MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:17 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 20 and 26, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGS. There were no minutes available to approve.

3.  CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEMS FROM NOVEMBER 26, 2002

• Specific Land Need Ordinances. Chair Park said 02-969 was not in front of this committee today and explained to the audience why. Any person who had signed up to testify to that ordinance, he said, would need to save their testimony for Thursday at the Metro Council hearing.
  • 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. (Bethany, area 85).

Councilor Hosticka said information received during the week on prompted him to request this reconsideration.

Chair Park opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 02-984.

1.  Robert Fisher, Beaverton School District, 5633 Yorkshire Ct., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said he was the Assistant Superintendent of the School District and thanked the committee for the opportunity to make comment and for reconsidering. He apologized for not being at last meeting but said he was under impression that the committee would not be taking testimony then, and he had planned on coming today. Mr. Fisher spoke of the district and what, in the district’s judgment, met the special needs criteria of their application. His main point was that the school district enrollment had grown, was projected to continue growing, and that this site was needed for a school and why they needed the 10 acres for it. The school district’s desire was, because of the special needs, their request be addressed on a separate ordinance because of their immediate need. They did not want to become entangled with the other issues or possible controversies of Ordinance No. 92-969 because they felt those may take years to solve, and their need was now.

Councilor Monroe asked if the district would be immediately developing the site, were it to coming into the urban growth boundary (UGB), because if none of the Bethany land came in it would seem unusual for the district to build a school there, not even adjacent to the current UGB. Mr. Fisher responded that Springville Road, just south of this site, is in the UGB. Jacob Wismer School is already full, he said. The school district has the funds right now to build a school, and if Metro approves the site going into the UGB, then they’ll look at where the next school will come. The need is now, Mr. Fisher said.

Councilor Monroe asked about infrastructure costs, and Mr. Fisher introduced Mr. Mike Maloney.

2.  Mike Maloney, Beaverton School District, Executive Administrator for Facilities, 16650 SW Merlo Rd., Beaverton, OR 97006, replied to Councilor Monroe’s questions, saying the development cost would be significantly higher than if they had to bear it alone, by several hundred thousand dollars.

Further discussion centered on the school district’s reason for wanting the property addressed in a separate ordinance. Responding to a question from Councilor Hosticka on Metro’s legal position if they approved this in an adopted second ordinance and had essentially two ordinances forwarded to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), both bringing the site in, one alone and one in conjunction with a number of other areas. Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said if a separate ordinance for the school district was justified simply on the grounds that they’d established a need, and there is no other available ground within the UGB, it could stand alone. The fact that services might be cheaper if the entire area were brought in was not a reason not to do it. Mr. Cooper also said they all recognized that no one has done anything like this before, so this is uncharted legal precedence, he said. He said it was not inconsistent that a school site was needed; they’ve established a specific identified land need for that type of land, this is a site they control, and it works for the school. This passes the first ordinance. The second ordinance is a much bigger area where the findings are going to be justified not on the school site, but on the fact that you’re bringing in exception land and other land to provide services to it.

Mr. Cooper, responding to a question from Councilor Park, said there was a statute that said if you have a school district that has an adopted school facility plan that’s been incorporated into the comprehensive plan of the local jurisdiction and it identifies the need for a site and none are available within the UGB, there are many measures that can be taken, including requesting an urban growth boundary amendment. That is an unnecessary for the Metro Council to adopt a specific identified land need ordinance to add land to the UGB for a school, but it’s a separate path. Mr. Cooper said he understood from Mr. Cotugno’s Planning staff that the School District had developed a factual case for the fact that they need an additional site for an elementary school somewhere in the northern part of the district near Bethany, and there are no available sites inside the UGB for a school, so that test was met. He did say he did not think they had their school facilities plan all the way through the procedural steps of having it adopted into the comprehensive plans of the City of Beaverton and Washington County for the unincorporated area, but that’s not a necessary requirement. Under the statute, if they’d gotten that far, then they’d be in a more formal step of actually requesting it. The fact that Metro’s timing is such that the council is considering UGB amendments in general, Mr. Cooper told the councilors, and their willingness or unwillingness to do this is what has put this in front of them.

Mr. Fisher asked to share that if the School District didn’t feel they needed to outside the UGB, they wouldn’t do it. This was an issue of how to meet the need of such a fast growing enrollment when there was no land to build schools.

Councilor McLain, speaking to Mr. Cooper, said it was her understanding from a previous meeting in the governor’s office that if the school district could actually show the specific designated land use need that it was more than appropriate for them to do that while Metro was in the middle of Periodic Review, that this would be the time for them to make their request. She also asked about the order of where they take it first. Mr. Cooper replied that it Councilor McLain was asking if it was legally necessary for them to have gone thru every single step in that statute to be in front of them to request Metro to include this land, the answer was no.

Chair Park asked Mr. Fisher if the district was interested in other sites outside the UGB, now or in the future. Mr. Fisher said that would depend on where the enrollment growth goes. Right now, he said, they don’t have the funds to purchase anything. This one is their focus and is a test case, he added, and gives them an idea if it’s feasible, which they anticipated that it was.

