MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Bill Atherton, Rex Burkholder, Carl Hosticka, Susan McLain, and Rod Monroe (Councilor Bragdon was not present, but attended by phone)

Members Absent:  None.

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 1:19 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 8 and 12, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-983, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary to Add Land for a Specific Type of Industry Near Specialized Facilities North of Hillsboro; and Declaring an Emergency. Chair Park asked if a letter from Washington County had been received, and set this ordinance aside until that letter could be retrieved.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-984, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary to add Land for a Public School in Study Area 85; and Declaring an Emergency. Chair Park asked staff to speak to both this ordinance and Ordinance No. 02-987, as they were related. Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, spoke to the staff reports to these ordinances and the map on the wall, saying 02-984 addressed the proposed Beaverton School District site in a portion of study area 85W, which she reviewed first. (A copy of a memo to Chair Park from Ms. Neill regarding Servicing Information for the Bethany Area: Areas 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87, as well as Attachment 2 to Ordinance No. 02-984 were distributed and made a part of this record). Ms. Neill also spoke to the conditions in Exhibit B to the ordinance, and told the committee of the Beaverton School District’s desire for this parcel to be incorporated into the urban growth boundary (UGB). The staff report addressed the school district’s request, and the applicable review criteria. The Executive Officer recommended this site be included in the UGB for school purposes.

6. ORDINANCE NO. 02-987, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary to add land in the Bethany area; and Declaring an Emergency.

Ms. Neill spoke to Exhibits A and Exhibit B, and the staff report and Attachment 1 to Ordinance No. 02-987 (distributed and made a part of this record). This area (areas 84, 85, 86 and part of area 87, north of Springville Road, as shown in Attachment 1) was all EFU land and was contiguous to current school sites. Ms. Neill said it was the most efficient land to provide both a buffer from agricultural land on the north to Abbey Creek, and west to the BPA power line easement.

Councilor Monroe asked question about map, which Ms. Neill responded to. In a black and white version provided the committee, she pointed out that below or above red line one would need a pump station for sewers, which increased the difficulty and expense of providing them. She also pointed out that transportation was a key factor in proposing this area, we well, as there were congestion problems at that intersection.

Chair Park informed the audience that the committee would be taking testimony on these ordinances today, and asked those who wanted to testify to please fill out the testimony cards.

Chair Park went on to speak of the school district and the potential effect this would have on that area. He said he was trying to use his own judgment and not refer back to what the committee had discussed in Ordinance No. 02-969. He asked if Councilor Bragdon, on the telephone, if he had any comments at this time. Councilor Bragdon did not.

Chair Park opened a public hearing.

1.  Hal Bergsma, Principal Planner, City of Beaverton, PO Box 4755, Beaverton, OR 97076-4755, testified on Ordinance No. 02-983, and submitted for the record a letter from Joe Grillo, Community Development Director, City of Beaverton (a copy of which was distributed and is made a part of this record). Mr. Bergsma said that the City of Beaverton’s position was that adding some land in the Bethany area makes sense, but said they did not support any particular addition in that area other than the previously planned part of Study Area 85 know as the Ryland property.

In a discussion of Exhibit B (the proposed conditions) Councilor Hosticka noted that they should not be speaking about the City of Hillsboro, and Mr. Bergsma agreed that it should be the city of Beaverton. Mr. Cooper said it was a scribner’s error on Metro’s part, and he apologized. Mr. Bergsma said he was not representing the Beaverton School District, but that he believed they wanted this in a separate ordinance because they want to bring a school site in as a specific need.

Councilor Hosticka asked counsel what the effect or possible actions would be once this ordinance left Metro’s jurisdiction, if the council recommends it, and whether or not higher authorities could deal with pieces of the ordinance. Mr. Cooper said Metro is in Periodic Review and these ordinances amending the UGB are all going to be sent to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for their review and acknowledgement, as was consistent with state law and goals. LCDC can approve all, none or parts of them and decide how to proceed. While it is possible to adopt everything in one ordinance, the commission might find it easier to separate controversial stuff out. This was a judgment call on Metro’s part, Mr. Cooper said.

There was more discussion on this, on whether or not the school site could develop if the rest of this property was not brought in, and on having the site in both this ordinance and the main ordinance, No. 02-969.

Councilor Hosticka asked what difference it made if this area were in or out of the UGB, if it was only the school. Mr. Cooper replied that a school cannot be outside the UGB to serve urban purposes. If it serves students inside the UGB, it has to be inside the UGB.

2.  Don Guthrie 3300 NW 211th Terrace, Beaverton, OR, testified on area 85. Mr. Guthrie said he had been a consultant for Ryland Homes for five years and had worked to bring that master plan together. He said he had a good working relationship with CPO 7, the Beaverton School District and others, and he gave a brief update on the progress of the site. He said the Beaverton School District had closed on their 10-acre portion and have title to the property, and that he will continue to be a consultant for West Hills if they move forward. Mr. Guthrie then introduced engineer Fred Holz to explain some of the questions the committee had asked. He concluded by saying he hoped the committee would follow the recommendations.

3.  Fred Holtz, Vice President and Director of Development Services for LDC Design Group, 3300 NW 211th Terrace, Beaverton, OR, submitted a set of colored maps of his slides on the site which showed the existing and proposed schools, lift stations, environmental resources areas, unserviceable areas, transportation alternatives, and sanitary/water services alternatives. In addition, Mr. Holtz referred to the testimony the previous week on the Bethany areas relative to sewers and transportation.

Councilor Monroe reiterated that if the school district sought to develop that site without other property in area 85 coming in, the cost to the school district for the infrastructure would be in the millions of dollars, and Mr. Holtz agreed that that was true.

4.  Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, spoke briefly on Ordinance No. 02-983. Ms. McCurdy said she had already testified on Shute Road, and just wanted to reiterate that it would be difficult to legally justify brining this area in when other areas were passed over.

Councilor Monroe asked her to name some of the other areas she meant. Ms. McCurdy said at least one was area 65. Councilor Monroe said area 65 was on the committee’s reserve list, and they would probably revisit it the following week. Councilor Hosticka engaged Ms. McCurdy in a discussion of whether or not these areas were comparable.

5.  Mark Dane, 13005 SW Foothill, Portland, OR 97225, speaking to area 83 and using Mr. Holtz’s map, spoke to the contour line and the proposed pump station. He said an engineer had provided material the previous Thursday showing how gravity could be used to provide sewer service for the entire area. Mr. Dane stated information previously presented to the council, and Chair Park asked if he had new information to give the committee. Mr. Dane did not. Chair Park said he had made his point.

6.  Dirk Knudsen, 5517 NW Skycrest Parkway, Portland, OR 97229, testifying on Ordinance No. 02-987, said he was providing some new information that was somewhat relevant. Mr. Knudsen read a letter from Alan Roodhouse of RPS Development Company regarding the development of West Union Village and Town Center (distributed and made a part of this record). He also asked if the councilors had received an e-mail from Greg Malinowski prior to this meeting, and he reviewed that for them as well. He said he was concerned the council may ignore this as they worked on their decision. Mr. Knudsen also spoke about the owner of area 83 getting an offer from the Beaverton School District. He said he was not questioning the need for schools, but wondered where and how many were needed.

In discussion with Councilor Monroe regarding the Washington County Farm Bureau, Mr. Knudsen said he and Mr. Peters, as well as Mr. Malinowski wanted to preserve farmland at all cost. Chair Park echoed that and said he had spoken with Mr. Peters that morning and that the Farm Bureau still stood by their letter of a few weeks ago, no farm land in Washington County should be taken. They’d held that position since the beginning of this process. Councilor McLain said Chair Park had just summarized her understanding of their position, as well.

7.  Jin Park, 13555 NW Laidlaw Rd., Portland, OR 97229, on Ordinance No. 02-987, testified that the sewer and transportation were the most important issues. The worst intersection outside the UGB was 185th and West Union. Mr. Park also said the only way that any farmland should be included was if it were, nothing else. He said another farmer had sent letter a letter with him that he would submit for the record.

Councilor Monroe asked Mr. Park if area 83 came into the UGB what the plans would be for that portion. Mr. Park, on a map on the wall, pointed to the portion owned by Metro and said he may donate the northern portion of the property to Metro for use as a natural boundary.

8.  Darrell Smith, 8835 SW Canyon, Portland, OR 97225, to area 83, talked about an in-depth sanitary study and the gravity flow line from Clean Water Services. A green line represented sewer services up to corner of area 84. Chair Park said Mr. Smith had given this testimony before, on Ordinance No. 02-969. Mr. Smith said he had done a little bit. Chair Park said it looked like the same presentation, and asked if it was any different. Mr. Smith said he wanted to show how the area could be served by sewer and did not require pump station. Chair Park said he had already done this in previous testimony.

Chair Park closed the public hearing.

To her motion, Councilor McLain said she hoped to make this more complete community effort like Damascus. What they tried to do here was to make sense of an area that Metro was asked to include because of the need assessment.

Councilor Monroe said he understood the Washington Farm Bureau’s official position and applauded the fact that they wanted to protect farmland. On the other hand, he had talked to a number of farmers, he said, including members of the Washington Farm Bureau who said it was really hard to farm right up next to urbanization and couldn’t Metro find some logical buffers between urbanization and agricultural activity. He was also troubled by the fact that if they took in the Bethany area and left off area 87 they would create an island of poor quality farmland and have an isolated piece of farmland that doesn’t produce anything significant. He said the same thing could be said for the southern part of area 83, at the intersection, that it would be surrounded by urbanization and a wetland, and would be an isolated chunk of poor quality farmland of about 70 acres. He said he was looking for logical buffers and bringing in pieces of land that were necessary to meet the legal requirements and that made sense and could be planned as whole units for whole complete communities. It seemed to him, Councilor Monroe said, that the logical thing to do would be to bring in all of those properties to the south of Abbey Creek and to the east of Abbey Creek up to the power line. He said if there was not additional interest on the part of the council, he was obviously just one vote. If there were additional interest he would be happy to make a motion.

Councilor Burkholder said he abstained on this piece last week and needed more information. The more he heard, the more he thought this area was wrong to bring in. It needed a planning strategy that answered some of the questions such as the best way to service the area and the best boundary, and how to you deal with the farm land issue. He said he felt that linking a school district without a neighborhood didn't make sense either. He said he didn't support the ordinance to put a school district in without actually bringing in some land that it would serve. He said he felt this was not ripe, and therefore, he would be changing his vote from abstaining to opposing this parcel.

Chair Park asked if Councilor Bragdon had any comment, and Councilor Bragdon said he did not.

Councilor Hosticka said he agreed with Councilor Burkholder concerning the school site. He didn’t see the point of bringing it in if there was no neighborhood to serve. With regard to the rest of the discussion, it seemed if it were not right now, when would it be right, he asked. They had been discussing this for a number of years before he came on the council. By bringing it in, the council would signal that they thought it should be planned and urbanized. He agreed with Councilor McLain that we should be as inclusive as possible because if LCDC felt otherwise, they could take parts out and the council could revisit this. If we were not as inclusive as possible, we could lose the opportunity to have the whole area brought in and planned. We have conditions that have to be master planned and annexed. He said he felt that the motion as it stood was a good motion. He had no objection to area 83, he said. He felt it would round out the whole area. He felt that they had established a precedent to try to look at large enough areas to do complete communities. He said they also wanted to test the limits of the law and see how far they could go in the direction of a complete community.

Chair Park said he opposed this the last time, based on the inclusion of area 87, and he still opposed it on that basis. Given Councilor Hosticka was correct in that we are trying to do a complete community as much as we can, but within the limits that we have of current state law. Understanding the need to go into certain areas yet understanding the limitations, he said he believed past history had shown Metro where some of those boundaries were. This was one of the clear lines that we do have. He would not support this motion as it stood. If it were amended to exclude area 87, he could support it, but at this time he couldn't support area 83 based upon the on the information they had. If you were to follow the logic of area 83 and Abbey Creek, the extension of lines would be right outside the study area beyond areas 87 and 84 out in EFU. He said he didn't think they had determined they were going as far as Germantown Road or any farther than that at this particular time. He said he thought area 83 was a Task 3 issue.

Councilor McLain commented that they had heard testimony from Mary Kyle McCurdy that sometimes the boundary stops at illogical places, sometimes in the middle of a field. Councilor McLain said the committee has to look at specific areas. There is general law, she said, but there are exceptions to the general law that apply at times if you’re trying to improve or to build something like a complete community. There were ridges in this area and utility lines on one side, and other parts that make this area unique. Looking at the motion now on the table, we tried to put together what fits the law. They were trying to add exclusive farmland that would fill out the services needed for that exception land, and she said she thought the more compact form of areas 84, 86, 85, 87 allowed for the type of support for the Center. They were talking about service of the complete community. She thought they had to address area 83, but she said she didn't think they could address it at this time. You can’t do both. You were choosing to look at the information and figuring out how to serve one part of that area.

Councilor Monroe said, on advice of counsel, they put the Bethany area in a separate ordinance because we were not sure what state law will allow in making logical decisions about managing the UGB. This was a test to see what was appropriate. He said he’d heard many times that they needed to have rational buffers between urbanization and agricultural activity. The whole Abbey Creek stream and riparian corridor was such a buffer. To take in the rest of areas 84, 85, 86 and 87 without area 83 would leave a piece of EFU land, right across from a shopping center and urbanization to the south and east, and cut off from other farming activity by riparian corridor of Abbey Creek to the north and west. Councilor Monroe said he was suggesting doing it logically to see if it floats. The same argument can be made against area 87 as were made against area 83. We have decided to bring in area 87, and should bring in area 83 as well.

Councilor Hosticka spoke to the amendment. If we were going to test the limits, he said, we might as well go as far as we can. He was persuaded that areas 83 and 87 were comparable areas in the sense that the same arguments applied. Including area 83 would create a more logical piece all together in terms of the natural boundaries of this area. He said was happy to second the amendment.

Councilor Bragdon said this amendment was not without its pitfalls, and would probably make the pitfalls a lot deeper and he would not support it. He said this had been discussed previously and he had not heard anything new to make him reconsider.

Chair Park commented that he would not support this amendment. He felt that the timing was incorrect and the argument for area 83 had not been made strongly enough. He reminded people that they were talking about this ordinance within the context of land for housing. If they were talking about this particular piece of property for industrial use perhaps the discussion would be different. Area 83 didn’t appear to help us in that direction.

Councilor Monroe closed by saying he wasn't sure where the votes were. He still thought the logical thing to do was to allow the City of Beaverton the opportunity to plan this entire region with its effective natural boundaries.

Councilor Burkholder said it was self evident that if they had a school site, they needed to provide safe access for children who don't drive. He said he wanted to state strong that schools should be expected to have good pedestrian bicycle access for the children that attend that school.

Councilor Bragdon said he heard a lot with regard to this site and being able to plan it comprehensively so it was a good community for people to live in and included a trail networks, riparian areas, transportation and road connections. This amendment was consistent with that idea so the school wasn’t isolated. The proposed developers had said that they wanted to do this, too, to be consistent with their vision. Councilor Bragdon said he was supportive of this amendment.

Councilor Monroe said, on behalf of the Metro Council, he had been given the privilege of dedicating the Oaks Bottom bikeway this morning and was very happy to support this amendment.

Councilor Atherton had a question on the area the amendment addressed, and Councilor Burkholder explained the regional Street Design Guidelines in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Chair Park asked if this condition would be included in all of the other ordinances as a blanket condition, and Councilor Burkholder said this condition was referenced in Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 02-984, and he was still discussing with counsel the possibility of bringing it forward as a general condition. He said he’d wanted to include this one in case they decided against a blanket condition.

Councilor Atherton said he could not support this unless it applied to the entire planning area, as that was the whole purpose of master planning. Councilor Burkholder asked counsel to further explain Title 11 conditions to all sites and how they had to comply with Street Design Guidelines of the RTP, etc.

Mr. Benner said one of the requirements of Title 11 was to do a transportation plan. That plan and the following plan amendments that Washington County or Beaverton would have to do would have to comply with the Regional Transportation Plan. To the extent that the RTP called for a street network, bike lanes, etc. the transportation plan that Title 11 requires would have to include those things. That planning requirement did not necessarily result in bike paths or lanes or footpaths to the school site. You would hope that they would but it doesn't require that specifically. If the committee wanted to require that specifically in relation to a school site, adding a condition was a good idea. The transportation planning does have to address bicycle and pedestrian modes.

Councilor Burkholder said the question Councilor Atherton was raising was whether bicycle and pedestrian modes were part of requirements of the conceptual plan.

Councilor Bragdon said this particular condition of Title 11 was completely appropriate because they were being asked to bring in a school site partly on the basis that the site would be one of the centerpieces of the community. Calling out specifically that it was important for the kids to be able to get there safely was important and went beyond the boilerplate regarding the transportation system planning.

Chair Park reiterated that the committee was working on Ordinance Nos. 02-984 and 02-987, and that this amendment had to do with 02-987.

Councilor Hosticka said he wanted to state a few issues about questions he had raised with Ms. McCurdy about the impact of doing this versus doing other things. He said this committee had heard considerable testimony about the effects of increasing the UGB in different areas. He said he’d like to talk about the ecological footprint which talked about how much land they had to take in and what effect they had on the environment for housing units and how areas compare to each other along that dimension. It seemed this area compared very favorably with some of the exception areas and some of the others areas in terms of housing large number of people in a compact area and less transportation impacts and less land consumption than other areas. He said the committee had also looked at the effect on natural resources in areas 37, 65, 67, south of Sherwood and in the Damascus area, and it seemed to him that the impact on natural resources in this area was much less per equivalent housing unit.

Lastly, he said, they looked at the desires of the local communities. If the committee compared this area where there is strong support from the local community to other areas where there was strong opposition from the local community, it would seem that this was a natural thing to do and made sense. Even though there may be some legal problems with this ordinance, from a policy perspective it met more of the objectives that they had put on themselves and expressed for consideration as they expand the UGB than a number of the areas that they had already brought in. He said he thought this was a very good thing to do.

Councilor McLain said she had listened and read all the reports. She said she didn’t think there was any way to please everyone, that this committee had to do what they thought was the best public policy. She said they may be pushing the state when they said they wanted efficiency of service, to see if they really meant it when they said they want compact urban form that can help centers and regions. They acknowledged Metro's Urban Growth Concept. Did the state support it or was that just an acknowledgement, she wondered. She thought that was what they were asking the state. Councilor McLain said she wanted to protect farmland and forest land at all costs, but she understood that Washington County was surrounded by EFU land. She said the Metro Council has to prioritize which of those EFU lands help with other responsibilities and concerns and which should be protected at all costs. These choices had to be made, between all the good land. There was no bad land in Washington County, even 185th and West Union. She said she would support this ordinance.

Councilor Burkholder said they were making lots of choice here, and none were easy. He said he felt they were bound to look at rankings in terms of how does this help the 2040 Concept get realized. We do have areas that were all exception land that they had chosen not to bring into the UGB, using area 65 as an example, that was rated as well or higher than this area was for achieving our Goal 14 as well as our 2040 values. He said taking farmland when they had exception land that was available was not a good precedent to take, and he didn’t think it would stand up. He said they should be looking at area 65 before they looked at this area; therefore, he said he would not be supporting this ordinance.

Councilor Bragdon said he had nothing to add.

Councilor Monroe said since they didn’t have the main ordinance (02-969) before them, that it had been passed out of committee and, after it was passed out, they had heard testimony from Beaverton that they were interested in area 65, so he said he would be moving to add area 65 on December 5th. He said he believed it was rational to bring that area in and that would take away one of the concerns for not doing Bethany.

Chair Park said they would now consider Ordinance No. 02-984, the specific identified land need for the school site. Mr. Cooper reminded the committee that the conditions had the same error in that they referred to the City of Hillsboro, and that reference should be the City of Beaverton.

Councilor McLain asked for clarification from Mr. Cooper. Her understanding was that the school district was making a case for this school serving both that area and population inside the UGB. Mr. Cooper said they had made that case based on evidence from the school district that they needed the site for students already inside the UGB. Councilor McLain asked if this ordinance did not pass and Ordinance No. 02-987 had some factors that would cause it to be put at the end of a list of things to do because it needed more work, if the school district could build until this was cleared up. Mr. Cooper said they could not build on the site unless all appeals were exhausted.

Chair Park called for a short break. The committee reconvened after 10 minutes.

Councilor Hosticka served notice of possible reconsideration of Ordinance No. 02-984. He said he thought there were many questions about the plans of the Beaverton School District as well as the legal limitations, and that he had not heard that discussion. If the Beaverton School District were to come in to address those issues at the next committee meeting, he said he would be happy to reconsider his vote and possibly move the ordinance forward.

Chair Park said for the record that there would be a Community Planning meeting on December 3rd. Councilor McLain said she would be responsible for asking the Beaverton School District to speak to the committee at that meeting, and that there were letters on file from the school district about why they wanted to have this separated out for opportunity to test the law on specific dedicated land use need.

Councilor Monroe said the Beaverton School District knew they were voting on this today and they didn't chose to send anyone. He agreed with Councilor Hosticka that if they wanted to come next week and give good reasons why the committee should reconsider this ordinance, then he would be joining Councilor Hosticka in reconsideration.

Councilor Bragdon said there had been intensive discussions about this issue at the legislature. It might be useful at the December 3rd meeting to have Mr. Cotugno help round out the picture.

Councilor Hosticka said a major question was timing in that they had voted favorably on an ordinance that included bringing the site that the school district wanted into the boundary. This was a backup ordinance in case that ordinance encountered difficulty. He wanted to know what the timing was in terms of how long it would take to resolve difficulties on Ordinance No. 02-987, when they planned to build the school, and would there be time to reconsider. He said he would like those questions answered and to have the school district tell the committee their plans.

Chair Park said the December 3rd meeting would begin at 2:00 p.m. (A copy of the amended ordinance, 02-983A, with Exhibit B, and a black and white map of the area, was distributed and is made a part of this record).

6. ORDINANCE NO. 02-983, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary to add land for specific types of identified land need; and declaring an emergency.

Mr. Benner reviewed the revised ordinance as to the new numbers (a copy of the revised ordinance, Exhibit B, and a black and white map of the area, were distributed and made a part of this record). The ordinance itself was unchanged in substance from first read last week, he said. The additions were to reflect the numbers from Urban Growth Report (UGR) as it stands following the last changes to the UGR. Exhibit A, which the committee did not have, he said, was a map of the property to show where it lies, and Exhibit C, which they also didn’t have, will be the findings of fact to support the decision. Exhibit B was something the committee had looked at before, the conditions that would apply to the property. They were discussed at the meeting last week, Mr. Benner said, and these were the conditions that representatives from the City of Hillsboro and Washington County said they would accept and implement.

Councilor Bragdon said he had not seen the letter from the Washington County Commission on this site, but wanted to verify that it had been received.

Chair Park said it had, and he read the pertinent part of the letter for the record from Washington County Commission Chair Tom Brian stating their support of Ordinance No. 02-983 and that they will fully implement the conditions (this letter is included in this record).

Councilor Bragdon said this was discussed this last week and the case had been made, at least for him, that for a particular high-tech industry to thrive, this site with its particular characteristics was needed. This was being done at the expense of another important industry, so the bar had been set very high and was the reason for the conditions. If the case has been made for a specified land use, then the conditions are part and parcel of this, and with that, he said he would support this ordinance.

Chair Park opened public hearing on Ordinance No. 02-983A.

1.  Al Burns, City of Portland, Bureau of Planning, 1900 SW 4th, Portland, OR 97214, said the City of Portland strongly supported the inclusion of this area under the specific type of land need provisions. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County made the case, he said, and there was no alternative site that could meet the identified need, within the UGB or around the perimeter. Portland congratulated the City of Hillsboro, it was a tough case but they made it, and the conditions will ensure that this site will be used to supplement this very important industry.

Councilor McLain said she had heard and seen support from Hillsboro City Council and staff, and asked Mr. Burns if there was competition for this. He said technical clusters require selective viewing, and in Northwest Portland they had a silicone fabrication facility, but within the city of Portland they couldn’t meet these specific site conditions. Hillsboro was the only provider.

2.  Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors, 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Wilsonville, OR 97070, said the committee had heard her say many times that AGC was in favor of adding this parcel. She submitted a letter from Commercial Real Estate Economic Coalition (CREEC) also voicing support for this recommendation (this letter is included as part of this record).

3.  Mary Kyle McCurdy 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, said she was concerned with jumping Shute Road into the heart of the Tualatin Valley agricultural land. There were no natural boundaries here. Metro’s proposed Conditions did not contain a concept of forming a permanent boundary in this area to protect Tualatin Valley agricultural land. She said she was alarmed at the speed with which Hillsboro and some council members last week were already discussing modifying the proposed Conditions in the future. If this area was included in the UGB, she said, the Conditions had to be tight and not modifiable, and she suggested talking about forming a permanent boundary in this area. There were ways to do that, she said, and that had not been addressed. The cart was ahead of the horse in that the discussion about agricultural/industry in Washington County, and the committee was looking at clearly taking land from one industry for another.

Regarding the conversation Ms. McCurdy said hadn’t taken place, Councilor McLain said she, Chair Park and Ms. McCurdy had tried to have conversation about an edge at different times and different places. She asked Ms. McCurdy what she saw in the way of an opportunity in Periodic Review Task 3 where that conversation.

Ms. McCurdy said there may be an opportunity to have that conversation and to come up with some tools. Her concern was that they were going ahead here before that discussion occurred. There are a variety of tools that could be looked at that would be appropriate, she added. She gave an example of the City of Gresham's and Multnomah County's discussions taking place now on the Springwater proposal.

Councilor McLain commented to the three people who testified that this committee had talked about an economic strategy for region and how important it was to make sure there was both a regional strategy and industry strategy. She asked them to reflect on why it wouldn’t be appropriate to have that dialogue on strategy first before getting into something with so many firm conditions. Ms. Catto said she was not an economic development expert and could only convey messages she had heard from conversation in which she’d taken part. Part of the concern she’d heard was this region had sent a very strong message to potential employers that we were not open for business. The more we send that message, the farther down the list we get as people plan out into the future. We must have an economic development strategy and we have to look at the region as an economic whole. We already have an existing economic cluster in Washington County that requires that we keep a level of visibility nationwide. We believe, she said, that by adding this in at this time, it keeps our foot in water in the bigger picture. We know that there are problems with it, we know that there are restrictions, and we know that we also need to have that broader economic development strategy. But that’s coming, she said, and it’s not five years away, it’s being worked on now by a lot of very smart people. As we move forward, she said she thought we would have an economic strategy that augments the fact that this land is now available.

Mr. Burns said, following up on what Ms. Catto said, when we looked at these areas, we looked at areas that could come in under existing state law that could come on line quickly, particularly within the one to two-year time frame. Yes, he said, we probably would have a better understanding of how land needs need an economic strategy if we’d done the strategy first. This area popped to the top of the priority list as a specific type of land need.

Again, Ms. McCurdy said they had not had the economic strategy discussion so she said she couldn’t say whether we need more small parcels or more large parcels or what, except based on past development trends, and they clearly know the high-tech industry in particular will look very different in five or ten years than it does now. She said again she thought this was premature, and since the hi-tech industry was not building anything anywhere now, there was time for that discussion.

Councilor Burkholder had a question regarding the City of Hillsboro letter and, in terms trying to identify the specified land use need, he asked for a definition of “flex” as they used it in the phrase, high tech/flex land needs.” Ms. Catto deferred to the planners, saying terminology was not always same. She thought it was planning jargon. Ms. McCurdy said it was part of what raised alarms for her. Last week was first time it was read and there was already discussion then about modifying the Conditions and being flexible. If we need this land for large lot high-tech, she said, then we should stick to it and keep it for that. Mr. Burns said part of the answer was defined by specialty fire codes, and he referred to Condition 9, saying it described a high-tech facility and not a flex facility.

Councilor Monroe asked Ms. McCurdy if she knew the soil classification of this EFU property. She replied that she believed it was Class 1 and 2, but said Metro Planning staff probably knew for certain. Councilor Monroe said that’s what he had been told. He then asked if she knew if it was currently being farmed profitably. Ms. McCurdy said she didn’t know. She said she’d never known a farmer to claim making a profit. Councilor Monroe then asked, assuming that Hillsboro area did need large tracts of land for future industrial need, if she could think of any other properties in the Hillsboro area that would be preferable to this piece of prime farmland. Ms. McCurdy said she had not thought about it. Councilor Monroe said he had.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Benner if it was possible to put a condition that if this was brought in now, and there was no need or burning prospect to build on this within certain period of time, that it could be taken out in order to be consistent with the regional economic strategy. It said it sounded to him that this was more of a public relations UGB amendment than anything else.

Mr. Benner said if there was no need for this kind of development that complies with the conditions, he said he presumed then that the property would lie unused for an extensive period of time. When the Metro Council does Task 3, if nothing has happened on this property for a few years, they could look at the land once again to see if they want to change the designation of it. It was conceivable they could take this land outside the UGB. If Councilor Atherton was asking whether the council could put a condition on it that takes it into the boundary but only for a period of time and then it would automatically go out, Mr. Benner said he thought not, because that would not respond to the legal requirements that they would have to demonstrate in order to bring it in, in the first place.

Ms. Catto asked to respond. She said if her comments were interpreted as this land being only available as a PR strategy, that was not what she intended. She said AGC had evidence on the ground of a large employer leaving the area because there was no land available for them to expand in Washington County in close proximity to the high-tech cluster. She said AGC doesn’t want that to happen again. For folks in Washington County to be active in the marketplace, seeking out employers to augment that high-tech cluster, they have to have land. There was plenty of evidence through the RILS and Metro’s Urban Growth Report (UGR) that this kind of land is not available in Washington County that they needed. This proposal was an available land need to support that economic cluster.

Councilor Burkholder said Ms. McCurdy and 1000 Friends of Oregon raised some credible issues, and he said he thought the same issues would apply to bringing in area 87. It was the question of what was legally defensible as well as what was the right urban form, and they had not had those discussions. He said that was an important issue to recognize. Another issue he said he wanted to recognize was, as a regional body, they were not there to meet the needs, perceived or real, of any single jurisdiction within their boundary, but to try to provide for the economic health and well being of the whole region. He said he thought this council supported that through expanding the Mt. Hood employment industrial lands in Clackamas County, because there was an even greater need there for employment opportunities for people who live here. He said last week that his concern was that these conditions were strong and actually achieved goals they wanted to achieve, and secondly, Washington County actually committed on a commission level to following those conditions. There was letter submitted to this council that stated unequivocally Washington County Board of Commissioners position that they will adhere to these conditions. Councilor Burkholder said his opinion was that these conditions would not change – they were very specific, for a specific purpose and any change would nullify the need for this piece of property. He said he felt these pieces were critical for this committee to move forward on this property.

Chair Park closed the public hearing.

Councilor Monroe said he had some serious concerns about the proposal for the following reasons: we need additional large industrial land and we need them in Washington County. That need may not be as immediate as last year because of what was happening in the economy, but it was a need that they ought to be addressing. Was there any other land in the Hillsboro area that was more appropriate that was not prime farmland for industrial uses, he asked. He said he thought there was. He believed that taking prime farmland out of production and putting it into urban use ought to be last resort as prime farmland was a non-renewable resource. Once it was gone, it was gone forever. He said the committee ought to be very cautious. Not all EFU land was prime farmland, some had already been lost because it was surrounded by urbanization, he said, referring to the St. Mary's property. Once it was prime farmland; it was surrounded by urbanization today, it was no longer under profitable farming use. He said he thought that Hillsboro ought to take a serious look at this property and the property just south of it as a potential for industrial use before they start moving that boundary into class 1 and 2 soils. Until these questions were answered and he could be assured that this was the only option available to continue the economic engine, he said he would be a no vote on this proposal.

Chair Park commented that this has been very difficult for him. There were a lot of sites available for residential lands that were non-EFU and that still could be used. He said he looked at RILS and the alternative sites available that were still exception land. The only other area that came to his mind that would have any potential, that hadn’t been addressed, were those sites along I-5 by Wilsonville and Tualatin. The suitability for this type of need did not seem to work there. The fact was, he said, this was jumping the road and that concerned him. Washington County was not asking the same hard questions of Hillsboro as Gresham was of Multnomah County as to when enough was enough. He said he’d been looking at alternatives to this particular site or this particular action. One of his concerns, he said, as he did this was that the general mood of the governor-elect and others was to move more in this direction. He expressed concern that their cure may be worse than the condition now. As long as the strong Conditions were in place, he said he would support this, and said he hoped everyone remembered that this was done under a very specific circumstance and that the Conditions were designed especially for a high-tech use – if this use didn’t materialize in 5 to 10 years, he hoped not to see big-box development put there because that was not what it was designed for.

Councilor McLain said Ms. McCurdy made an important comment about the conditions in Exhibit B. If Hillsboro had made the case for these 200 acres, would they then make the case for next 200 or 400-acre parcel with no edge? There would be no farming industry left in Washington County and she said that was criminal. Another point Councilor McLain addressed was that she didn’t believe these were negotiable conditions, and she thought she heard Mr. Hughes say he hoped they were. She said she’d heard three or four committee members say that they would not be voting for this unless the Conditions were on it. She stated, for the record, that when they said those nine Conditions were the only way they’d start to consider it, the Conditions are not negotiable. They are there because they are supposed to be getting this site through a specific, designated land need. If these Conditions aren’t on it, she said, she didn’t think the findings would stand up. If the findings do stand up with the Conditions, the council will not removed them because the site would have been brought in under a false pretense. She said she was leaning toward Chair Park’s position in that she was worried that if the Metro Council did not recognize that this needed to be taken to the state to see what they say about it, that something would come back from the legislature or review by the governor that could possibly be worse.

Councilor Atherton asked if the EFU parcels south and west of the St. Mary’s property were suitable for this type of industrial use, as a comparison. Mr. Cotugno said if the need was in general for large lot industrial that there was a variety of places to look, but this need was based upon access to the specific triple redundant electrical power and exotic gasses which were not available elsewhere. This was a more particular, specialized land need that unique from other locations.

Councilor Monroe reminded the committee that what the council decided December 5th was irrevocable, and that the buck stops here. It was the Metro Council’s decision to make and this was most important reason they were elected, to manage the urban growth boundary. He stressed that the councilors needed to take that decision very seriously. To take the tack that if they don’t do this, the legislature may later change the land use rules in a worse way and further damage prime farmland was, he thought, a fallow argument. The legislature can do what they want, but if they try to undo Oregon’s land use law, they will come under huge, tremendous public pressure. He said he believed this committee needed to make the best decision, based upon the information they have today.

Chair Park commented that the buck stopped in Salem.

In closing, Councilor Bragdon said there was work to be done on a regional economic strategy but the fact was, the industrial large lot sector had been studied very, very carefully over the last 2 - 3 years, the Regional Industrial Land Survey already had established a generalized need for large lot industrial land. This was also about a specified land need relative to utilities. If this were land coming in for more one-story office buildings, on speculation, or for strip malls or big box retail, he said he would vote no, but the way this has been crafted, it’s about high-quality jobs, and he urged his colleagues to vote for it.

5.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-985, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary in the Vicinity of the City of Forest Grove by Adding and Deleting an Equivalent Amount of Land; and Declaring an Emergency.

Councilor McLain, to the motion, reminded the committee of the lengthy discussion at their last meeting, and said she’s placed in the record all the information she’d received from staff and from the City of Forest Grove. This ordinance would remove some wetland area that cannot be developed and trade it for 48-52 acres inside the UGB that would be used for residential. In doing this, transportation systems will be improved for both residential and industrial use, and also the industrial land will be better utilized.

There was discussion on the specifics of each parcel involved in the land trade. (A copy of a packet was distributed and included in this record that included a more clearly defined Exhibit A (the map) to the ordinance as well as Exhibit B (the Conditions), the Staff Report, Attachment 1 (the UGB Land Swap Proposal), and Attachment 2 (Design Type Map).

Chair Park said Councilor Bragdon had dropped off-line and wasn’t sure if the connection could be remade.

One other Condition proposed by Councilor McLain, Chair Park said, was that this would not be complete until the road alignment was settled. Alignment would have to be in Forest Grove’s adopted Transportation Service Plan. He asked Mr. Cotugno if that was written out, and Mr. Cotugno nodded yes. Chair Park said he also thought this was something he didn’t believe was legally anticipated, that it may be something that was done once. There was no clear path, legally, of what they were trying to do, that it would create policy. He said he would support it, however, because it made sense.

6.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-986, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary to Add Land for a Road Improvement in the Sherwood Area, East of the Pacific Highway and North of the Tualatin-Sherwood Road; and Declaring an Emergency.

Councilor Hosticka said the purpose of this ordinance was to add some land to the UGB so the City of Sherwood could complete a transportation circulation system in what’s called the Six Corners area, where Hwy. 99W and SW Tualatin Sherwood Road intersect. (A packet was distributed and is included in this record that included Exhibit A (a map), Exhibit B (Conditions), the Staff Report, and Attachment 1 (Design Type map). Councilor Hosticka said the almost exclusive farm use land was almost completely surrounded by the existing UGB and was actually in use primarily as an electric substation. Including this site in the UGB would not be affecting the farming community but improving transportation circulation in an area that has already reached severe limits. He asked Mr. Cotugno to explain the proposed road alignment in more detail, and added that this was inclusion was requested by the city of Sherwood. Mr. Cotugno spoke to the projected map, the borders of the site and the transportation factors, and discussion followed on the topography, current use and projected future of the site.

Mr. Cotugno said this proposal dealt with the property to the east of Hwy. 99W only. Councilor Hosticka said there had been previous discussion to bring in the area west of the highway, as well, as said he would add that to his motion unless someone wanted to look at it separately.

Councilor Burkholder, as seconder of the main motion, expressed concern about splitting tax lots and said he would like to look at it separately. Chair Park said discussion would remain on the substation property only.

Councilor Hosticka said this was a small amendment to the UGB and had the effect of straightening out the boundary line as well as allowing transportation improvement. It would not affect the agricultural community in any significant way because the vast majority of the land being considered was not currently in agricultural use.

Parliamentarian Councilor Monroe said if the committee wanted to consider the other side of Hwy. 99W, they would need amendment to the ordinance before them, that there was no other vehicle to consider the other piece of property. Councilor Hosticka asked Mr. Benner if Task 3 would provide that opportunity if more information and the general case was developed to a higher level in the future. Mr. Benner said Task 3 talked about filling the unmet need for industrial land, so if Sherwood proposed to add this tract for industrial use, yes, it probably could be considered in Task 3. If it were somehow implicated by a decision that the council made in Task 3, then they might be able to address it.

Councilor Burkholder asked if this would split the two tax lots and Mr. Cotugno replied that one property owner had asked for them to be split for farming use on the bottom half and development on the top, and that the other lot was the same topographical configuration. Any land division would have to be initiated by the land owner, Mr. Benner said.

To main motion, Chair Park said if the power substation were not currently on this land, this wouldn’t be an option, and if the land was needed for a power substation, the council would have made the decision to bring it into the UGB first. Councilor Burkholder again expressed his concern about splitting the two tax lots in the approved amendment. Councilor Hosticka said looking at the entire scope of the area and looking at the natural boundaries defined it for him. Mr. Cooper, responding to a request for definition from Councilor Atherton, said there were no hard and fast rules about property lines within the UGB.

6a.  DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 02-XXX, for the Purpose of Amending the Urban Growth Boundary to Add Land in the Cornelius Area; and Declaring an Emergency. (A copy of the ordinance was distributed and is included as part of this record. There were no Exhibits, Staff Report or Attachments included at this time.) Councilor McLain explained that two pieces of exception land were considered in the main UGB ordinance (02-969), and the reason for that was because it was exception land and didn’t need to be in a separate ordinance. After hearing testimony last week, and meeting with the City of Cornelius this past Monday, she suggested the following changes and asked that it be considered at the December 3rd committee meeting. Councilor McLain then explained her request using the projected map (a copy of which is included in this record).

Councilor McLain said the pieces in the main ordinance were the two exception lands, marked A and B, which were areas 75 and 76. The piece of property she wanted to add by means of this ordinance was marked Y and was between A and B. The City of Cornelius indicated in their original request as well as in a letter they’d sent to the council, and in their review of staff work, that they believe they have made the case for why they need to bring in the EFU land (Y) between areas 75 and 76 (A and B), and that they feel without that land, areas A and B could not be serviced nor useful to them. Councilor McLain said there were also sewer considerations, which was one of the reasons why Cornelius said they needed the Y parcel. The Conditions, Councilor McLain said, would read that this use was for only industrial.

This would also add to the limited supply of industrial land, Councilor McLain said. Cornelius did ask for another piece of industrial land west of the parcel marked A, but they don’t believe they can make the case as strongly as with A and B, so that’s why they have not requested it at this time.

There was discussion on the topographical features of the area. Councilor McLain said, quite frankly, that if this weren’t Cornelius requesting it, she would have hard time voting for it but they were asking for industrial land. She said Cornelius believed they had adequately explained why and that their findings were solid.

Councilor McLain then spoke of the parcel marked D on the map, and said it was 16 acres of exception land along TV Highway. Cornelius had asked for that piece to be brought in along with the other parcel. She said she’d tried to convince this committee that maybe they would wait until next year when industrial land was looked at, but Cornelius said they didn’t believe that was a good reason to wait because their analysis was that they’d rather have D now than wait for the Industrial Land Study.

Councilor Burkholder asked if the committee would act on this today, and Councilor McLain said she’d asked that it be presented today and then, at the will of the committee, it could be discussed today or on December 3rd. Chair Park reminded her that it hadn’t been first read at the council level, so if it that were done on December 5th, the first opportunity this committee would have to act on it would be on December 12th. Mr. Cooper said it could possibly be acted upon by council on December 10th, but he’d need to check the timing in the charter.

Councilor McLain commented that she’d had many calls from people who said the couldn’t believe the Metro Council was going to hear public testimony on December 5th and then act on the UGB on the same night.

Councilor Burkholder said he just wanted to know if they were going to talk about this ordinance now or if it was presented for information purposes and would move forward through the process. Councilor McLain said it was up to the committee. Councilor Burkholder said he was asking the chair.

Chair Park asked the committee their interest. Councilor Monroe asked if they needed to vote to have this introduced as committee bill. He noted that Councilor McLain nodded yes, so he said that would be an appropriate thing to do, and he said he would make such a motion. Councilor Monroe also said if December 5th was the committee’s last meeting, that by a suspension of the rules, they could act on it then, but that would take five votes.

Chair Park said the basic outline of this had been distributed, and now he assumed she would work out the details with staff before December 3rd. She agreed, and mentioned again that the council at least consider not having the final vote on the main ordinance not be until December 10th or the 12th, if necessary, because of the comments she’d heard.

Chair Park said this was Presiding Officer’s call. Councilor Burkholder, as a point of order, said this was not a committee decision and was a discussion for outside this meeting. Chair Park agreed.

8.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-988, For the Purpose of Establishing Regional Fiscal Policies Regarding Land Added to the Metro Urban Growth Boundary and Implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept; and Declaring an Emergency. (A copy of this ordinance was distributed and made a part of this record.)

(A copy of the substitute resolution and a copy of the staff report was distributed and made a part of this record.) Councilor Burkholder, to his motion, said the first reading of the ordinance had taken place the previous week, and he would like to substitute the resolution for two major reasons. One of the points the resolution addressed was to look at the issue of capturing for various regional public purposes some of the value that is created through the action of the Metro Council bringing land into the UGB. The other point addressed looking at the inequities that were so apparent in the City of Cornelius’ and Forest Grove’s petitions to Metro to bring land into the UGB to provide them with more fiscal capacity. Because this was a major step so late in the process, Councilor Burkholder said he was asking for the resolution to be approved that stated that these were issues of concern and that would direct next year’s Chief Operating Officer to study and propose options on both of these issues for the council’s consideration. He said an ordinance proposing a new chapter and title in the Metro Code was too large of a step to take at this time, but said he would like to maintain some momentum and direction for the agency on these were two critical issues.

Councilor Hosticka spoke in favor of the general idea, and said he thought it important that this get started as soon as possible. He said he hoped Metro would begin working with the state legislature to see if they could make progress on this, as well, and said he hoped the resolution was written in a way that didn’t preclude that option but actually states that intent. On both issues, he said, some fundamental changes would probably be needed in the way the current local government finance system is structured, and those changes could possibly be achieved by having a vote of the people in the region, as this anticipated, or by actions of the legislative body. He’d like to keep the latter avenue open, he said, and state the Metro is trying to work through that process as well as considering some action on our own.

Chair Park said his interpretation of the way the Resolves in the resolution were written was that it was wide open, and asked Mr. Cooper for verification. Mr. Cooper said the council was going to separately establish its legislative agenda, and this resolution, as written, would not conflict be inconsistent or conflict with any direction the council would give to the Chief Operating Officer, lobbying team, etc.

Councilor Hosticka said his question arose out of the fourth Whereas, and he said he thought the possibility was there.

Councilor McLain said she could support this if three words were added in the Resolves, specifically amending the language to read, “Directs the Chief Operating Officer working with the Council to study and propose . . .” in each Resolve. Councilor Burkholder said he would accept those as a friendly amendment, and he suggested perhaps also adding other jurisdictions in the region to that, and said he and staff work on this before it went before the council. It would take a long discussion, he added, and would take some work before it was finished. Councilor Atherton added that this was important enough that they all needed to give it more thought.

Chair Park said if there were no objection, the resolution would be back before the committee on December 3rd.

9.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-3254, For the Purpose of Direction to the Executive Officer to Establish a Centers Team within the Planning Department and to Commence Implementation of the Centers Strategy.

(A copy of the Staff Report to this resolution, which includes the Proposed 2040 Centers Work Program, was distributed and is included as part of this record.)

Chair Park told the committee that this was an important part of creating the Centers Policy, and would be a commitment of resources to actually make Centers work. Ms. Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, spoke to the resolution and staff report, saying the resolution gave direction to staff to set up the internal team for the 2040 Centers Program, and she called the committee’s attention to the Work Program. She asked them to note in the Staff Report that it listed under the Budget Impact section that this was an Add Package for dollars and additional full-time employees (FTE).

Councilor Hosticka said he had not reviewed this, that there were substantial issues on priorities to Planning staff as well as budgeting issues. He suggested they take more time to consider it in the full context in which it was being proposed before taking action.

Chair Park said this was part of what was put forward as part of the Centers strategy to try to obtain the 29%. He said the committee had given a partial nod to this as part of the new Title 6, and there was also a piece that dealt with performance measures, and a requirement dealing with the state issue.

Ms. Bernards said this program would partially implement the new Title 6 as one of the Exhibits to Ordinance No. 02-969. In addition, she said, she mentioned the new reporting requirements as set forth in that ordinance.

Councilor Monroe said he supported setting this over to the following week. Councilors Monroe and Burkholder both suggested some typographical and language corrections, for clarity. Mr. Cotugno said the timing of this was intended to show action to LCDC that Metro has called for a more aggressive Centers strategy and are taking the initial steps to get started on implementing those steps. There are clearly more steps to take.

Councilor McLain said that, in concept, she agreed but said she hoped this would be postponed until December 3rd or even later because it was important, there were a lot of policy comments in it, and she wanted time to discuss it more and can concentrate on doing it right.

Councilor Hosticka clarified his issues of concern in that the Planning Department and this council had a number of items on their agenda for the future which included completion of the fish and wildlife habitat program, what role Metro will have in the planning for Damascus, and this was to set up a team to do Centers. He said he’d like to see all of those laid out so they can consider this proposal in the context with all the other tasks for the near future, Task 3 included, so they can see just where they’re allocating our resources and which take priority. In and of itself, he said, it was a good idea, and the supported the idea, but he wanted to see how it stacked up against the other ideas.

Chair Park asked counsel if this needed to be included in the legislation that would go to LCDC on December 20th. Mr. Benner said he thought it needed to be part of that package, but he said he didn’t think it had to be adopted at the same time they adopted 02-969 or the other ordinances. Mr. Cooper added that the advice they were dispensing was that the council needed to have something that said they had started the process, that they were serious. As Mr. Cotugno had said, Mr. Cooper reminded him, this doesn’t call for the council to make the budget decision, but simply said one would be proposed that they would have under consideration.

Councilor Burkholder said earlier Councilor Monroe mentioned that the most important job this council does is the urban growth boundary. He said he differed in that he believed their most important job was creating urban spaces and urbanization. This resolution was it, he said, and he felt it critical that they move on it before they adjourn for the year. This was why he ran for his council seat. He asked them to look at it carefully, make sure they were comfortable with the direction it gives.

Councilor McLain said they should also be prepared to make amendments to it if it was going to go down to LCDC. Another element, she said, saying Councilors Hosticka and Burkholder made good points, that they all agreed they wanted to do this, it was just when, how much and how it related to everything else.

Chair Park said on this resolution would be on the agenda on December 3, 2002. He then told the committee there were a few clean-up items that needed to be addressed.

9a.  Study Area 25, Oregon City. Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, said last week this committee included some resource land next to the school. The City of Oregon City was now looking at the analysis for water and sanitary sewer to include the other resource land (Mr. O’Brien was indicating these parcels on a projected wall map). He said Oregon City would probably present this the following week to the committee.

9b.  Study Area 61 (Tualatin/Wilsonville area). Mr. O’Brien, again speaking to a map, said the committee had asked him last week when this was discussed whether or not parcels were being cut off. He said then that they were not, but he now said he was wrong. He explained on the map which parcel was being cut off. Discussion followed on the property ownership, the acreage, and the use of the parcels. Chair Park asked the committee to think about this for potential changes in Ordinance No. 02-969.

9c.  Study Area 94 (Forest Park). Mr. O’Brien distributed a memo from him to Chair Park re Study Area 94 (included as part of this record), which he spoke to. This report on area 94 was in response to a request from the committee at their November 19th meeting.

1.  Al Burns, City of Portland Planning Bureau, spoke to his own maps regarding Forest Park. He said Portland has acknowledged the Goal 5 program in this area, that most of it is identified as an environmentally sensitive area, and most of it drains to the Willamette River through Forest Park. Mr. Burns then spoke to some specific parcels, which he did not identify, and said the average lot size was 20 acres. [Mr. Burns’ comments on the maps were either barely discernible as he was not speaking properly into the microphone or were simply not identifiable.] Portland’s strategy and their position on this site, he said, was not that they didn’t want it inside the UGB, but later, and it rates the lowest on the priority scheme. They are the proud provider of every municipal service they can; however, he said, they can’t be the sewer provider because they cannot change the law of gravity. The logical development pattern is to come up with the sewers from Washington County/Clean Water Services through area 93 to get to this area, eventually. He said he hadn’t done exact calculation, but he said he imagined that without sewers there was a potential of perhaps 20 more residences in a 500-acre area. Bringing 500 acres into the UGB for 20 units was not an urbanization decision, he said. It was not a matter of metropolitan concern. Portland’s strategy was to hold the site in 20-acre lots until they could get sewers, and then, in the unconstrained spots along Skyline, do some pockets of more dense development to provide some residential opportunities up there. He said they anticipated an urban reserve strategy, and anticipated Metro’s own Title 11 regulations that would require 20-acre lot sizes until they could serve it. Mr. Burns said he also had Metro’s own Goal 5 Inventory that indicates 94 was the highest value of category of value for wildlife and riparian habitat and also Metro’s Greenspaces Program has it identified as a high value greenspace

Councilor Monroe said to Mr. Burns that bringing area 94 into the UGB would not tie the city’s hands. Mr. Burns replied that, other than the fact that we’re supposed to bring land in for urbanization – over 20 years, Councilor Monroe added – as long as they can wait and Metro wasn’t directing Portland to run a sewer through Forest Park or repeal their overlay zone, he said Portland didn’t have a problem with it. He said it just seemed the area was a natural for an urban reserves designation rather than including it in the UGB at this time. Councilor Monroe said the concept of urban reserves was thrown out by the courts, so that’s not an option. He said he had trust that the City of Portland will allow inappropriate development in this area, but make its decisions thoughtfully and carefully, and that the development would happen appropriately over the next 20 years.

Mr. Burns again spoke to specific [unidentified] areas, and said Portland may in the future ask that part of Forest Park be taken out of the UGB.

Councilor McLain said she thought this committee understood the uniqueness of this area and the biggest problem with it was, why didn’t Portland just take it out of the city limits. Mr. Burns replied that it was in the city of limits before SB 100 or Metro. Councilor McLain again asked why Portland didn’t just deannex it. Mr. Burns said that requires a double or triple consensus to deannex, and Portland was the proud provider of many urban services including a very expensive water system, a new fire station, a transportation system, and the one service they can’t provide was sewer. Councilor McLain said they’d been told that Clean Water Services can provide that, and said Mr. Burns had repeated that.

Chair Park said he didn’t want the committee to get into this now, this was supposed to be information for capacity. Mr. Burns said he would send a letter for argument.

9d.  Councilor Burkholder said he had two small amendments to Ordinance No. 02-969 (distributed and made a part of this record). The first was beefing up direction to the council about how they use the 2040 Concept in determining future UGB decisions, and the other was to put a little more teeth in the direction to school districts to prioritize school sites within the UGB in existing neighborhoods. He said he would be bringing these forward as part of the amendment process.

10.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS.