, but in this case he said he was willing to go out on a limb because it made too much sense not to. He said this was the type of thing LCDC or the legislature would look at changing to help fix areas like this. He’d wrestled with it, he said, knowing that EFU land was being given up, but he said he thought the gain was so much bigger regarding the integrity of the whole land use system.

On the west side, Councilor McLain said, there isn’t anything the Metro Council does that doesn’t push the envelope, or ask for interpretation from the state on what they want their rules to be to help the region produce full communities, town centers and regional centers. Nothing on the west side is easy, she said. Another thing was that it was a trade; Forest Grove asked for nothing but trading land in and out land. It made sense, she concluded.

Councilor Hosticka said these were exception areas on the west side of Bull Mountain, contiguous to the City of Tigard. The areas will be annexed by the city, and there have been recent improvements in area 64. Area 63 is exception land that is contiguous to that boundary. The City of Tigard had indicated an interes in these being included so they can make a complete plan for their development in the Bull Mountain area. No opposition has been heard on the areas being included, he concluded, and this was the Executive Officer’s recommendation, as well.

Councilor Burkholder asked about Title 11 requirements, and Mr. Cooper explained.

Councilor Hosticka asked, if Councilor Bragdon would accept as the seconder of his motion, to include in this. Councilor Hosticka explained that this area was contiguous to an area that had been annexed by the City of King City and was left off the map. It is in a flood plain and won’t be developed, but King City wanted to have it as part of their area so they could designate it as a park and do some park improvements there. There was not intent to add housing here, he said. Councilor Bragdon accepted. Chair Park determined that this parcel was 17 acres, which left 1,083 acres yet to go.

Chair Park said the committee would now address potential industrial sites.

Chair Park said this was before this committee for discussion purposes only as the ordinance on it was going to be first read at Metro Council on Thursday, November 21, 2002. Councilor Bragdon agreed, and said it was proposed under specified land need and that need was for high-tech manufacturing, large lot industrial. He said he supported this, with conditions placed on it that would preserve it for that specified land need, which he said he thought was important. Part of the reason there is a shortage of industrial land, Councilor Bragdon said, was the in the past industrial land was misused for commercial or retail purposes and the Metro Council needed to make sure that was stopped, and that this parcel be preserved for industrial purposes.

Chair Park asked if those conditions had been drafted yet. Mr. Benner distributed a copy of Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 02-983, Conditions on Addition of Shute/Evergreen Site to UGB (made a part of this record). Chair Park then asked if staff knew whether or not Washington County or the City of Hillsboro would be testifying on or in favor of these conditions. Ms. Neill replied that staff had met with the City of Hillsboro that morning to discuss the conditions and work through them before they were brought to this committee. They had not, however, met with Washington County, but Hillsboro had indicated they were very favorable to the conditions proposed to this point. She said she was told they’d made some comments to Mr. Benner via e-mail, and that she thought they were aware that they would need to testify before the Metro Council on November 21st, although she said Hillsboro had indicated to Metro staff that they were in favor of the conditions and the purpose for those conditions being established.

Chair Park said he’d feel more comfortable if Metro’s partners would signal their agreement, and that it would be nice to hear from the county. Ms. Neill said she would make a contact with Washington County and attempt to get feedback from them on this, and involve Hillsboro in that conversation, as well.

Councilor McLain said condition 9 was the only reason she would consider voting for this.

Councilor Burkholder said he thought condition 5 was the critical piece, and he would also like to see, instead of just the reference to additional dwelling units, that they be called out specifically as affordable affordable dwelling units.

To his motion, Councilor Hosticka explained that the eastern portion of this area is designated as EFU land but is in fact a substation. The purpose of bringing this parcel in would be to allow the City of Sherwood to build a connector, he said he thought between the Tualatin/Sherwood Road and Hwy. 99W, to alleviate some of the congestion on that corner. Inclusion would not alter any farm use into urban use, but would allow for a more rational transportation movement in that area, and the City of Sherwood has asked that this be considered. The parcel on the west, Councilor Hosticka said, was not included in his motion because it seemed the current UGB cut through some tax lot lines and the proposed area would rectify that but he was not familiar enough with it to propose it at this time.

Chair Park asked counsel if a substation is one of the permitted uses in an EFU zone, and Mr. Benner said it is.

Councilor McLain asked the committee to look at area 82 (on Cornelius Pass/West Union Road) in the North Hillsboro area on a wall map, not included in this record. This piece was recommended by the Executive Officer, she said, because it is exception land and is located at a very busy intersection. She said the committee has received a great deal of testimony on this and that she has no doubt that they would receive a great deal more. She said she had concerns and issues about this, so was putting it out for discussion. She asked staff to let her know what they thought, and she said she wanted to have discussion with them on this. It was an unusual, established neighborhood, she added, outside the UGB. She was not making a motion on it at this time, but said she wanted to discuss it at the committee’s meeting the following day.

Mr. Cooper said Measure 26-29 wasn’t applicable to this parcel, however, the fact that it is exception land of low productivity and small parcels would be a reason for the council not to bring it in at this time in deference to other exception land and the council moves forward in trying to meet the identified need.

Note: Motion #26 is also referenced on a black and white map, Hosticka #27, Areas 24, 25 and 26.

Mr. Cotugno explained changes that had occurred from the Executive Officer’s original recommendation, using the wall map. The City of Oregon City asked to pull back to include just two areas in the interest in of having some commercial on one side of town (the west end) so people won’t have to drive through town to get to the commercial services along Molalla Avenue or in the downtown area. That retraction was also supported by MPAC. Mr. Burton’s original recommendation included a small section of area 24 to provide the location for a street connector between Redland Road and Holcomb Boulevard. That was requested by Oregon City and endorsed by MPAC. An expanded area 24, the expansion portion not being a part of the original Executive Officer’s recommendation, but was part of the supplemental recommendation at the request of Oregon City and again endorsed by MPAC. The area of disagreement is south of Oregon City, Mr. Cotugno said, and he pointed to a line that came down to Henrici Road. The City of Oregon City said, no, if Henrick Road was going to be included, please include both sides of Henrici Road and come down, so if streets and sewers and water and other services were going to be put in the road, have them serve the south side of the road, not just the north side. Clackamas County requested including neither of the two areas south of Oregon City, and that’s what MPAC endorsed. All the black areas on the map he spoke to were requested by Oregon City and endorsed by MPAC. Mr. Cotugno also indicated on the map the one area south requested by Oregon City but that Clackamas County and MPAC did not support.

Councilor Bragdon asked to clarify what he thought he heard, that not everything requested by the City of Oregon City was included in this motion. Mr. Cotugno said that was correct. Councilor McLain said it seemed to her, at the MPAC meetings when this was presented by Oregon City, that there was a mixed message being given both from the public hearings as well as in the MPAC discussion about the differences between above and below Henrici Road. She said she didn’t think that was clear at all. She said she heard much more support for the area above Henrici Road.

Ms. Neill said Oregon City had gone through a couple of iterations discussing which land would be most advantageous for them. She said she thought they realized there were advantages and disadvantages to a number of these areas. The MPAC discussion, she said, she thought reflected somewhat of a divided vote of the City Council and Mr. Doug Neeley was trying to relay the flavor of that vote and the decision to MPAC when he made his presentation.

Councilor Hosticka asked about pieces of resource land which seemed to be contiguous to other resource land (which he indicated on the wall map). Mr. Benner replied on the piece in the east end of area 26 which was in a forest zone, saying it was his understanding that Oregon City didn’t believe it needed to include that land in order to provide services to the exception land, and would not have a problem if it were deleted from the motion. He said he could not answer the question regarding the farm land to the north. Chair Park said it was difficult to tell on the map.

Councilor Hosticka said possibly staff could provide an answer if this were postponed until the following day. Mr. O’Brien said Oregon City was looking at the area on the top (unidentified) and exploring the need for services. The area was not completely surrounded, he said.

Councilor Bragdon said this was an urbanized area, that it was included in the Executive Officer’s recommendation because of that, and it should be in the UGB.

To his motion, Councilor Hosticka said he wanted to reserve the right to refine the map, and the reason for his motion was he thought very little productivity could be gotten from these areas given the terrain and parcel size. The larger sized parcels he thought better suited for productivity.

Chair Park said he would entertain a motion to postpone this until the next day’s meeting as well.

Councilor Hosticka said it was time for the committee to step back to see what they’d done. Today they’d amended the need number, they’d proposed to bring in some areas that were in excess of the recommendation, they’d not brought in some areas that were recommended by the Executive Officer, so he said it was a good idea to tally where they were and then revisit these areas to see if they were even needed.

Chair Park asked staff to do their calculations and bring back the numbers and verify the areas recommended for inclusion so the committee will have a need number and know where they stood. Some of the legal issue would need to be addressed, as well, he said.

Councilor Bragdon said he hoped the intent was to complete the work the following day so that it could go to the Metro Council on November 21st and the committee could say their job was done and the record could be reopened.

Chair Park replied that that was his intent. He thanked the committee and staff for their effort in this long meeting. He mentioned Executive Officer Burton’s absence today was due to illness.

5. COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.