Councilor Bragdon, regarding the proposed school being the centerpiece of the community and accessible instead of being on the edge, said schools already within the UGB have to accommodate growth. He asked, if the surrounding area were not brought into the UGB, how far the children would be coming from if there were no neighborhood around the school and also how they would get to school. Mr. Fisher replied that some would come from across the street, because south of Springfield Road is developed. Council Bragdon said he understood the legal imperative of having this in a separate ordinance and he supported it, but he said he doesn’t think this was a good planning product if the school was isolated without a neighborhood around it.

Mr. Fisher said they were not working under ideal conditions, that there isn’t land to purchase in the Beaverton School District and the kids keep coming. This is not an ideal site, he agreed, but it will serve the need at this time.

Councilors Atherton and Hosticka questioned Mr. Fisher about the school district’s available funds, as well as the construction of the facility. The discussion came back to the separate ordinance once more.

Mr. Fisher thanked the committee for their reconsideration.

• 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 (as amended 11-26-02). (Bethany areas 84, 85, 86 and part of area 87). Chair Park said he would hear testimony on Ordinance No. 02-987 at this time. As parliamentarian, Councilor Monroe reminded him that Ordinance No. 02-984 had only been approved for reconsideration, but had not yet been approved to send to the Metro Council. If that was not done, it would not move forward. Chair Park said he understood that, but he wanted to allow testimony on Ordinance No. 02-987 as well since it addressed the sites surrounding the school site in Ordinance No. 02-984.

1.  Judith Emerson, ONRA, Friends of Forest Park, 13900 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231, read her written testimony (a copy of which is included in this record) opposing Ordinance No. 02-987. She said she felt the entire process had been rushed, and that oral testimony seemed to be given more weight by the council than written testimony, and she questioned the assertions that more housing was needed near Intel or PCC Rock Creek to accommodate what she said was the so-called demand.

2.  Jim Emerson, ONRA, Forest Park Neighborhood Association, 13900 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231, also spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 02-987 from his written testimony (a copy of which is included in this record, together with a wildlife habitat map). Mr. Emerson said he was particularly opposed to inclusion of area 87 and said he didn’t understand how the council could rationalize the destruction of so much EFU land. He challenged the council to establish conditions mitigating any hard their decision would cause.

3.  Benjamin Emerson, 13900 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231, said he was addressing areas 84, 85, 86 and 87, the Bethany addition. Many of the residents in those areas have taken great steps to make sure they’re included in the UGB, which was their right. Despite their louder voice, he said he still believed they were in the minority as evidenced by all the nearly 200 signatures collected on a petition and the other letters and e-mail sent in to Metro. Some people would stand to receive large financial benefits from inclusion, but it would have potentially negative consequences for others. Mr. Emerson said it was the role of local governments, particularly a body like Metro who has repeatedly stated its genuine commitment to a sustainable community, to mitigating the negative effects to the broader social and ecological environment and not to facilitate them. Mr. Emerson urged the committee to not include those areas in their recommendation.

4.  Jerry Grossnickle, Forest Park Neighborhood Association, ONRA, 13510 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland OR 97231, testified on his written testimony (a copy of which is included in this record) on the exceptions cited to the general rule for priorities. He said, for this particular expansion, these EFU lands being taken into the UGB is entirely without merit because there is a lot of exception land all around the boundary that have priority under the statute to be brought in before EFU land. If this goes to court, he said, he thinks Metro will lose. Mr. Grossnickle also spoke to environmental concerns in Forest Park.

5.  Allove DeVito, Outer Northwest Rural Advocates, 3560 NW 180th Place, Portland, OR 97229, said she lives in the Sunset West area, and read her written testimony to the committee (a copy of which is included in this record) in opposition to opposing the expansion of the UGB. She spoke of her child’s home being demolished for development, and that while she praised the contributions of urban density, light rail, mass transit, public parks and green space, sprawl should be kept out of the hills and the country where others prefer a different lifestyle.

6.  Mary Manseau, 5230 NW 137th Avenue, Portland, OR 97229, said she had been told this decision was made two weeks ago. She said she wasn’t sure whom Metro had been talking to in the Bethany, but it certainly wasn’t the community members who want to make Bethany a long-term home. Beaverton does not speak for Bethany, she said. Fifteen years of intense, unrelenting growth has left their roads and transportation system in shambles. The Beaverton School District is scrambling to provide for its existing school population, and the remaining growth could not be accommodated. Ms. Manseau said the Bethany area doesn’t have any industry, it only provides homes. Transportation problems have forced urban levels of traffic onto narrow, unimproved rural roads. Beaverton stepped forward and said they would provide services, Mr. Manseau said, but she asked who would provide planning. She urged that this area not be brought into the UGB. Ms. Manseau submitted written testimony (a copy of which is included in this record).

7.  Steve Young, 13333 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231, spoke to study areas 84 and 87. Mr. Young spoke to his written testimony (a copy of which is included in this record). Mr. Young was born and raised in New York City and his testimony compared Forest Park to New York City’s Central Park. Central Park, he said, is sterile. There is no chance for it to regain life because no ecosystem can survive within its boundaries. No one could ever confuse it to Forest Park because wildlife needs and has room to roam. The greenbelt surrounding the park is essential, he said, and invited any committee member to come to his house and look out his windows just to see the wildlife. They would not see anything like it in Beaverton, he added. When the UGB continues to expand for development, the habitat of Forest Park will slowly be choked off. It’s alive, vital and natural, but the ecosystem extends far beyond the formal boundary of that park. Portland doesn’t need or want a Central Park, he said, and he said we have to understand the diversity and protect it at all costs.

8.  Andy Chenoweth, 13118 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231, said he always talks about traffic, but after Mr. Young’s testimony, he related a story of working at home when he saw three bobcats, a mother and two cubs. We’re going to lose that, he said. The Mr. Chenoweth spoke of the traffic and how it backs up at least one-half mile on Germantown Road. Adding seven condominiums would only exacerbate things, he said. Bringing this area into the UGB will make what is now a bad situation only worse.

9.  Lori Waldo, CPO 7, 14603 NW Dawnwood Drive, Portland, OR 97229, said she was here as a mediator. She attended a CPO 7 meeting last night, found out about this meeting at 9:30 p.m., and was nominated to testify here today. She brought a letter that was addressed to Councilors McLain, Park and Burkholder (a copy is included in this record). (Ms. Waldo also submitted written testimony, included as part of this record.) She said the CPO said they wanted to make sure the councilors saw their letter. There were quite a few people at that meeting who were not happy about the proposed expansion, and she gave a quick summary of why: funds to provide public services for the area do not exist (or we have been told they don’t), the county has said they don’t have funds for transportation master planning, the City of Beaverton has not stepped up to do transportation planning or master planning, and the transportation infrastructure is not there and is without funds. The people who live there now are not so much against having the area opened up, Ms. Waldo said, but opening it up and leaving it out there without support is highly frustrating and is causing anger. It was also reported that part of the reason for inclusion of this was to support the Bethany Town Center. The Center makes good use of mixed-use planning and provides office space, but it’s not seen out there as being a community center. It doesn’t have that feeling, or a sense of community. There’s something lacking in the Bethany area and more homes won’t provide for that.

10.  Ava Chapman, 13816 NW Old Germantown Road, Portland, OR 97231, spoke out against inclusion of the Bethany site at this point. She said one reason was she challenged the growth statistics and projections that would occur. She encouraged the councilors to look at the foundation on which they base their decision. Another point Ms. Chapman said was that people will move to Oregon if they have a job, but the household-name companies are not employing as they used to. She again referred to the projected statistics for employment and challenged those, because she said people are moving out, not in. The high-tech industries are moving overseas. Home values was another area Ms. Chapman asked the committee to consider. Homes have always been a safe place to put one’s money, she said, but people are also expecting their value to increase. More homes will be built that won’t hold their value.

11.  Hal Bergsma, Planning Services Manager, City of Beaverton, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, PO Box 4755, Beaverton, OR 97076, spoke to a letter from Joe Grillo, Community Development Director (distributed and made a part of this record) regarding Beaverton’s position on the proposed UGB expansions in the Bethany and Cooper Mountain areas. Mr. Bergsma said this letter reiterated and expanded on points Mr. Grill and he made in their oral testimony to the Metro Council on November 21st regarding the City of Beaverton’s position on additions to the UGB, as recommended by this committee. Mr. Bergsma said Beaverton endorsed the Metro Council’s preliminary decision to include areas 84, 85 and 86, and the city stood ready to provide governance to those areas. He said Beaverton asked that further consideration be given to area 87 at this time; Beaverton would provide governance if the council chose to include it, but they believed adding this area could jeopardize the addition of areas 84, 85 and 86. As with area 83, they suggested Metro defer adding area 87 at least five years.

Beaverton also had comment on Ordinance No. 02-987, and Mr. Bergsma reminded the committee of his previous testimony on this, and he reviewed the additional language Mr. Grillo suggested on the conditions. The Cooper Mountain area (areas 65, 66, 67 and 69) was addressed in Mr. Grillo’s letter, but Mr. Bergsma did not give oral testimony on it.

12.  Fred Bacher, 7547 NW Skyline Blvd., Portland, OR 97229, testified as a third generation Tualatin Valley resident. Testified. Mr. Backer’s testimony was in opposition to Ordinance No. 02-987. He said he had an organic tree farm on the slopes of Bethany, and just because there was a nearby mini-mall it didn’t mean the farms should be destroyed forest. He said he was sympathetic to the landowners who wanted to profit from their land, but he asked the committee to please not take this land out of agricultural use, that it was a use that transcended many generations.

13.  Corrinne Bacher, 7547 NW Skyline Blvd., Portland, OR 97229, also testified in opposition to Ordinance No. 02-987, saying she was very concerned and troubled that only one group was notified last week that testimony was accepted. Metro’s own Website did not contain that information, she said. She said she thought this was a disturbing violation of an ostensible public process. Ms. Backer said she opposed inclusion of areas 84, 85, 86 and 87 into the UGB. She told the committee of her college days in California and how all the orange groves and the fields beyond are today gone, how the useful, productive farmland is now paved over, and downtown LA is a crime-ridden wasteland at night and commutes are typically one hour. The model of development that has failed so dramatically in Los Angeles and elsewhere is not magically going to succeed in the Portland metropolitan area. She told the committee that their job was to control sprawl and to protect farm and forest lands. Areas 84, 85, 86 and 87 represent just that kind of land, she said, and as such deserve their protection. Ms. Backer urged them to reconsider their decision of a week ago.

14.  Milly Skach, 1360 NW Springville Lane, Portland, OR 97229, said she lived on the Portland /Multnomah County side of the line. She said she had not planned to testify today, but thought of several things that are of concern to her. She drives on Springville Road and Kaiser/Bethany every single day, and yesterday, while driving on Kaiser, she paused and watched a herd of elk pass in front of her. It was a majestic site, she said, and asked where these will elk go. Their habitat crosses into the area you’ve spoken of today. It’s a very wonderful thing that Forest Park and Portland has that one doesn’t find elsewhere, she added. Beyond the wildlife, the traffic was of great concern to Ms. Skach. She said she hears the councilors addressing the needs and wishes of Beaverton and Washington County, but this land borders on Portland and Multnomah County, and the residents are the ones who face the traffic every single day. Many of the residents in this room receive their fire department service from the St. Johns area on the other side of the river. When you hear a man talking of a half-mile back-up on Old Germantown Road in traffic time, that half-mile could block a fire truck from coming to our homes. You say widen the road, but you can’t. It’s a one-lane road in each direction that is covered with ice in the winter, it crosses Forest Park. How easy would that be to widen, she asked. The traffic there is horrendous, unsafe, and will only get worse. Ms. Skach encouraged the committee to consider not just the wonderful wildlife but also the impact of the traffic on everyone in this area.

Chair Park said he had no further requests to testify on Ordinance 02-987, and he thanked those who had testified. He again explained why he could not entertain testimony on 02-969. He asked the committee how they would like to handle the specific land need in the Bethany area.

Councilor McLain asked, since they were in public testimony, if Ordinance No. 02-989 could now be presented (a copy of this ordinance and a descriptive map are included in this record). The committee agreed, and Councilor Hosticka said he had a draft ordinance to present, as well, being No. 02-990.

• DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 02-989, For the Purpose of Amending the Urban Growth Boundary to Add Land in the Cornelius Area; and Declaring an Emergency. Chair Park invited testimony on Ordinance No. 02-989, Cornelius. Councilor McLain reminded the committee that this was to amend the UGB to add land to the Cornelius area for industrial use, and that she had introduced it at the committee’s last meeting, but that it now had a number.

1.  M. R. “Dick” Kline, City of Cornelius, 1355 N. Barlow, Cornelius, OR 97113, spoke on why Cornelius wanted resource land brought into the UGB. Mr. Kline specifically addressed the efficient provision of urban services in this area, and he explained the area and how the utilities could be brought in. He said he thought they had a logical argument and would provide utility maps if necessary.

2.  Richard Meyer, Community Development Director, City of Cornelius, 1353 N. Barlow, Cornelius, OR 97113, said he was here to help answer any questions the committee may have.

Chair Park asked for specifics on the areas. Councilor McLain spoke to a map on the wall, and said she had discussed this with Cornelius, and that they would support the three areas but it would not be practical without the saddle of resource land in between (the area marked Y). She also spoke of an e-mail from Cornelius with those same comments (that had been distributed to the councilors previously) and a letter from them sent in support, as well. Cornelius requested that if Metro was not going to approve this, that we take the two darker areas out of the main ordinance (02-969).

Councilor Bragdon asked if there were a natural boundary, and discussion followed with Mr. Meyer and Mr. Kline regarding this. Councilor Bragdon also pointed out an error in the last sentence of Section 1 of the ordinance; Councilor McLain said it was an error, that it should read, “. . . furthermore determined to support the Cornelius industrial lands.” In response to Councilor Bragdon’s question of how much of a fiscal this was to the city, Mr. Kline mentioned that Cornelius was severely strapped in providing services to the community, and it was very unlikely they could provide utility services unless they were able to use the saddle parcel for connectors. He said they were trying to develop an efficient tax base to solve some of their fiscal issues, and Mr. Meyer added that this would help Cornelius economic problem although he said he knew this wasn’t the most compelling issue or reason for this UGB expansion.

Chair Park asked Metro staff is this had been studied in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and what information they had. Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, said the Y parcel was not studied in the AA, and, to his knowledge, Metro had not received any map regarding service in that area. Mr. O’Brien said they had received text from the city indicating they would like the area in, and that they would help develop the whole area, but no graphic representation of where it would go.

Chair Park than asked counsel about having sufficient findings on this in order to make a decision. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, said he’d heard from Mr. O’Brien that Planning had not received evidence to support the argument that the agricultural land needs to come in in order to provide services the two adjacent parcels (areas 75 and 76). The argument, Mr. Benner said, has been made and if there were evidence in the record, it may well support that argument. Unless there’s evidence in the record to support it, it would be difficult to support the decision to include it.

Mr. Meyer said he had utility maps with him and could provide the mapping evidence that showed the public service efficiency. Chair Park told him the record was open until December 5th, and said the process would be to give the Planning staff the material for planning review and by legal counsel for findings, so he asked Mr. Meyer to submit it to Mr. O’Brien. Councilor McLain thanked Mr. Kline and Mr. Meyer for answering the committee’s question and said she would keep her comments until the committee discussion.

• Draft Ordinance No. 02-990, For the Purpose of Amending the Urban Growth Boundary to Add Land in the Site #48, Tualatin Quarry Area; and Declaring an Emergency. Councilor Hosticka distributed draft resolution 02-990 (a copy is included in this record) and spoke to a map on the wall regarding study area 48, explaining which areas were included. Chair Park invited public testimony on Ordinance No. 02-990.

1.  Jim Jacks, Special Projects Manager, City of Tualatin, 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue, Tualatin, OR 97062, reiterated Councilor Hosticka’s point that this was not all of area 48 but the portion in the Regional Partners proposal [and here Mr. Jacks outlined the area on the wall map], and said this proposal was favorably passed by the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), and that the Tualatin City Council supported the proposal. The area included in this was shown in previous material submitted for the record, he said. Mr. Jacks said the Morse Bros. property owners have indicated they do not want to be included in this amendment. A misunderstanding, he said, was that someone indicated Tigard Sand & Gravel didn’t want to be included, but he had a letter to Councilor Hosticka from Roger Metcalf, Vice President, of Tigard Sand & Gravel (a copy is included in this record) indicating that they supported the Regional Partners proposal and want to be in the UGB. The issue with portions of areas 47 and 49 being added without a portion of area 48, Mr. Jacks said, was that areas 47 and 49 cannot get sewer, water or streets unless they come through area 48 from the north, where Tualatin Sherwood Road is, down to the south. In Tualatin’s Transportation System Plan they call for 120th Avenue and 115th Avenue to be extended south from Tualatin Sherwood Road into area 48, Mr. Jacks said, and they’ve already shown planning for public facilities into areas currently within the UGB and those would logically be extended into area 48.

Councilor Bragdon said he was confused by the different quarry operations. He said he remembered that he though Morse Bros. had opposed this, and asked if they opposed their parcel coming in or their neighbors’ parcel coming in. Mr. Jacks he was not present at the meeting Councilor Bragdon referred to, but said he had spoken with Tualatin’s Community Development Director earlier today and he said he’d talked with the Morse Bros. People and the attorneys who represent them, and said they prefer that the Morse Bros. property not be included. Right now, Morse Bros. has an approval from Washington County that included a buffer area around them where dissimilar uses cannot encroach and then complain about the noise, hours of operation, etc. But Mr. Jacks said his understanding was that Morse Bros. did not have a position about anyone else’s property.

Councilor Hosticka noted a letter in the record from Parisi and Parisi, who represents the Morse Bros. indicating that they did not want to be in the UGB and do not want to have restrictions put upon their use.

Discussion followed on the underlining current zoning of the areas requested. Chair Park then asked Mr. O’Brien if he had information in the record regarding service. Mr. O’Brien said Metro has, as Mr. Jacks said, the information from the Regional Partners and a few different documents from the City of Tualatin indicating their desire for the land to come in as well as the transportation connection to go through it. He said he would have to check if any of this addressed the sanitary sewer or water connections, as he didn’t remember. Mr. Jacks said he thought it had been submitted. Mr. Benner said he had not had an opportunity to review this. (Mr. Jacks submitted a letter to Councilor Hosticka from Mayor Lou Ogden on Study Area 48, and that letter is made a part of this record.)

Hearing no further testimony on any item before the committee, Chair Park closed the public hearing.

To her motion, Councilor McLain said she wanted it to move forward as a specific designated land use need for a number of reasons, and she outlined them. There was discussion on this and Ordinance No. 02-987, and what would happen if one was adopted and the other wasn’t.

Mr. Cooper took this opportunity to suggest the committee move to remove the emergency clauses from the UGB ordinances, as, in the context of Periodic Review, they were probably superfluous as the ordinances could not go into effect until long after the 90 days required, which is when they would go before LCDC. Procedurally, he said, a 4/3 vote would pass an ordinance without the clause (which could be addressed, should the council choose); with the clause, the Metro charter requires a 5 yes vote. He said there was no practical significance to having the emergency clause on these ordinances.

There was discussion on the possibility of appeal, and Mr. Cooper said since Metro was in Periodic Review and this was required by statute, a referendum may not be possible anyway.

Councilor Hosticka clarified on the wall map (and as marked on this map included in this record) the portion he included in his motion, being the center eastern portion only. He said the reclaimed suit would be suitable for large lot development, and not farming.

Councilor Bragdon and Chair Park asked for clarification from staff on the underlying zoning, if it was exclusive farm use with a Goal 5 overlay for mineral extraction. Mr. O’Brien said that was his recollection, and that Washington County had identified the area as a Goal 5 aggregate site, and the buffer area which Mr. Jacks spoke of, level B. Councilor Bragdon asked if the EFU actively farmed portion had been excluded from this ordinance, and Mr. O’Brien said he believed that was true. He projected an aerial map on the wall, which clearly showed the area, and he and Councilor Hosticka pointed out the area under consideration.

Councilor Burkholder said this raised issues, that the Industrial Land need was on the council table for next year, and this area could come up then. Bringing this into the UGB now, he said, made it difficult for him to say this was “the” piece needed to meet a Specified Land Need, unlike the Shute Road site. He knew this was an ex-quarry, but he said it was still EFU and he’d rather wait.

Councilor Bragdon said this ordinance did not read that this was a Specified Land Need, and asked if it were. Mr. Benner said if they weren’t following the priorities in the statute, then they had to find one of the exceptions for not following the priorities. A Specified Land Need was one of those, but there was no assertion in this ordinance that this site would satisfy any kind of specific need. The argument he heard, he said, was that it needed to be brought in in order to provide services to study areas 47 and 49. That was one of the exceptions to the priority statute.

Councilor Hosticka said he was leaving the upper area off to possibly consider in Task 3, but the area he moved was not under farm use nor was it likely to be used as farming. If the language needed to be fixed for clarification, he said that should be done.

Cooper reminded the committee that this was a draft ordinance, that Councilor Hosticka had outlined his concept of where he wanted the boundary to be, that the committee could direct that it be approved for first reading and a correct map could be provided for that reading. Mr. Morrissey said the specific land need reference would also need to replaced by needed to serve.

• DRAFT ORDINANCE 02-989, For the Purpose of Amending the Urban Growth Boundary to Add Land in the Cornelius Area; and Declaring an Emergency. (Cornelius Industrial Land) On the wall map, Councilor McLain outlined the area proposed for inclusion, and reiterated her comments of November 26, 2002, to this committee. Chair Park asked for a motion.

Councilor McLain said this ordinance would bring in (from the map, included with this record) areas A, Y and B and D, the exception land below TV Highway.

Councilor Burkholder asked that a letter received December 2nd from the Washington County Farm Bureau, be placed in the record, which specifically mentioned their opposition to inclusion of area Y. Councilor Bragdon said, while he recognized the need for industrial land and the fiscal challenges of the City of Cornelius, he could not support this as he was concerned with using the land use system to address disparities and addressing the need for industrial land in a case where there were not clear limits or boundaries regarding the encroachment on agricultural areas. He said he had not seen assurances of this as it had been presented so far.

Chair Park said he couldn’t support this at this time given that Metro does not have in the record the findings, nor had Metro studied this particular area of EFU. It said he thought this would be an issue to discuss in Task 3.

Councilor Atherton asked staff about the employment acreage and the use of the remaining acreage. Mr. O’Brien said both of them were purchased by Metro’s Regional Parks and Greenspaces Open Spaces Program, and another portion was in a flood plain and was taken out of their analysis.

Councilor McLain said she understood that the saddle of resource land had not been studied, that Cornelius requested she bring this forward, which she did out of courtesy. If this motion failed, Chair Park said, it was his understanding that Cornelius would like areas A and B be removed, and Councilor McLain concurred and said Cornelius said if that occurred, they would be back to discuss the area during the Industrial Land Study.

• UGB Site Specific Clean-up and Corrections.

• Grahams Ferry Road Area – Industrial Land Study. Councilor McLain asked for recognition of the residents on Grahams Ferry Road who have come in to testify before about their acreage which they consider industrial land but which is zoned EFU. She said she’d received a telephone call from them and they were worried about being lost in the Industrial Land Study next year, and she said she wanted to make sure it’s in the record that that acreage is included the Industrial Land Study and that Metro makes sure they get pertinent information on that land from the property owners.

• Peterson and Rush Property (Study Area 39). Councilor McLain said she also wanted to recognize that she’d heard again from Bob Van Brocklin and Adelle Jenike and that their concerns of the Peterson and Rush property are addressed by the Metro Council. She said they wanted some acknowledgement that that land is different, and they have a desire to bring that in for urbanization. She said she wanted that acknowledged and addressed in 2003.

Mr. Cotugno, Planning Director, said so far, in the resolution for Task 3, the council had identified the need to address the unmet industrial land need, and the tally clearly still showed an unmet industrial land need. He said he did not believe those two areas were proposed for industrial purposes, so they would not be considered for industrial purposes. Also in the resolution, he said, there is an intent to evaluate subregional need, and there was a lot of work to be done on what evaluating subregional need meant, where do those subregions end up being, what subregions have a shortage, and is there a housing need to be met on a subregional basis. He said he didn’t really know what was going to happen on this front, and if the area Councilor McLain was talking about was a residential expansion area, it would have to fall within that subregional analysis if it was going to be part of Task 3. It would only fit as part of the subregional assessment in Task 3, he said.

Councilor McLain said, to clear up her request, that’s exactly where she assumed it would be discussed.

• UGB Site Specific Conditions.

• Teal Road (Sherwood area). Mr. O’Brien outlined the property on the wall map and said it was designated EFU and would most likely be designated as employment on the 2040 Map if it were brought in, and the other side would be industrial land.

• Study Area 94. Chair Park said the committee had asked for the productivity based upon the surrounding zoning, and said he believed it was 55 dwelling units. Mr. O’Brien said he was correct. Councilor McLain asked for conditions to be written, strong ones dealing with the environmental zones and making sure that any development in that area follow Portland’s environmental zoning and protection. The Friends of Forest Park had sent an e-mail with suggested language, and she said she would get that language to Mr. Benner who would have those conditions available on December 5th.

Chair Park asked Mr. Benner if the conditions proposed and accepted in the Damascus area regarding Title 11 would not apply to all areas being brought within the UGB, and if not, that that issue be addressed. Mr. Benner said he thought Chair Park was referring to Exhibit M, as it existed that day, to Ordinance No. 02-969, and Chair Park said that was the one. The committee then discussed the conditions and the difference between Damascus and Area 94. Councilor McLain said she would need to read all conditions for all the ordinances before she voted at council.

• King City, Adjacent Land. Councilor Hosticka spoke to a memo dated December 3rd from Tim O’Brien regarding land to King City (included in this record), and the projected wall map. He spoke of an area moved to include in the UGB based upon a requested from the City of King City. As part of the motion to include this, Councilor Hosticka said, they also included residential parcels in the flood plain, and the residents of those areas have indicated that they don’t want to be in the UGB. He said he couldn’t see how including this area would change the use of that land, and asked Mr. O’Brien to address that. Mr. O’Brien said one letter had been received from a property owner stating they did not wish to be included. He explained the property owner’s request in more detail, and specifically that they did not want their property taxes to go up. Councilor Hosticka said if it were excluded, it would create an island, but that he saw no need to change it. Mr. Cooper said when land is brought into the UGB it does not qualify for a property tax increase, the assessed value stays the same until the land is rezoned or developed or partitioned. Councilor Hosticka asked if a letter to the property owner could be drafted that explained this, and Mr. Cooper said he would do that. Chair Park asked about the underlying zoning of another (unidentified) area. Mr. O’Brien said it is in the flood plain, it is Rural Residential 5 in Washington County, and was not studied in the AA. His understanding was that King City wanted to annex it as an open space designation (a park facility). Replying to Chair Park’s question on this piece, Mr. Cooper said as it was not resource land, it is exception land being brought in for a park, he said he thought it extremely unlikely LCDC would have a problem with it.

• Study Area 19 (Carver/Barton area). Chair Park asked about the separated parcels piece in the Carver/Barton area. Mr. O’Brien said this was exception land in the Carver area, adjacent to the Clackamas River. Five parcels were split by the floodplain. The proposal was to bring the floodplain area into the UGB, as well. (Mr. O’Brien submitted a memo with map on this proposal, which is included in this record.) Chair Park said he wanted the committee to be aware of this.

• Study Area 24 (Oregon City area). Mr. O’Brien said this area between Redland Road and Holcomb Boulevard were requested by Oregon City to come into the UGB. He outlined the proposal for the three parcels on the wall map, and said unbeknownst to Metro (and he thought Oregon City, as well), the property owner of the parcels was in the process of consolidating the parcels through Clackamas County. If that consolidation came through, Metro’s action would be splitting one large tax lot. The proposal now was to bring in the other two tax lots, approximately ten acres. The Oregon City Commission has reviewed this, he said, and they support bringing in the two parcels, which are exception land.

• 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 (now an A version, 02-3254A, included as part of this record).

Chair Park said the committee had looked at this before, that there were concerns about the cost, and that this resolution was to give direction to start down the way and was part of the requirements of showing LCDC that Metro was making an affirmative move in trying to push the refill rate up to the 29%.

Mr. Cotugno said this had been presented at the last meeting, and he briefly explained the need for the Centers Team, that quite of bit of specificity needed to be developed, but this would get Metro started on working on the Centers Strategy now rather than waiting until the first of the fiscal year next July.

Councilor McLain said he concern was making sure policy decisions and conversations were still available. She mentioned Resolves 2 through 6, and said quite of bit of that had to do with policy level discussions and not just staff level discussions. She said she would like to add a footnote or comment that the President of the Council as well as other councilors would be involved in these discussions.

Councilor McLain said she would leave the wordsmithing to staff. Councilor Bragdon asked about the Whereas 1. and the December 31, 2002, date. Mr. Cotugno said that was just forming the team.

Councilor Hosticka spoke to the resources of the agency and the priorities for their use. He said they may or may not compete for resources, but the council needed to examine how they would be done with existing resources or what resources would be needed. He said he hoped to discuss this during the budget process for the following year. Chair Park agreed. Councilor Burkholder added that, as it was timely given the upcoming governor’s emphasis on economic development, this kind of information was critical to assure that economic development occurred that supported the desires of the region. Councilor McLain told staff she thought language be added that connected transportation to land use in the Centers. Mr. Cotugno agreed, saying the MTIP connection was included already, but the why of that connection was the transportation/land use link.

• RESOLUTION NO. 02-3255A, For the Purpose of Directing the Chief Operating Officer to Prepare Recommendations and a Report Addressing Options on a Regional Fiscal Policy Regarding Land Added to the Metro Urban Growth Boundary.

Councilor Burkholder said this had been seen last week as the substitution for the ordinance, and after that he and staff took the comments from the council about coordinating with the various regional partners as well as the state agencies, and added in seeking potential legislative action as well. Basically, he said, opening up all the options for looking at these two issues. The slight changes in the staff report reflected those, as well, he said.

Chair Park said this was one of those great ideas whose time had come and that it would be very interesting to work on it.

3a.  ANNUAL URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN COMPLIANCE REPORT. Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, spoke to her report 2002 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Compliance Reports (distributed and made a part of this record) which she said would be presented at the December 10th Metro Council meeting, and would be distributed to the local governments and anyone who indicated interest. Ms. Bernards said the report was in two parts: Titles 1 through 6 compliance, which she would address, and Title 7, which Mr. Uba would address. Ms. Bernards then explained what was in the report and how she structured the section on Titles 1 through 6.

Mr. Benner explained that, as Title 8 stated, this report complied with annual reporting to the council, and that if the council approved it, they accepted staff’s notice of compliance for the jurisdictions.

9. (sic)  PERFORMANCE MEASURES: SCHEDULE OF ROLLOUT OF DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND CORRESPONDING LEGISLATION. Gerry Uba, Program Supervisor, said he wished his report could be as definitive as Ms. Bernards’, but as this was the first report on affordable housing performance measures, he didn’t think it could be. Mr. Uba then spoke to Title 7 and a memo regarding the schedule for the rollout of performance measure reports (distributed and made a part of this record). Of the 27 jurisdictions in the region, Mr. Uba said he had received nine reports (from Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Portland, Tigard, Tualatin, Wood Village, Clackamas County and Washington County). He said it wasn’t clear to staff how to determine the effectiveness of what the jurisdictions were reporting in terms of achieving the goals that Metro set in Title 7, and staff needed to determine how to respond to them. Regarding the goals, Mr. Uba said, eight of the jurisdictions did not adopt the voluntary affordable housing production goals, as stated in their reports. Gresham said they had, however, and it was in their consolidated plan which is a plan required of all cities receiving federal funding. Did that mean staff could conclude that Gresham has actually complied, he asked.

Title 7 also requires the cities to amend their comprehensive plans by addressing some strategies and tools for affordable housing. Using Gresham as an example, Mr. Uba said they said they had completed consideration of some of those strategies listed in Title 7 and they concluded that they were not going to adopt some of them, some they had already adopted. Did that mean they have complied, Mr. Uba asked. He also mentioned the first report sent in by Washington County that had been prepared and submitted by staff, and not reviewed nor approved by the Washington County Commission. Did that mean Washington County passed the test for the first report, he asked.

Mr. Uba then called the committee’s attention to and reviewed from the report, p. 18, Next Steps – Title 7. He specifically addressed the Future Action portion and said he was looking for direction from the committee.

Councilor McLain suggested, to make at least the third the report in January a little meatier, saying the number one criteria of all reports presented by the jurisdictions have to be reviewed by the elected officials/board to be considered.

Councilor Bragdon expressed his disappointment, saying it was too bad this was not a shared responsibility. He said Metro needed to try to raise the profile on it, perhaps making it an MPAC agenda item early in the year. He said it was obvious that Major Drake of Beaverton was very active, and Mayor Becker of Gresham – those two cities have filed reports. He suggested the council work with those two influential MPAC members to inspire their peers to share the responsibility.

Chair Park said he recalled, from the lengthy discussion on this at MPAC a few years ago, that the elected body had to consider it, not just staff, with no disrespect to staff. The jurisdictions needed some type of official action.

Councilor Bragdon said all of these types of things need a champion at the council level, regardless of the council structure, and this is one that needs a “champion” or maybe a group of two or three.

Councilor Burkholder said this was a difficult issue, and he wondered if it was lack of staff or lack of knowledge of the steps that caused so many jurisdictions to not report. This was only the first report, he said, but down the road there will be some teeth in it and he suggested the councilors spend some time to find out what’s going on. He said he was amazed how it fell through the cracks.

There was more discussion on how to achieve reporting, and Chair Park said it looked as if Mr. Uba had sparked their interest. Mr. Uba said there were more informational reports on the program that he planned to distribute to MTAC and MPAC.

Chair Park asked Mr. Uba to then explain the Performance Measures Reports. Mr. Uba reviewed the schedule, and requested approval of that schedule.

9b.  UPDATED EXHIBITS TO ORDINANCE NO. 02-969A. Chair Park asked Mr. Morrissey to explain and distribute the most recent amended exhibits and associated findings to Ordinance No. 02-969A (which are made a part of this record), which he did, reminding them that these were still in draft form but were the most recent.

10.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Councilor McLain said she remembered this council functioning under a no committee structure, and that was very difficult. She said if the council wanted the public to understand the schedule and not have staff doing duplicative work for each councilor, she hoped the new council working structure would make sense. She said she also hoped there would be an informal opportunity to speak with Councilor Bragdon on this issue.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS.