MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, September 7, 1999

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), David Bragdon (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Bill Atherton, Rod Monroe, Jon Kvistad

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:36 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the July 20, and August 3, 1999, Growth Management Committee Meetings

2.  Resolution No. 99-2815, For the Purpose of Establishing a Response to ESA Listings for Salmon and Steelhead within a Natural Resource and Watershed Policy Framework

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2815A is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain presented Resolution No. 99-2815A. A staff report to Resolution No. 99-2815A includes information presented by Chair McLain and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon said the committee adopted a version of this resolution earlier, and subsequently Mayor Rob Drake, City of Beaverton, and others worked closely with Chair McLain on the language. Following that, it was discussed thoroughly at meetings of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and received unanimous consensus there. He said the product before the committee now was better than what the committee first considered.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2815A to the full Council.

3.  DRAFT Ordinance No. 99-818, For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Requirements for Urban Growth Boundary Amendments, Urban Reserve Planning Requirements in Title 11 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Appendices A and B of the Regional Framework Plan and Metro Code Requirements for Local Government Boundary Changes and Declaring an Emergency

Chair McLain said Ordinance No. 99-818 was the result of many months of work, and she asked for a summary of the ordinance.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, presented draft Ordinance No. 99-818. He said the goal of the code amendments is to bring the Metro Code in line with some policy recommendations that came from both Councilors McLain and Rod Monroe as well as MPAC actions. He said the changes are intended to achieve three different results. First, the code revisions clearly separate the process and criteria by which the Council adopted urban reserves from the urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment process. Secondly, the changes clarify what local comprehensive plan amendment decisions have to be in order to allow land that has been brought inside the UGB to urbanize. Finally, the code changes make the Metro Code current with the provisions of Oregon State Law, amended by the last state legislature, which shifted the authority to amend Metro’s jurisdictional boundary from the Multnomah County Commission to the Metro Council.

Mr. Cooper reviewed the changes in the redline final draft section by section (Ordinance No. 99-818 Exhibit A). The August 30, 1999, redline final draft of Exhibit A includes information presented by Mr. Cooper and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked about the definition of “locational adjustment” which allows for the deletion of 20 net acres or less from the UGB. He asked how this ties in with Senate Bill (SB) 586, which states that someone whose property is adjacent to the edge of the UGB can request to be moved outside. He asked if Metro was limiting itself in some way.

Mr. Cooper said he did not think so, but he would review SB 586 to make sure. He said the provision for a deletion has been part of the Metro Code since the beginning. He said one of the reasons for its inclusion was that Metro used to do “trades,” where some land would come out of the UGB in one location so that land could go inside the UGB elsewhere to make a more efficient boundary.

Councilor Atherton asked whether, if the Metro Council was to take land out of the UGB, was it in any way implied in the law that there was an entitlement to land use by putting land in the UGB, that if the Council took that land out of the UGB, it could be considered in some way a takings.

Mr. Cooper said he believed the answer was no, but the question was part of a separate discussion. He offered to discuss it further with Councilor Atherton at a later time.

Mr. Cooper said Ordinance No. 99-818 will be first read at full Council on Thursday, September 9, 1999, and will then return to the Growth Management Committee for public hearings.

Chair McLain said she would hold a public hearing on Ordinance 99-818 on September 14. She said she would also hold a public hearing today, as she received a testimony card from someone who wished to speak on the ordinance. She said the committee would not take action today, but hopefully would take action on September 14. She noted that MPAC was scheduled for final action on the code changes at its September 8, 1999, meeting. She said it was important to vote on Ordinance No. 99-818 before the Council accepts the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update.

Councilor Park asked if there was any implied connotation in the code that in areas where the Metro jurisdictional boundary is much larger than the UGB, the Metro Council would want to try to marry the two boundaries sooner than it was supposed to.

Mr. Cooper said Councilor Park’s question is a policy question. He said the code states that the Metro Council will not move the UGB without moving the jurisdictional boundary first; it does not speak to the converse. He added that the current Metro Code states that the primary criterion moving the Metro jurisdictional boundary is the Council’s intention to move the UGB, and that language is still in the code. He noted, however, that it was simply the primary criterion, and the Council could choose to apply tertiary criterion on a case by case basis.

Chair McLain asked the members of the committee to speak with legal counsel before the next committee meeting about any questions or concerns. She said her goal was to vote on the code by September 21, at the latest, and preferably on September 14.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

Gordon Faber, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, testified in support of draft Ordinance No. 99-818. A letter from Mayor Faber to the Growth Management Committee includes information presented by Mayor Faber and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Atherton noted that while Mayor Faber represents a city, the Metro Code also addresses counties, and clearly implies that counties can still provide urban services. He asked if Mayor Faber had a studied observation about making any reforms in this regard, or did he believe this was a good direction for the Metro Council to take.

Mayor Faber said philosophically, he believed most counties want out of the responsibility of providing urban services. He said he suspects that the change from delivering urban services on the part Washington County will take place over a long period of time. He said if the question is, should counties get out of the urban services delivery business, his answer is an unqualified yes. However, he thinks it has to be undertaken with considerable finesse and great sensitivity to the feelings of those people who live in unincorporated areas currently.

Chair McLain closed the public hearing.

4.  Presentation of 1999 Urban Growth Report

Elaine Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services, presented the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update. A written copy of the presentation includes information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and is included in the meeting record. In addition, a copy of the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update, September 1999, is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Atherton asked about the calculation of accessory dwelling units.

Ms. Wilkerson reviewed how accessory dwelling units were estimated, and noted that staff chose to make a conservative estimate until a later date when more information will be available.

Councilor Park noted that when comparing the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update to the 1997 Urban Growth Report, it is important to look at the language very carefully to avoid creating confusion, because it is not a straight comparison.

Chair McLain said the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update should referenced the legal description of Title 3.

Ms. Wilkerson agreed, and said staff tried to stress the difference in measurement from the top of bank, as used in Title 3, and measurement from the center line.

Councilor Park asked Chair McLain and the committee for help finding a way to do an orderly transition from the placeholder and the expansion that will be needed in the future.

Chair McLain said the committee would begin considering Councilor Park’s question during agenda item 5, regional versus subregional need for UGB amendments.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with Councilor Park that it was important to look forward to the transition as the placeholder becomes more than a placeholder in some instances, and regulation does take place, or in other places where it does not. Metro needs to be thinking about how that gets factored into the equation.

Chair McLain thanked staff for its diligence, and its pain-staking checking. She said she is confident that the report is concise and professional.

5.  Discussion of Regional versus Subregional Need for Urban Growth Boundary Amendments

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said prior Council and committee discussions have looked at completion of the two-year process, based on the 1997 Urban Growth Report, which is required by statute to complete the inclusion of lands to accomplish a 20-year supply of land for housing by the end of 1999. If the full Council goes forward with the concept of a placeholder and with Executive Officer Burton’s recommendation that Metro request a time extension from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), then the final determination of land need for housing is delayed. In addition to the two-year statute, Title 14 continues to be in effect, and any time Metro makes a UGB amendment, it must demonstrate both need and location of that UGB amendment.

Mr. Shaw reviewed his memo regarding regional versus subregional need for urban growth boundary amendments. The memo, dated August 30, 1999, includes information presented by Mr. Shaw and is included in the meeting record. Mr. Shaw concluded that the committee had a lot of choices, and the surplus deficit issue is merely technical report language and not a legal opinion. If the Council goes forward with an extension, then it will not be at a legal conclusion for purposes of Goal 14, Factor 1 regional need. However, from the Council’s work on the urban reserves, it knows that there are some subregional needs based on items such as jobs/housing balance. The Council has the choice as to when and whether it wishes to address those, and that would a kind of subregional need. If the Council wants to go forward on the subregional needs, it cannot be totally inconsistent between Goal 14, Factor 1 and Factor 2. He said if the Council chose, in his opinion it could do some subregional amendments to address things like jobs/housing balance.

Chair McLain asked committee members to review Mr. Shaw’s memo in the packet because it contains the basic elements in a three-prong conversation the committee must have on September 14 or September 21, talking about what it means to UGB amendment needs that are regional versus subregional, or special in nature. She said she would schedule an amount of time to discuss this issue at the next committee meeting, and she added that she may schedule a work session, or request an Executive Officer/Metro Council Informal meeting, if necessary. She noted that members of the Council received a master calendar through December 1999, outlining how the Council could work through its upcoming decisions and meet its deadlines. A copy of the calendar is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park said the Council has a number of options available: it can accept the report, it can ask for an extension, or it can adjust the numbers at full Council and go to some type of expansion of the UGB. He asked legal counsel, if the Council accepted the report today, as is, what would its legal position be? He asked if Metro would be in a legally defensible position.

Mr. Cooper said if Council was to finish its work on the 1997 Urban Growth Report update, and not request an extension or estimate the placeholder, he believed legal counsel could defend the Council’s decision. He added however, that such a decision would not remove the pressure on the UGB, if the National Marine Fisheries were to determine that additional setbacks were needed in response to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of fish.

Chair McLain said the agenda item would return on September 14, at which time the committee would determine its direction.

6.  Ordinance No. 99-812, For the Purpose of Amending Metro Urban Growth Boundary and the 2040 Growth Concept in Ordinance 95-625A in Urban Reserve Area 65 in Washington County

Chair McLain opened a public hearing. No one appeared to speak with regard to Ordinance No. 99-812. Chair McLain closed the public hearing.

Chair McLain said the committee would not take action today on Ordinance No. 99-812. She noted that there would be a public hearing at full Council on Thursday, September 9, 1999.

7.  Washington County Request for Time Extension for Functional Plan Compliance

Chair McLain recessed the meeting at 3:15 P.M. to await the arrival of Tom Brian and Delna Jones, Washington County Commission, who were delayed by traffic.

Chair McLain reconvened the meeting at 3:52 P.M.

Chair McLain noted the letter from Commissioner Brian requesting a further time extension until October 2000, for functional plan compliance. A copy of the letter in included in the meeting packet.

Tom Brian, Chair, Washington County Commissioner, thanked the committee for waiting. He introduced Brent Curtis, Washington County Planning Manager, and John Leeper, Chair, CPO #1. The letter from Commissioner Brian includes information presented by him and is included in the meeting record. Commissioner Brian added that the functional plan lays out the future for Washington County for many years, and it is important for it to be done correctly and for the public to support it. He said the Washington County Commission was committed to amending its intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the City of Beaverton, and funding necessary staff expenses. He said the Commission was committed to the 2040 Growth Concept and Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). He said Washington County was essentially dual-tracking its efforts to keep its original commitment on Title 3. He said Washington County wanted more time to make sure the planning was done correctly, and that when it is done, there is strong consensus. He said the Commission was requesting an extension to a time certain, and committing to keep Title 3 on track.

Delna Jones, Washington County Commissioner, said she represents District 2, where most of the work is being done, with relationship to neighborhood impacts, and town centers. She noted that both Raleigh Hills and Cedar Mill town centers are in her district. She said through her involvement in the community, she has heard from citizens that they would love to be able to look at planning options. She said while many of the communities have existed for a long time, a number of the residents are new and have not been involved in the 2040 process at the Metro level. She said the public needed more time to learn about how the functional plan compliance work would affect their neighborhoods, and about the overall view of how it all it fits together, and why it is important for the public to be a part of the process. She said a lot of citizens had input in Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept, but those same citizens often did not recognize the impact on their own neighborhoods. She said she was afraid that if the County did not take extra time for additional citizen outreach, it would have citizens rise up and say they did not want the process at all. She asked the committee for the extra time to do it right and get the public on board. She noted that a lot of people will still not be pleased, but they will have had an opportunity to look at alternatives.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with Commissioner Jones’ comment about the importance of neighborhood support, because the support and involvement of the residents will result in a better product. He said when talking about something, like a town center, that is supposed to last for the next 40 years, he did not mind waiting six months. He said the County’s statement of commitment to the Functional Plan was sufficient for him. He said he was more concerned about Title 3, and attorneys encouraging people to get permits now before Title 3 takes effect. He said that sort of delay and attitude, which the Washington County Commission was not expressing, does troubles him. He said a time extension to delay the impact of a law was very different than a time extension to make something right.

Commissioner Jones noted that Washington County has very little control over the statements of private attorneys.

Commissioner Brian said in addition to the time necessary to do what Washington County wants to do, Washington County was also looking at how it could best use a time extension, and if there were items which it could now do differently than originally planned due to the time constraints. He said when land use changes start to take effect, people become aware of them and want to be involved. Therefore, some of the orientation done by Washington County staff a year ago was not attended by the people who are now interested in the issues. He said staff is trying to rapidly put together a forum involving the CPOs, Metro, and the Board of Commissioners to reaffirm the importance of density and connectivity. He said the County plans to look at ways to restructure meetings so that members and the public do not burn out attend multiple meetings on the same topic. It is also looking at ways of centralizing who to call for information.

Commissioner Jones added that it is an advantage for the County to be as involved as it wants to be with the citizens and the plan’s implementation, so that the public does not blame Metro for what they do not like. She said it needs to be the County that communicates to the public the plan, how it works, how it affects their neighborhoods, and how the County can help them work through the problems, because the problems lie in existing and well-established neighborhoods.

Councilor Park said many people think that the 2040 Growth Concept calls for density everywhere inside the UGB, and somehow it has not been well communicated that the higher density is planned for certain areas, so that other areas retain their current character. With regard to Title 3, he said he had experience working on Senate Bill (SB) 1010 in the Tualatin River, and he knows it is difficult to clearly communicate the process to the public. He said the Metro Council is in an interesting situation: it is looking at the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update and the Council’s options and what it is required to do. If Metro has to grant an extension, he asked that the Washington County Board of Commissioners help Metro communicate to the public that it is trying to work with its partners, go slow and do it right, and not simply delay the process.

Commissioner Brian agreed, and added that the region is undertaking a grand experiment, and it is much more important to do it right than to do it quickly. He said in the scheme of things, taking six months to a year to find a better way is beneficial.

Councilor Atherton thanked Commissioners Brian and Jones for coming. He noted that twice during today’s meeting, people have noted the importance of getting a better product. He said the best planning is done by the people who live there. He said counties do not build good cities because they are the wrong unit of government, as is Metro and the state. He asked the Commissioners if they had considered creating a special planning district in a localized area, with an elected board, to do land use planning. He said he realized it was not allowed under current Oregon law, but Washington County could enable that process. He said the special planning district would be like a super-CPO.

Commissioner Brian said no, the Commission had not thought of creating special planning districts. He said they were attempting to meet the spirit of Councilor Atherton’s suggestion through Washington County’s IGA with the City of Beaverton. He said the reason for the IGA was because planning was done best when it was done closest to the people.

Commissioner Jones noted that John Leeper, Chair of CPO #1, devotes as much time and energy to the position of CPO Chair as any planning commission member. In addition, he serves on the Washington County Planning Commission and is one of the County’s representatives on the Special Planning Commission. She said Washington County’s CPOs review and have comment and have real voice in land use decisions. She noted that the chairs are elected by the CPO organizations. She said Mr. Leeper may wish to consider Councilor Atherton’s suggestion and give his input to the Washington County Board of Commissioners and Metro about that process. She said the Cedar Mill area did not have a city, but residents did have her phone number, and she felt they were well represented.

Chair McLain said for past time extension requests, Metro staff reviewed the requests to make sure the Metro was not losing opportunity with the extension. She noted that staff produced a document of issues to consider with regard to Washington County’s request. A copy of the document is included in the an extension proposal that includes both a final deadline for compliance, and internal deadlines for different components of the plan.

Commissioner Jones said much of the work has already been done, and the Washington County Board of Commissioners reviewed a tentative proposal at its meeting that morning.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

John Leeper, Chair, CPO #1, 11160 Southwest Muirwood, Portland, said he also serves on the Washington County Planning Commission, on a special planning commission composed of Washington County and the City of Beaverton Planning Commissioners, and the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC). He said he supports the county’s request for an extension. He noted that the town center planning currently underway will affect Cedar Mill residents for the rest of their lives. He added that many residents in Cedar Mill have lived there for 40 to 50 years, have seen the area evolve, and are appalled in many cases. He said he supports Metro and Washington County, and as chair of CPO #1, he is trying to assure that the final plan will be acceptable to citizens, the County, and Metro. He concluded that the extension is vitally needed.

Pat Whiting, Vice Chair, CPO #4-M, 8122 Southwest Spruce, Tigard, stated her support for Commissioners Brian and Jones in their request to delay implementation. She asked that Metro also consider a delay in implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center. She said while she was also a member of the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force, she was not speaking as a representative of the task force. She said she was speaking as a representative of Steve Perry, David Drescher, who were not able to attend the committee meeting. She said many of the citizens in the Washington Square Regional Center area are concerned about environmentally sensitive land in Ash Creek Wetland/Floodplain. She said the local community strongly supports no upzoning in the area. She said the plan needed more dialogue, because there has been a lack of citizen input. She said there will be one more open house, but at the open house people would only be told what the task force has decided, and the task force will not solicit the public’s opinion.

Ms. Whiting submitted for the record a letter to Mike Burton and the Metro Council from Jill Tellez regarding Washington Square Regional Task Force Study Planning. The letter included four attachments: 1) a letter to Washington Square Regional Center Task Force from Pat Whiting regarding August 19, 1999, Draft of Regional Center Plan (dated 8/22/99); 2) a letter to Pat Whiting from Catherine Wheatley, City of Tigard, regarding Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Proposal (dated 7/21/99); 3) a letter to City of Tigard Planning Commissioners, City Councilors and Mayor from Pat Whiting regarding Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Proposal: Ash Creek Wetland/Floodplain in Tigard and attachments (dated 7/20/99); and 4) the Minority Report to the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Concerning Proposed Upzoning of the Ash Creek Wetland and Floodplain Area (dated 8/24/99). Copies of the documents are included in the meeting record.

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, said the City of Tigard has a time extension for the Washington Square Regional Center till February 2000. She said except for a small portion of Title 6, Tigard is in compliance with the Functional Plan. She said Washington County currently has an extension for three sections of the Functional Plan through October 1999: 1) Title 6 connectivity standards, 2) Title 2 parking standards, and 3) minimum densities for R-5 and R-6 residential zones. She said Washington County already has an extension until October 2000 for the Cedar Mill and Raleigh Hills Town Center planning, as part of its IGA with the City of Beaverton. She added that Washington County also intends to complete its Title 3 work in that time frame.

Chair McLain asked Ms. Bernards the deadline for Washington County compliance with Title 3.

Ms. Bernards said Washington County has not yet been granted a time extension for Title 3 compliance. However, in June 1999, Washington County was one of the six jurisdictions that requested an extension.

Chair McLain summarized that there is a great deal of concern that Metro is not pushing back the deadline for Title 3 work by granting a time extension for other work. She said Washington County has stated that it will not extend its Title3 work, instead it will do the Title 3 work concurrently with its other Functional Plan work. She said it is important to clarify in the formal request that Title 3 compliance will not be adversely affected. She asked Ms. Bernards to review the process for a time extension, and the status of Washington County’s current request.

Ms. Bernards said a staff report is prepared describing the nature of the extension requested. She said Metro staff works with the jurisdictions to agree on a timetable for review of each piece of the work, and the final deadline for adoption of the necessary amendments. She said staff has just begun this dialogue with Washington County.

Chair McLain recommended that the committee direct staff to complete its discussion about the timetable before coming to the committee with a formal request.

Councilor Bragdon said he wanted to address some of Ms. Whiting’s comments because they illustrated the need for this extension and the need for good communication on the reason for town centers. He said if the public impression is that town centers are about upzoning and density everywhere, then there is a fundamental misimpression about what a town center is. Ultimately, when the town center plan is complete, it should be a more benign environmental form than today, not less so. He said working through that with the neighborhood is very important, and eventually that level of understanding will be reached. Regarding neighborhood impact, town centers, and connectivity, Metro cannot overstate that implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept is very hard, and local governments are doing something that has not been done anywhere else in this country. He said local governments are trying to undo 50 years of engineering and planning practice, and allowing more time to do it right makes sense. He added that there are some great examples in Washington County, such as Orenco Town Center, of what the future can look like.

Councilor Bragdon said he sees Title 3 compliance as distinctly different from compliance with the rest of the Functional Plan, because it addresses new development, not existing neighborhoods. He said before considering an extension of Title 3 compliance, he will want to see some rigorous standards that the jurisdiction really is moving toward implementation and that it is not a delaying tactic.

Ms. Wilkerson said many of the requests for extensions for Title 3 compliance are due to a lack of staff resources to do the work because they are spending so much time doing the first package of title changes. She said the other cause for delay in the Washington County group is the effort to sort out a consistent approach through the United Sewerage Agency (USA). She said USA will be in a position to do a lot of the changes in the short term, but the code changes by each jurisdiction will take longer. She said she understand that USA will be enacting a number of the controls, which will give some safety. She said the problem will be, when USA puts it in place, the encroachment provisions will be the local codes, so it in fact will give the protection first, and the remedy second.

Chair McLain stressed that Metro has not granted any exceptions to the Functional Plan, it has only granted time extensions. She added that it is complicated when a jurisdiction requests multiple extensions or overlapping extensions, and Metro needs to be clear about exactly where the extensions are and what they are for. She directed staff to write a one-page description of Washington County’s current extensions and the new request and how they relate. She asked staff to return to committee after the summary is complete.

Councilor Park asked if it is possible to estimate the potential loss of environmentally sensitive lands that could result from a delay in implementation of Title 3.

Ms. Wilkerson said staff would not be able to anticipate where the development applications will be coming in in that period of time. She offered to report back to committee on the idea of the USA regulations being adjusted in a sooner time frame than the code changes taking place, and what exactly would be incorporated in those changes. USA already has a 25 foot setback across the Title 3 deadline at the end of the year. She said therefore, Councilor Park’s concern about new buildings in the required setback area would be minimized. She said the problem is the regulation of how to deal with variations on the basic setback, and the mitigation table.

Councilor Park said he would prefer putting Title 3 in place first, and then working out an agreement on the mitigation table, rather than the other way around, so that new construction cannot continue in the setback areas.

Councilor Bragdon said in the future, Metro should think about how it can help jurisdictions with their Functional Plan compliance work. He said Metro could use show and tell examples, like Orenco Station.

Chair McLain summarized that Washington County has made a request for an extension for specific areas, as outlined in the letter. She directed staff to put together a process to work with the County staff to make sure that Metro is comfortable with the extension, comfortable with the deadline, and comfortable with the amount of work that will be done. She said she wants it made very clear in the document that Metro received a commitment from Washington County that it is trying to go forward with Title 3 at the same time in a parallel fashion, and that the County is committing to working through that task. She said Metro needs to be supportive, and granting this time extension is the first way of demonstrating that support. She asked for staff to return to the committee in a timely way.

8.  Councilor Communications

Chair McLain announced that Growth Management Committee would hold an additional meeting on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, following the Metro Council/Executive Officer Informal Meeting.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 4:50 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\09079gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999

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