MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE SPECIAL WORK SESSION MEETING

Tuesday, November 20, 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 1:28 p.m. and called the audience’s attention to the spreadsheet in the back of room explaining what had been done so far, Community Planning Worksheet for UGB Expansion, undated, but based on the actions at the November 19th committee meeting (a copy of which is included as part of this record).

He then announced that at 2:00 p.m. the next day (November 21, 2002) the public hearing process and public record would reopen, this time at the council level and that Carl Hosticka, Metro Council Presiding Officer, would chair that meeting.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7 AND 8, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGS. The minutes were not available for approval.

3.  CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEMS FROM NOVEMBER 19, 2002 (reference Ordinance No. 02-969). [Please note that on site-specific motions, the motion letter (A, B, etc.) is matched to a map with the same number, said maps included as part of this record.]

Councilor Monroe said he understood that the previous day there was a 3/3 vote on south Sherwood areas 54 and 55.

Councilor McLain explained that the area was bordered by Brookman Road on the south, the current UGB on the north, with resource lands on the west and east. One of the conditions for this area was that the Highway 99W connector must be discussed before any of the land could be urbanized. The area was all exception land. Over the last five or six years, Metro received a total of six letters from the City of Sherwood stating different opinions on this property. The latest letter indicated that Sherwood did not believe it needed this property at this time; however, it was exception land in Washington County. She clarified that the local jurisdictions would have the opportunity to do the development and the compre-hensive plan when they were ready, but at least the land would be available for the 20-year land supply.

Councilor Monroe agreed. Just because the Metro Council brought this area into the UGB did not mean that Sherwood had to plot it and provide for development immediately. The timeframe would be at the city’s discretion. It was important to protect the right-of-way for the connector highway that was included in Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan. With those concerns, and the fact that the region was very short on exception land in Washington County, he felt it was important that areas 54 and 55 come into the UGB.

Chair Park said that bringing areas 54 and 55 into the UGB would help further the alignment of the connector for Highway 99. Philosophically, he believed that if the land for the connector would be used for urban purposes, the landowners should be compensated at urban prices. Bringing this land into the UGB would help make that possible and help avoid the problem of the government devaluing or taking property rights. He said he had similar feelings about another piece of property with a power substation that might come before the committee.

Councilor Hosticka said he did not have a problem with voting on the areas separately. However conceptually, the areas were basically the same as each other and as the motion just passed, with one difference. They were all exception lands in Washington County. They had been analyzed and recommended at various times in this process. The difference between these areas and areas 54 and 55, on which he voted no, was that the local government in Sherwood had indicated that it did not want that area in the UGB. In the case as areas 66, 67 and 69, the local government took a neutral position. Areas 66, 67 and 69 were recommended by the Executive Officer in his first recommendation.

Councilors Hosticka and Bragdon agreed to the friendly amendment. Upon reflection, Councilor Hosticka withdrew Motion B and restated it.

To his motion, Councilor Hosticka said area 67 was exception land contiguous to the existing UGB. The local jurisdiction indicated neutrality on its inclusion; however, it had been previously recommended by the Executive Officer. (As an aside, Councilor Hosticka noted that on the map he saw, area 66 was not shown as resource land but that it was shown as resource land on the map currently before the committee, and he asked for clarification before the committee proceeded.)

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, said he believed that on Executive Officer Burton’s final recommendation, area 66 was recommended for inclusion. The summary Mr. Morrissey provided said that the land was recommendation in order to provide services. He said he’d copied the information from other staff documents and thought perhaps some of the Planning staff could contribute information to this discussion.

Councilor Burkholder added his question if the recommendation to serve exception land was to service area 65 or 67. Lydia Neill, Principal Regional Planner, said she did not know the elevation of the water tank proposed for area 66. The City of Beaverton asked Metro to include area 66 for water storage. She said she was fairly certain that the purpose of installing the tank was also to serve some areas inside the UGB. Area 66 was exclusive farm use land.

Councilor Hosticka asked if water storage services could be provided to areas 67 and 69, if area 66 was not in the UGB. Ms. Neill said she did not know specifically, but she guessed that the city needed to develop a certain amount of pressure in the water system, and it needed to be at a certain elevation. She guessed that the city chose that area because it provided the correct elevation for that service.

Councilor Hosticka said he moved area 69-1 based on the Executive Officer’s recommendation, and he asked staff to explain why that particular piece of property was recommended for inclusion.

Ms. Neill said she believed Mr. Burton was trying to make a point about the absurdity of the configuration of some of the exception lands from which Metro had to choose, and relating that back to the larger issue of the Goal 14 process. She said she did not believe there was any operational reason for including those two parcels within that area.

Councilor Monroe said when he seconded the motion, he thought the motion was to include the entire area 69-1, as outlined by the bold line on the map. The inclusion of this area made sense because the Metro Council had brought in a piece of land for a school along 209th Avenue. As the other side of 209th Avenue was already urbanized, it would clearly be simple to serve that linear area along 209th Avenue. It was not a large parcel, but it made more sense to bring in all of area 69-1, rather than follow the Executive Officer’s recommendation to include only the peninsula at the south. The wall map was different from the maps the councilors were looking at, so staff outlined the area on the wall map (and that area is marked on the map included in this record).

Councilor Hosticka accepted Councilor Monroe’s argument as a friendly amendment.

For clarity, Chair Park said the area proposed for inclusion was listed on the Community Planning Worksheet for UGB Expansion as “Area 69p, Beaverton 2 parcels.”

Councilor Burkholder said he would vote against this motion, mainly because areas 65 and 66, which were in this general area, would provide a lot of housing. Areas 65 and 66 would better support a town center than area 69-1. While Area 69-1 was very suitable in terms of Goal 14 and the need for housing, it was least suitable based on Metro’s 2040 fundamentals. Both areas 65 and 66, on the other hand, rated very high on 2040 fundamentals and Goal 14. He did not support bringing in area 69-1 at this time; it should be the next tier down.

Councilor McLain said she would also vote no on the motion for reasons similar to those of Councilor Burkholder. The report did not include any Centers language. Bringing in this piece of land, without the other surrounding acreage, would not be productive and would isolate agricultural activities and/or related services. She did not find this area appropriate for inclusion at this time.

Chair Park said he would also vote no on the motion.

Councilor Monroe said the whole area ought to be studied, but state law restricted Metro’s actions. The resource land to the west of area 69-1 was not really farmland, and was not being efficiently farm at this time. There area to the east between 198th Avenue and 209th Avenue was heavily urbanized. Inclusion of area 69-1 would simply add a little urban strip on other side of 209th where there were already sewer, water, and other urban services. The area would be very easy to serve and meet immediate housing needs in Washington County. Eighty percent of the land the committee had brought into the UGB was located far out in eastern Clackamas County, and could not be served. It made sense to bring in area 69-1.

Chair Park asked staff for a summary of how much land had been recommended for inclusion in the UGB.

Councilor Monroe asked staff about the separate ordinance approved at yesterday’s meeting where the committee approved for inclusion into the UGB major portions of land in the Bethany area but specifically deleted area 83 (see Motion #8 and #9, November 19, 2002, Community Planning Committee meeting). In the original recommendation, he thought staff had said area 83 was necessary to serve the rest of Bethany by sewer, and he asked if that was the case, or did the committee need to address area 83 again.

Ms. Neill said there were a number of ways that a portion of the territory in Bethany could be served. The hatched area, which included area 83 and the square above it – the bigger piece of that was included in Mr. Burton’s proposal because gravity sewer could be provided to area 84, which was exception land. Area 84 was north of the college. Clean Water Services submitted a couple of proposals. Their main concern was minimizing the cost of providing services to that area. Clean Water Services would prefer to provide sewer through gravity, and eliminate pump stations, as much as possible. There were three ridgelines: one along Springville Road, another that diagonally bisected the site between areas 84 and 86, and one slightly north of that area. In order to provide gravity sewer service, Clean Water Services suggested including area 83 to would allow gravity feed service to those two areas and a portion of area 85. Councilor McLain’s motion proposed including the area a little further north in order to use the creek as a natural barrier between urban and agricultural uses.

Councilor Monroe asked staff to show on the map the area to which the creek continued. He thought the creek cut down across area 83. Ms. Neill did so on the wall map. She said the blue areas were exception areas and areas that could be served with gravity sewer. The stippled area between area 85 was a portion of the site that could be served with gravity sewer. The red lines were the ridge lines. In order to serve the back half of exception areas 84 and 86 (hatched on the map), a pump station would be required. Pump stations included maintenance costs in addition to installation costs.

Councilor Hosticka said this area would be considered as a separate ordinance. He asked to delay this conversation until the ordinance was in front of the committee. At that time, they could look at the topographical maps and aerial photographs.

Councilor McLain clarified that the hatch marked areas on top of the blue area and on the other side were both exception lands. When Ms. Neill was talking about ease of service, she said she was talking about the blue area, which left out half of the exception land. It was important to understand that there were at least five different ways to serve this property so far. The EFU land on the corner of 185th and West Union, and the square of farmland labeled “Area 83 partial” were also EFU. When people talked about cheaper ways to serve, it depended on what areas where being served: all of the exception land, part of the exception land, or the EFU land between the two pieces of exception land.

Councilor Monroe said he had a number of concerns, one of which was that the area could be served efficiently. He also believed in planning entire areas, which was why he supported Councilor McLain’s motion on Bethany yesterday. But he said he was also looking for buffers between agricultural activity and urbanization. Abbey Creek, which ran through area 83, would essentially make the corner of West Union and 185th an agricultural island and render it useless as agricultural land. He wondered if the committee should look at the area again in terms of sewer service, not creating agricultural islands that could not be appropriately farmed, creating appropriate buffers between agriculture land and urbanization, and whether that riparian corridor would create an appropriate buffer. This piece would be included in a separate ordinance, so maybe it ought to include the entire area, including the little corner of upper area 83 and a major part of lower area 83.

Chair Park reminded the committee that it would be taking up this item next Tuesday at the Community Planning Committee meeting.

Councilor Hosticka said he thought the committee needed to discuss the entire topography and geography in that area. The real question was whether the proposed area could be efficiently served given the topography. Locating the sewer up Abbey Creek would serve a much larger area, which the committee had not discussed. That discussion needed to occur at another point in time.

Councilor Monroe said that was fine. He asked staff and any interested individuals to give the committee additional information tomorrow or next Tuesday. He just wanted to raise the issue to ensure that the committee was doing this the best way it could. Ms. Neill said next Tuesday staff would bring maps of the larger area and show some of the uses adjacent to area under discussion.

Councilor McLain said staff and Mr. Burton had already given the committee four maps and four different scenarios for how to serve the area. The committee needed to be very specific about what information it was requesting. There was not direct proposal from the Executive Officer; he threw out four different maps and the committee was trying to determine what those four different maps meant. Adding more maps would not help unless staff first clarified the questions with her, Councilor Hosticka, and Councilor Monroe.

Councilor Monroe said he wanted to know the most efficient way to serve the area with sewer. He also wanted maps that showed Abbey Creek and how much of a riparian zone would be on either side of the creek. The committee may need to also look at an elevation map throughout the area. The committee also needed to provide an opportunity for people familiar with the area, such as landowners and Beaverton service providers, to comment. He said he wanted to make the right decision.

Councilor Hosticka asked that the committee return to the Oregon City discussion, which was not completed at the last meeting.

Chair Park said they needed to first address a motion that had been postponed. He asked staff to comment on the EFU lands that needed to be included in the UGB in order to provide urban services to parts of areas 24, 26, and 28 (motions #26 and #27 of November 19, 2002, committee meeting).

Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, said Oregon City staff told him that the two lower parcels (colored green on the map) in area 26 were designated as timberland. Presently there was a golf course on part of the land, and part of it was a wooded slope. The City of Oregon City did not feel it could legally make the case that those lands were needed to provide services to that area. At least half of the area was currently considered developed. Oregon City expressed no concern about dropping the parcels from the study area. The other EFU portion (area 25) was also timber designation. The city was currently looking at that area to see if a case could be made that the land was needed to serve adjacent exception land. Oregon City staff had not completed that work, but they did plan to attend tomorrow’s hearing and would like to present information at that time.

Chair Park asked about the effect of the dwelling unit capacity. Mr. O’Brien said the effect would be very minimal. Some of the property was owned by the Oregon City School District, Metro owned a couple pieces of property, and there were steep slopes. Out of 72 total acres, about 13 acres were developable land.

Councilor Hosticka asked if this was the Newell Creek Canyon area, and Mr. O’Brien said it was.

Chair Park said the motion on the table was to recommend these areas for inclusion in the UGB. The proper motion would be to amend the main motion in order to remove the resource land. The motion on the table was carried over from yesterday. It was postponed for more information.

Councilor Burkholder said the intent of bringing in a large part of this was to provide a connector and he asked if the connector was just to Redland Road, or all the way to Highway 213. Mr. O’Brien said the connector would go between Holcomb and Redland, not go all the way to Highway 213.

Councilor Atherton noted a primary reason Oregon City asked for this land to be brought inside the UGB was to provide a connector road, rather than for dwelling unit capacity. He asked counsel if it was possible to build that connector road without bringing this area inside the UGB. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, said it was possible. It would depend on the particular facts, but there was authorization for some roads outside of urban growth boundaries for urban purposes. The legal case would be much stronger if it could be demonstrated that the road was needed to relieve traffic on a state highway. Without knowing more about this particular road, he could not say whether it fit the criteria in the transportation planning rule, but it might.

Councilor Atherton said he did not think that the issue of relieving congestion on a state highway was ever raised in committee. The basic issue was that the land did not need to be brought inside the UGB in order to provide the connectivity desired by Oregon City. He noted that yesterday, the council received a letter from the Oregon City School District recommending against this area’s inclusion because of the impact on schools and traffic on Holcomb.

Councilor Monroe called a point of order. He believed Councilor Atherton was speaking to the main motion, not to the amendment to excise the agricultural land.

Chair Park called for further discussion on the motion to amend. There was none.

Councilor Hosticka asked if area 32 was included in the main motion. Rooney Barker, Council Assistant, said her notes showed area 24, parts of area 26, and areas 28 and 32. John Donovan, Communications Officer, asked for clarification on area 24, if it was the intent of the amendment to keep that land outside or inside the UGB, that the land was one tax lot.

Chair Park received committee agreement that the EFU portion of the school district’s tax lot should be included in the original motion.

Councilor Hosticka said he also recalled that Mr. Burton’s original recommendation had originally included area 32. Subsequently, that recommendation was modified to include only those areas indicated for employment purposes. He asked for clarification on why the recommendation was changed.

Ms. Neill said Mr. Burton’s original recommendation included a portion of area 32 for commercial purposes, to serve the area inside the existing UGB. The remainder was for housing. The Oregon City Commission and their staff reviewed the recommendation and felt the area was too large. Their main purpose in asking for a portion of area 32 to come into the UGB was to provide commercial uses to serve land inside the existing UGB. A portion of the small area would be commercial with a few dwelling units.

Councilor Bragdon asked whether, with the exception of the land the committee just voted to remove, this motion was what MPAC and Oregon City recommended to the council. Ms. Neill said yes.

Councilor Hosticka said he was prepared to support the motion as it stood. However, he hoped that if the committee was looking for additional dwelling units, they could revisit this area. If the main reason for the current motion was simply that the City of Oregon City thought area 32 was too large, then he would recommend looking at other areas where the cities had expressed their intent and the committee had decided otherwise. If they needed additional areas for housing, he wanted to keep area 32 as a possibility.

To his amendment, Councilor Atherton said the committee received extensive testimony on area 32 from people who live in that neighborhood who do not want this expansion. The City of Oregon City wanted it. It was not fully vetted, according to the citizens, with the city, and it was not something they wanted. It did not provide the dwelling unit capacity for which the committee was looking. What Oregon City and its citizens really wanted was jobs lands in area 26.

Chair Park asked for discussion on the motion to separate. There was none.

Ms. Neill said the committee had discussed this discussed yesterday was to delete the Henrici Road area in area 28p. The reason for that was that the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) did not recommend that particular area. According to Doug Neeley, Oregon City Commissioner, who came to MPAC and relayed the conversation held by the Oregon City Commission, the Commission was more divided on this area.

Chair Park asked for clarification. He said he understood that area 24p held 51 acres of employment land, and he thought that the eastern portion of area 28 held the industrial lands.

Ms. Neill said she believed the committee deleted area 28 from its discussions yesterday. There was a small amount of industrial land in area 28, but the bulk of the employment land in which the City of Oregon City was most interested was in area 26.

Councilor Hosticka said there was general agreement that area 26 was useful for employment and industrial purposes, and was fairly non-controversial. Councilor Atherton agreed.

As Councilor Burkholder seconded, he said this did include a bit of study area 25. When the committee referred to the map, that was accurate.

Councilor Bragdon said staff had explained that area 24 was recommended by the City of Oregon City and dealt with a road connection.

Councilor Atherton said it was not necessary to bring this land inside the UGB to make this road connection. If the city needed that road connection, it could do it with significantly less intrusion into this neighborhood. This was an area with very steep slopes; it was highly parcelized and extremely difficult to urbanize. In his discussions with the Oregon City Commissioners, their main concern was the ability to build the connecting road. Area 24 was not necessary for the road and would provide very low productivity in terms of housing units.

Chair Park asked for clarification from Mr. Benner on whether area 24 was necessary for the road connection.

Mr. Benner said it was possible to make the road connection without bringing area 24 into the UGB. There was no absolute prohibition on urban roads outside an urban growth boundary. It was disfavored, but there was no absolute prohibition. There was a provision in the Transportation Planning Rule that allowed two-lane roads outside an urban growth boundary that served urban purposes, under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances was if the effect of the road would be to relieve traffic on a state highway. He could not say whether this was one of those roads and would meet those criteria, but it was possible that it would.

Ms. Neill added that Oregon City had spoken about the need for a transportation connection between Redland and Holcomb Roads. The city was also very interested in bringing in area 24 for employment purposes as well as some housing, she said.

Councilor Atherton said it was premature to bring this area into the UGB now, without further clarification in that community of just what their needs were. Area 26 already adequately addressed the concerns of Oregon City regarding jobs lands.

Councilor McLain said according to her information, there were at least 32 employment acres in area 24, and Oregon City was interested in the site as a partial employment or jobs shop. She felt the committee should move forward on area 24 at this time. If they received additional information at the council meeting on Thursday, they could amend it then.

Chair Park said he would vote in favor of the motion.

Councilor Bragdon said staff presented information on area 32 earlier, and that the City of Oregon City had requested area 32.

Councilor Hosticka asked for a report on the need relative to housing at this point in the committee’s deliberations, saying that would indicate what he would like to do with this motion. Basically, he said he was concerned about having a commercial area sitting on the outside of a city. It did not seem to make a lot of sense. Since the original proposal was to bring in this area for residential purposes, if they still needed to include more residential land in the UGB, he would propose that the committee include some of area 32 for residential, as originally proposed by the Executive Officer.

Councilor Burkholder said it made sense to bring area 32 into the UGB. Area 32 would add 400 units of housing and 20 acres for employment lands. The committee has adopted changes in Metro’s Functional Plan to encourage the development of neighborhood Centers. The purpose of adding this land was that in on this side of Oregon City, there were no services available to neighborhood residents who lived in Oregon City or in the exception lands to the south. It also helped from the transportation perspective because people could meet their basic service needs without driving to the Molalla Avenue/Highway 213 area. Councilor Hosticka’s proposal to bring in more than 400 housing units was valid. But as it stood, this motion had validity in terms of helping complete Oregon City’s urban form.

Councilor Atherton said the committee received extensive testimony from people who lived in the area that they traveled to their jobs and schools and made many trips throughout the community, and they did not feel they needed those types of services developed in their neighborhood. Movement of the UGB at this time in that area was premature, until longer-range plans for the community could be completed.

Chair Park said he would call for the vote first and then ask for the final number. The committee could then make an adjustment as need be. He did not think it would be appropriate to base the vote upon the housing need number.

Councilor Hosticka asked whether, if he voted in favor of the motion, he could request reconsideration of the vote for purposes of amending the proposal if the committee later found that it needed more housing capacity.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said regardless of whether the committee reconsidered this motion, another motion to add more land was already in order.

Chair Park recessed the meeting at 2:36 p.m. to allow staff to determine the housing need number. He reconvened the committee at 2:51 p.m.

Chair Park then asked Councilor McLain to address two items that had come up regarding areas 94 and 66.

Councilor McLain said before the committee looked at the final housing need number, it was important to make sure the environmental-protection zones in area 94 had been taken into consideration, because Portland had a definite zone that it placed on that type of property. She did not think the number received from staff reflected the environmental zone, and she asked staff to recalculate area 94. She thought it was actually one unit per two acres, or something similar. Ms. Neill said staff would be happy to look at the City of Portland’s existing zoning, determine a dwelling unit per acre calculation, and apply it to the developable acres in area 94 to give a more accurate number. (A copy of the area 94 map is included with the other maps in this record, marked Discussion 1.)

Councilor McLain said she understood that area 66 had a water tower that had been requested by City of Beaverton. Ms. Neill said that was true. (A copy of the area 94 map is included with the other maps in this record, marked Discussion 2.) Mr. O’Brien said there was a parcel in study area 66 owned by the City of Beaverton. The city presently had a water tank on the property along with the Tualatin Valley Water District. It was a combined facility, and both of their future constructions plans called for upgrading the water tank. The water from that tank used by Beaverton would be to service an area inside the UGB.

Councilor Hosticka asked if that use was still allowed if that area were outside the UGB, and if Metro was required to bring the land into the UGB in order for the City of Beaverton to do that. Mr. Cooper said it was not required to be brought into the boundary to be a water tower. Mr. O’Brien added that one issue raised by the city was that it would be easier for any future permitting actions if the land was inside the UGB.

Councilor McLain noted that with regard to the map, the white area signified already-urbanized land and the two pink areas were exception lands that could be brought into the UGB in this decision. If the Metro Council did bring in the pink areas, three-plus sides of area 66 would be urbanized, creating an isolated acreage of EFU. She said she wanted to make sure the committee recognized that fact.

Chair Park said the committee had postponed action was on area 65 yesterday, and he asked that the committee take action now, saying Councilor Bragdon made the motion yesterday. (The motion is listed below.)

Councilor Bragdon said the committee briefly discussed the motion yesterday and then held over the item in order to receive information about the water tower. This was partially urbanized exception land on the West Side. In his view, it was appropriate that an urbanized area be within the UGB.

Councilor Hosticka said he had made an amendment on this motion (to only include the areas east and north, taking out the settled areas (as marked on the black and white map, McLain #4, Study Area 65), and if there was interest he would continue to make the amendment (the motion is listed below.)

Councilor Hosticka said he felt this area would be very difficult to actually urbanize because it would first need to be annexed into the City of Beaverton. He said he understood that there was significant local opposition to urbanization and annexation. He said he was not willing to predict that there would be an immediate annexation, but if Metro were to bring in area 65, the areas that were shaded on the map were more appropriate because they were likely to be annexed and urbanized. He did not know why the committee was considering area 65 again, whether they needed to consider it, or whether by doing so it would increase the actual number of dwelling units even more than the need. But if the committee did feel it needed to consider area 65, he would prefer to consider only the shaded areas.

Councilor McLain said Councilor Hosticka was probably correct that only the shaded areas would provide any productivity, she felt the committee needed to bite the bullet. Either this was a good exception area to bring into the UGB or it was not. Splitting the area up and creating isolated islands within the gray area would create a more convoluted boundary. She understood and respected his reasoning, but it was very important for the committee to decide whether area 65 met the test or not.

Ms. Neill said when islands of EFU land were left within an area, there were two issues the committee might wish to consider. First, the facilities to serve those areas would have to be routed around the islands of EFU land, which might make urbanization more expensive and difficult. Second, when areas like that were left out, it created boundary problems, particularly with police and fire services. Areas outside of the city limits were patrolled by the county police. With regard to area 66 and the water tank, the City of Beaverton knew that it could upgrade the water tank facility if needed, but would like to have the permitting authority to do it within the city’s boundaries. Beaverton also stated that there were security concerns with some of those facilities following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The city felt the Beaverton Police were much better able to police the area and prevent vandalism, because the county police were stretched pretty thin.

Councilor McLain said she knew the numbers were really close. In her view, areas 65 and 82 were on a reserve list because the productivity in those areas was questionable. Those areas were available if the committee found anything to give it pause during its review of the amendments made already. Therefore, she hoped to keep areas 65 and 82 on a reserve list that could be brought back to the council after they heard more discussion.

Chair Park asked if Councilor McLain included area 66 on her reserve list also. Councilor McLain said she had. If the committee took action on area 65, it had to reconsider area 66 because it would have urbanized around three sides of area 66. To her, areas 65, 66 and 82 were still on the reserve list for further discussion at the council level, where they will receive more input and testimony.

Councilor Burkholder asked if Councilor Bragdon moved the entire site yesterday or a portion.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, said he believed Councilor Bragdon moved the entire site. Rooney Barker, Council Assistant, confirmed that Councilor Bragdon moved the entire site, that Councilor Hosticka had made a motion to amend Councilor Bragdon’s motion to include only the shaded areas. There had been no vote on either motion.

Councilor Burkholder said if the committee chose to include area 65, it made more sense to use the existing street boundaries and bring in the whole piece. As Councilor McLain said, the committee may not need to bring in that area, but if they did it, they should do it in a logical manner.

Councilor Hosticka agreed with Councilor McLain that areas 65, 66 and 82 should be considered as reserve candidates for additions if the committee finds that it needs them at some future time. He asked if Chair Park would like a motion on that. Chair Park said a motion was not necessary, it would just be understood.

Chair Park asked for the current dwelling unit count. Ms. Neill said they were currently 841 dwelling units over. The total dwelling units, with the lands included by motion, came to 38,241 dwelling units, and 18,073 acres. Chair Park asked if that total included the reduction of dwelling unit capacity in area 94. Ms. Neill said no, staff had not yet made that calculation.

Councilor McLain said she understood that area 71 was right next to area 55 West which the Metro Council brought in the last time they did a UGB amendment, below the Tualatin Valley Highway. The City of Hillsboro was currently planning area 55 West and there had been substantial participation by local residents and others. In her opinion, if they were going to look at something in that area, that this was an appropriate time to look at area 71 because nothing had been built yet, and the area could be added to the city’s current planning process.

Councilor Atherton said it was appropriate to add this area to the UGB because the City of Hillsboro was already doing the planning for this area. It would about 1,700 dwelling units, the people in the area wanted the development, and the land was needed for jobs.

Councilor Burkholder asked about the small pink areas outlined on the map of area 71. Mr. O’Brien said the small pink area closest to the area labeled 71 had always been considered part of study area 71. It was one small parcel of exception land. In the Alternatives Analysis, they were labeled areas 71a and 71b. The other section farther west was part of a tax lot that had been sliced in half by the urban growth boundary. The section in pink was exception land; the other part was resource land.

Councilor Burkholder offered a friendly amendment that the parcels shown on the map, in addition to the parcel marked 71, be included in the motion.

Mr. O’Brien said the parcel on the far west was not part of area 71, but was in the technical amendment ordinance presented earlier by Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner.

Councilor McLain said area 71 had more productivity and a higher ranking in the staff report than some of the areas already added. The committee had just set aside areas 65 and 82. She wondered whether the committee would prefer to add area 71 to the reserve list, even though it had higher productivity and the larger surrounding area was currently being planned.

Chair Park asked if the maker and seconder of the motion would consider withdrawing the motion and placing area 71 on the reserve list.

Councilor Monroe said no, he did not wish to withdraw the motion. As he said yesterday, he thought the committee did this process backwards. The real pressing need for housing and industrial lands was in Washington County. They ought to be looking for and bringing in every piece of logical exception land in Washington County first. If the committee was above its target number, maybe they ought to look at reducing the lands added in Clackamas County. He said he would support adding both areas 71, and would also support bringing in areas 65 and 82 to the UGB.

Chair Park said he would vote no on the motion at this time.

Hearing no more councilor amendments, Chair Park then directed legal counsel to prepare the findings necessary to support this decision and the conditions to go with these various pieces of property. He also directed the Planning staff to prepare the corrected maps and provide the final calculations for productivity. He also suggested that the areas placed on a reserve list be cleaned up and ready to go just in case. He asked if the committee would like to discuss the specific identified land need ordinances that would be first read on Thursday.

Councilor Hosticka said he had raised the question of conditions about Damascus. He asked what the circumstances were about conditions on some of the other areas that the committee had considered. If there were specific conditions the Councilors wanted to highlight, they should do so now.

Mr. Benner said so far he had established general conditions that would apply to all lands that would come inside the boundary. There were lands that the committee had tentatively brought into the UGB over the last few days that had design type designations, particularly Regionally Significant Industrial areas. He said he would be talking with the Planning Department and, if time allowed, with some of the jurisdictions to determine whether staff would recommend to the council conditions on the creation of new parcels, etc., that would apply to those areas. But if Councilors already knew specific conditions that they would like to attach to the regionally significant industrial areas, such as areas 47 and 49, he asked that they please give staff that direction now because he was currently drafting those conditions.

Councilor Monroe said there should be some protection for Significant Industrial Lands so that they would be protected for their intended uses. The region had a shortage of industrial land and it was important to send a loud and clear message that if Metro was going to bring in Significant Industrial lands, they should be protected for that use.

Chair Park asked what the committee still needed to do, procedurally. There was a motion on the floor on the entire Ordinance No. 02-969.

Mr. Cooper said Chair Park had directed legal counsel to start writing the findings, and had given staff direction on the conditions. The findings would not be written by Thursday, but they were not necessary for first reading. He said he hoped to have a first-cut on the conditions in front of the council by the time the ordinance was first read on Thursday. Once Planning staff completed its calculations, the new numbers would be added to the “Whereas” clauses. The separate ordinances were being first read. The committee could either add pieces to those before first reading or amend them later at committee. Either approach would work for a December 5th adoption schedule.

Chair Park suggested that the committee amend the ordinances at committee after first reading, and do a substitution at the council level.

Councilor Monroe wondered why it was advisable today to move the primary ordinance out of committee. Since everything interrelated, he asked if it would not be advisable to save that motion for next Tuesday. Chair Park said, in his opinion the committee needed to move the ordinance out so that people testifying at the council meeting the next day would know exactly what was before the council.

Councilor Hosticka said if the ordinance did not move out of committee today, the committee’s action would be written and placed on the agenda for first reading. So one way or the other, it would be before the council tomorrow. It would be preferable to have the ordinance come out of committee with some support, so that when people testified the next day, they would have some idea of the Metro Council’s intentions.

Councilor Atherton said currently, the committee was 1,257 dwelling units over the target. Chair Park said the committee was approximately 800 units over the target, minus the recalculation in area 94. Councilor Atherton said he disagreed. Councilor McLain said the point was they tried to hit the target as close as possible, and they understood that they might need to make adjustments after the final calculations have been done. Back to the discussion on moving Ordinance No. 02-969 out of committee today, she said acting on that main motion would give the public the opportunity to know what they were speaking to. She said she would like to move the main motion out of committee today so that it was before the council the following day.

Councilor Atherton asked how they were going address the issue of areas 65 and 68. Chair Park said he assumed they would be addressed at council during normal council activity.

Councilor Hosticka he believed that in terms of timing, the council would hold a hearing the next day if there was an ordinance in front of them, which they would have one way or another. The council would then meet on December 5th to consider that ordinance. If there were amendments to that ordinance on December 5th, the final vote would be taken on December 12th. If there were no amendments on December 5th, the council could take a final vote on that date.

Councilor Bragdon urged that the committee move the ordinance out of committee today.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-969 – For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, the Regional Framework Plan and the Metro Code in Order to Increase the Capacity of the Boundary to Accommodate Population Growth to the Year 2022; and Declaring an Emergency.

Chair Park said there were two potential items for further committee discussion. They had already talked about the Shute/Evergreen site and the specific identified land need for that particular purpose. It may be appropriate to discuss the Beaverton School District site in concept at this time, and he asked for a brief outline.

Councilor McLain said the proposal was to include the Beaverton School District site, which the committee discussed. The site sat next to Portland Community Committee, within area 84 exception land. At the school district’s request, the committee would have a separate ordinance so that it would not be colored by the discussions on the Bethany area, which was also on a separate ordinance. The committee was honoring the request of the school district.

Councilor Hosticka said he had raised an issue for a separate ordinance about a couple of road alignments in the Tualatin area. He said Mr. Cotugno had shown him a conceptual drawing of how those would work, and he said he would ask next Tuesday that those be turned into a separate ordinance for consideration.

Chair Park asked if there were any other ordinances that the committee needed to have in place for first reading at council the next day. There were none.

5. COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Councilor Hosticka reviewed the anticipated schedule for council the next day. After the council convened and finished its usual announcements and introductions, he would have Ordinance No. 02-969 first read as the first order of business. He said he would take testimony at that point. Once testimony was completed, the council would go through the remaining items on the agenda. He said he understood there may be some people planning to arrive later in the day. Those people could either wait until the rest of the agenda was completed, or if council had already adjourned, he said he was willing to remain with any other interested Councilors as a subcommittee to take testimony.

Mr. Cooper said that was a perfectly fine process. Councilor Hosticka said he would be asking for volunteers, but he had volunteered to stay as long as necessary to hear all the testimony.

Councilor Bragdon gave his compliments to the chair and all of their colleagues for the conduct at these meetings. There had been long hours, a lot of hearings out in the field, and a lot of good discussions. He thought it was civil all the way through and the discussions about different policy elements was very good. He acknowledged all the good staff work that went into this, and all the exhibits and papers and maps. The hearings were very well run.

Councilor Monroe apologized for missing part of yesterday’s meeting. He announced that the Transportation Investment Advisory Task Force meeting that he attended the previous day was moving along in its work. They received a report on a Davis, Hibbits and McCaig survey that gave them some very important information. The task force’s work was absolutely critical, he added. The council could make its choices on the urban growth boundary, but if there was no transportation infrastructure available and no money to provide such infrastructure, some of these urban expansions would be meaningless. Land use planning and transportation planning were two sides of the same coin.

Councilor Burkholder echoed Councilor Bragdon’s appreciation for how smoothly the process went. He said he hoped this set a good precedent for future decisions that were based on facts, lots of information, and lots of discussion with the citizens out in the community. It was very difficult to understand the issues before the council and the implications of those decisions, but this process made it clean and clear. He thanked the chair and the people who worked under the chair’s guidance to make this happen.

Councilor McLain thanked the public, the business people, and the special advocates who assisted the councilors in this conversation. They had to take time off from their days to come to Metro. She thought that even though the committee needed occasional light moments, she wanted the public to understand that the Councilors understood how serious this subject was and how it affected their daily lives, their livelihoods, and their families’ quality of life.

Chair Park thanked the committee for its hard work. Legal, Planning, the Data Resource Center, and Communications staff had all been fantastic; it was very much a group effort. In retrospect the process was not perfect. It was possible to make a series of right decisions and come up with a wrong policy at the end. The process needed to be reexamined, in terms of what tools the council was allowed to use in making its decision. He said he would have more on this issue later.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.