MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, September 14, 1999

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Bill Atherton

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 3:55 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the September 7, 1999, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  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

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, presented Ordinance No. 99-818 and the draft Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 99-818 entitled Metro Policy Advisory Committee Recommended Draft September 13, 1999. He explained that the draft contains the conceptual amendments requested by MPAC at its meeting on September 8, 1999, which it recommended Council adoption of the code amendments. In addition, several other clarifying amendments have been added by the Office of General Counsel. A copy of the draft Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 99-818, Metro Policy Advisory Committee Recommended Draft September 13, 1999, is included in the meeting record. A cover memo to the MPAC recommended version includes information presented by Mr. Cooper and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Atherton noted that page 37 states that the Council shall establish a process to determine which local government(s) shall be responsible for planning in cases where there is no agreement between the affected governments. He asked if there is any state law requiring Metro to do that, and answered that Metro’s only requirement in state law is to move the urban growth boundary (UGB).

Mr. Cooper said Metro has the responsibility under state law to move the UGB. He said under state law, Metro also has the responsibility to coordinate the local government comprehensive plans, both procedurally and substantively within the UGB. Then, within the Senate Bill (SB) 122 process, Metro is a participant, but not a convener, for the counties, service districts, and cities within particular areas of a county to resolve the territories and levels of service that will be provided by those groups. He said Metro also has, under those statutory proceedings, a coordinating role. Mr. Cooper said coordinating is a term of art, under state law, that is both a procedural step to make sure there has been consultation between governments, as well as a substantive meaning to ensure that each jurisdiction’s planning is consistent with the others. He said the Council may make policy judgments on a case-by-case basis on how to exercise those responsibilities.

Chair McLain said in the past, when the Cities of Beaverton and Portland, and Washington County, were in dispute over services, the issue went to the state and was sent to Metro for final determination.

Councilor Atherton asked if it would be possible for an area to be designated inside the UGB but not urbanize because no jurisdiction wanted to serve it.

Mr. Cooper said he thinks Metro’s ability to resolve a dispute between two governments that are competing for the territory is clearly contemplated by the language on page 37. If the dispute centers around no jurisdiction wanting an area, Metro’s role is less clear. In drafting the code language, the Office of General Counsel did not attempt to anticipate the outcome of every dispute. Instead, it simply recognized that there might be disputes, and that if so, that the Council’s role is to see if the dispute can be resolved. The statutory reference goes to procedures that are designed to put the affected local governments at the table to try to resolve the dispute among themselves.

Councilor Atherton said he was trying to understand whether the code language would require Metro to designate a government to serve an area.

Mr. Cooper said the code language contemplates that the Council would end up making a designation. He said state law does not anticipate that land will be brought into the UGB without a jurisdiction responsible for planning or urbanizing it.

Chair McLain added that if circumstances arose, the Council could amend the Metro Code again to give more clarity to the process. She said the language has not changed the status quo responsibility given to Metro by the state. She said the code changes do not add to, nor detract from, the powers of Metro; the changes stay constant with the responsibilities of the Council in past, as per state and Metro Code.

Mr. Cooper added that in the Regional Framework Plan, as it adopted the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), there is a dispute resolution process that Metro is committed to follow that involves MPAC acting as, in effect, the peer group that would discuss disputes between local governments before the Metro Council stepped in. He said the proposed Metro Code changes was consistent with the RUGGO dispute resolution process going through MPAC.

Councilor McLain will carry Ordinance No. 99-818A to the full Council.

3.  Sub-regional Need Discussion

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, presented his memo, dated September 14, 1999, regarding Jobs/Housing Balance as Subregional Need for 1999 UGB Amendments. A copy of the memo includes information presented by Mr. Shaw and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain complemented Mr. Shaw on the second, fleshed out version of the memo presented last week, that now includes ideas that this committee has discussed, and some of the opportunities that the committee expressed interest in hearing more about. Chair McLain also said that this document allows the committee to better understand what Metro means by the need assessment for growth in this region, as well as what is meant when it is said that Metro can recognize sub-regional need as it is discussed.

Mr. Shaw explained that his first memo on sub-regional need tried to make an initial distinction between Factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14, which are called the Need Factors. Any UGB amendment that is adopted at any time (forgetting the overlay of the 20 year land supply statute) must comply with Goals 2 and 14. To add a UGB amendment of any kind, current data is required to demonstrate that there is current need for this amendment. The committee has discussed the “placeholder” many times, as well as the fact that by following the requirements of House Bill (HB) 2709, just using the regulations that have been adopted so far for the environmental area, (Title 3 Water Quality and Flood Plain regulations only), the resulting calculation shows a slight surplus, or essentially zero need for “region-wide need” (Goal 14-1).

Mr. Shaw said the analysis must be based on the whole region, not just where in the region that need will best be served. His latest memo details Factor 2, which gets less attention since most of the UGB amendments done in the state, and most amendments done legislatively, have been dealing at the broad region-wide need level. In 1989 there were several cases that dealt, for the first time, with the issue of whether Factor 2 is a separate basis for a UGB amendment in order to allow a sub-regional look. Mr. Shaw said 1000 Friends of Oregon lost its case in 1989 when the courts in the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) clarified that it is not necessary to comply with both Factor 1 and 2. Factor 2 can allow a sub-regional analysis for a particular UGB amendment; what the court did not make clear is that Factor 1 and Factor 2 can not be totally dealt with separately, nor did the court clarify the relationship between the two factors. Logically, in order to do a sub-regional need, (probably smaller by definition), or a large sub-regional need that is located by that analysis, the analysis should be consistent with the overall region-wide need. For example, if there was a surplus within the current UGB of 20,000 to 30,000 dwelling units in Hillsboro or Wilsonville, then there is a need for 20,000 dwelling units to balance the jobs/housing balance there. If this was done without making any other adjustments in the UGB somewhere else, then the Factor 2 sub-regional analysis would be inconsistent with the Factor 1 data.

Mr. Shaw said the Urban Growth Report (UGR) update includes data that shows a range from zero growth under Goal 14 to an estimate based on just one number picked out as a possible result of the Goal 5 Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulation giving a 15,000 dwelling unit need region-wide. In the context of these facts, plus the additional fact that occurred yesterday (noted in the memo’s footnote), that the Goal 5 regulation is coming closer to fruition and there is now a 150-foot setback from streams and wetlands that is the program area identified for establishing appropriate regulation based on Goal 5 considerations for riparian zones and for some fish and wildlife considerations. The new information indicates that although there is not a precise amount of need identified in the data so far, the need is unlikely to be at zero, but rather at 2/3 or more into that range; that this activity has not been completed and therefore the legislative action cannot be completed under Factor 1. This memo is at the cutting edge of current thinking and as long as the data is consistent with Factor 1 and 2. The last step in this analysis is that in a recent Court of Appeals case on periodic review, where a city did a UGB amendment for housing that was challenged, the challenge was made on the basis that the city did not finish the other impacts of this amendment for the transportation system, for Goal 12 and Goal 11 public facilities impacts; therefore the Comprehensive Plan was out of balance and should not be allowed. The court said the because the periodic review was continuing and there was a commitment to finish the work in the periodic review context that the UGB amendment could occur so long as there was a commitment there to bring the Comprehensive Plan back in balance. Metro should have no less authority inside the context of its Comprehensive Plan provision, which is the regional UGB, to do the same sort of thing so long as it does not have a precise number for how much the Factor 1 need is at this point, as long as there is a commitment to complete the process to get that number and put the UGB in balance at the end; in this case sub-regional UGB amendment needs if the committee chooses to do so.

Mr. Cooper added that the intent of Office of General Counsel’s advise regarding Goal 14, Factor 2 need as justification for an urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment was to simply explain why it is permissible to do so. He said the Office of General Counsel was not advising the committee or the Council that it has an obligation to make any such adjustments to the UGB. He said that the committee has the discretion to do nothing, should it so choose.

Chair McLain said she directed Mr. Shaw to write his memo after last week’s committee discussion about the updated Urban Growth Report, the urban reserve process, and the state law asking Metro to do a two-year process. She said she asked Mr. Shaw to give the committee a list of all of the possible actions it could take. She said Mr. Shaw’s memo laid out the issues that the committee needs to address as it moves forward this fall. First, Metro is in the process of a periodic review, which will never be completely finished, due to new information continually becoming available. She said the committee needs to address sub-regional need in some way. Secondly, she noted that the Town and Regional Centers map has been used in many Metro documents. She noted that the areas denoted on the map correspond with Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ), which Metro has used for years. She said the TAZ work sets the precedent for Metro to do work in a regional scope, as it is reflected in sub-regional needs. She asked the committee members to review Mr. Shaw’s memo and speak with Mr. Shaw individually about any questions they may have before the next committee meeting

Councilor Bragdon asked if an applicant for a locational adjustment would have the burden of asserting a sub-regional need.

Mr. Shaw said because the Council action would be a legislative amendment for a subarea, it would be the Council’s burden to have a record and findings for the basis of Goal 14 Factor 1 or Factor 2 need. He added that the Council may receive help from others, such as the applicant, but the Council would be the decision maker.

Mr. Cooper added that this is a difference between a legislative amendment process and a quasi-judicial process. In a quasi-judicial process, the applicant would have the burden of proof.

Councilor Park asked for an explanation of the map attached to Mr. Shaw’s memo, Town and Regional Centers.

Mr. Cooper said the map is for illustrative purposes only, and denoted general market areas. It was not adopted by the Metro Council, and its boundaries are not binding.

Elaine Wilkerson, Director of Growth Management Services, said the map came from a 1994 document, and is based on 1992 data.

Mark Turpel, Manager of Long-Range Planning, Growth Management Services, said the township boundary areas are intended as “nests.” He said the original intent of the map was to take town center and regional center locations, draw market areas around them, and count the number of jobs and houses in 1992, and then use those figures to make a projection to 2040 and look at the forecast jobs/housing balance. He added that this was very dated information, and the work plan included updating the information.

Councilor Park asked if the map had been used for areas other than the South Hillsboro Urban Reserve Study Areas.

Mr. Shaw responded that it may have been in the urban reserve decision as an alternative basis for urban reserve 65, which is in the Beaverton Regional Center area. He believed there was material for urban reserve 65 in the record in front of the Council.

Mr. Shaw added that local governments do their own planning and draw the actual regional center boundary lines.

Councilor Park asked about the value of the map. He noted that area 2 is a very large sub-region, and asked how he could use it to relate to UGB expansion requests.

Mr. Cooper said Councilor Park was correct, the map has very large sub-regional areas. He said the Council should consider that and discuss how to determine the appropriate size of sub-regional areas.

Councilor Bragdon asked if staff has an idea of how to best define a sub-regional area.

Mr. Cooper noted that the intent of the memo is to illustrate a legal point, not to add a work plan for staff.

Mr. Turpel agreed that the map is illustrative, but added that it is on staff’s work program. He said it is possible to take each area and gather information on those areas, and enlarge the map so that the labels correspond to the town centers.

Chair McLain said in the past, the map was used during the urban reserve discussions. She said Forest Grove and Cornelius are sub-regional areas that fit into regional centers. She said this sub-regional discussion is very helpful. She added that sub-regions are not new; Metro used them before.

Councilor Park asked in terms of the work program, whether Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, is going to work on the industrial lands issue vis-à-vis the jobs/housing balance.

Ms. Wilkerson said the work program includes many components and is scheduled to be completed in one year.

Chair McLain suggested to the committee members that they do individual, further work talking with staff and trying to relate some of the full scope of options in front of the committee in September as it works to send a conversation and recommendation to the full Council on how to address the updated Urban Growth Report, and how the Council is going to relate to the UGB amendments that could, or could not, happen this year.

5.  Resolution No. 99-2823, For the Purpose of Changing the Positions of Nancy Kraushaar, Mark Schoening and Debrah Marriott on the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee

Chair McLain said she recently sent a letter to Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) members who had not been attending regularly, asking if there was a new member or if they were changing alternates. She said response was good, and attendance was excellent at the last WRPAC meeting.

Ms. Wilkerson presented Resolution No. 99-2823. A staff report to Resolution No. 99-2823 includes information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2823 to the full Council.

6.  Resolution No. 99-2829, For the Purpose of Appointing Greg Diloreto and Rebecca Geisen as Alternate Members to the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee

Ms. Wilkerson presented Resolution No. 99-2829. A staff report to Resolution No. 99-2829 includes information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2829 to the full Council.

Councilor Park asked if the WRPAC roster was up to date at this time.

Chair McLain said the WRPAC roster is never completely updated because agencies can change their personnel at any time, and they do not always notify WRPAC. She said as WRPAC Chair, however, she has recently implemented a process to send a letter to any member that has not attended for three consecutive meetings. She said the first mailing of the letter has been completed, and Resolutions No. 99-2823 and 99-2829 include all of the individuals who should now be members of WRPAC. She said there are still a few spaces in which members have not been seated. The West Multnomah County Soil and Water Conservation District, for which the Council approved a member, has not returned to the Council with a member to be seated. In addition, there is a seat on WRPAC for the Home Builders Association, but it has not chosen to fill that slot at this time.

Councilor Park asked if all the people currently participating in and voting at WRPAC were confirmed by the Council at some time.

Ms. Wilkerson said everyone has been confirmed, except for the people listed in Resolutions No. 99-2823 and 99-2829. She said if Council votes to adopt the two resolutions, the roster will be updated and the roster will be complete, and everyone on the list will be confirmed accordingly. She said staff tries its best to stay current with changes on WRPAC.

7.  Resolution No. 99-2834, For the Purpose of Granting Time Extensions to Title 3 of the Functional Plan Compliance Deadline

Mike Burton, Executive Officer, noted that the staff report to Resolution No. 99-2834 included a recommendation from staff to approve the resolution. He said the situation has changed since staff wrote its report, however, and recommended that the committee defer approval of the Washington County, Hillsboro, and Beaverton extension request until Metro receives additional information. Executive Officer Burton’s speaking points on Resolution No. 99-2834 include information presented by Executive Officer Burton and are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain noted that when two members of Washington County Board of Commissioners came before the committee at its last meeting to request an extension on different work, they said they were not talking about going back on the parallel work that would need to be done on Title 3. She said last week she told staff, Tom Brian, Washington County Commission Chair, and Delna Jones, Washington County Commissioner, that Metro has not accepted the Washington County Title 3 Substantial Compliance Plan as complete.

Executive Officer Burton agreed, and noted that the one issue still outstanding pertains to buffers in deteriorated riparian areas. He said United Sewerage Agency (USA) will actually be adopting the compliance plan, not the cities and counties in its jurisdiction, and Metro needs to have it on the record that once USA adopts the plan, cities and counties will amend their Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) so it applies to them.

Chair McLain said there are two pieces to the issue: 1) the resolution in front of the committee for a time extension, and how it will be implemented, and 2) the relationship of the staff issues on the status of the final piece on buffers.

Chair McLain asked Growth Management staff to address the issues in front of the committee.

Mary Weber, Manager of Community Development, Growth Management Services, presented Resolution No. 99-2834. A staff report to Resolution No. 99-2834 includes information presented by Ms. Weber and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain asked Executive Officer Burton for his recommendation.

Executive Officer Burton recommended that the committee approve all of the time extensions except for Washington County and the Cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton until staff receives written clarification on his questions.

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, said today staff received a request for an extension from the City of Tualatin, and she understood that the Cities of Cornelius and Tigard will also send extension requests.

Chair McLain directed staff to receive written clarification from the Cities of Tualatin, Cornelius, and Tigard, on the questions presented by Executive Officer Burton.

Ms. Weber noted the Cities of Milwaukie, Gladstone, and Gresham have shown excellent documentation of progress and of cause why they need time extensions. She noted that they all have some regulations in place already.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

Brent Curtis, Planning Manager, Washington County, said Washington County did not object with Executive Officer Burton’s recommendation to request more information. He said he may be able to answer some of Executive Officer Burton’s questions. He said last week, the Washington County Board of Commissioners appeared before the committee to talk about an extension to do non-Title 3 work. He said the County has never amended its concept of how to implement Title 3. In fact, when the Board asked for an extension on the other items, it basically strengthened its commitment to maintain its schedule for Title 3. Mr. Curtis noted that the Washington County Board of Commissioners also serves as the board of the United Sewerage Agency. He said he could not speak for USA, but the County has spent considerable time coordinating on these issues, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Curtis said he can talk about the relationship between the Title 3 work the County has to do, and USA’s water quality responsibilities and its intentions with regard to Title 3, and clear up some concerns. He said the bottom line is that, from the resources point of view, USA, the County, and the Cities are doing work that is better than the time extension they asked for, because there is a potential to protect the resource much sooner. However, there is also a series of complex things must be worked out. He said a lot of the questions Executive Officer Burton asked about amending IGAs, and when policies are put in place, are the subject of additional work that USA has recently initiated. USA devoted resources to hire a planning consultant and a legal consultant to look into those questions. What is clear at the staff level from the Cities, the County and USA, is that their intention is to do what is necessary to have USA adopt these regulations in December 1999, and to put USA’s regulations in place, in a binding a legal way, as soon as possible. That would a leave a series of conforming planning actions to be taken by local jurisdictions to amend their own codes and their own plans. He said USA is retaining assistance to provide them with advise about what the agreements say, and what needs to be done to follow that intention. He noted that this is a staff intention.

Mr. Curtis added that all of the jurisdictions have been working as a watershed on the Title 3 approach for a while now, and there is a pretty substantial commitment to keep working together on a watershed type of approach. He noted that there are also many elected officials to update regarding the most recent work. He said the intention is to try to have USA’s work in place in December, and then have the rest of the work caught up by the extensions that have been requested. He said some of the answers to the questions have been asked cannot yet be answered, because it is a work in progress. He said at this point, the planners have recently met a number of times to reassert their commitment to work as a watershed to work on the substantial compliance approach. He said if the Executive Officer and the committee feel more comfortable with written answers to the questions, they are happy to comply. He added that it would not change the work they are doing, or the time needed to do the work. He said the County believes it meets Metro’s standard for an extension request, and County staff worked with Metro staff and the Council in good faith to advance Title 3 to the point where it can implemented. He said the County is looking forward to answering Metro’s questions and moving beyond the question of whether an extension will be granted, so that it can concentrate its attention on doing the work and protecting the resource.

Chair McLain thanked Mr. Curtis for his testimony, and added that everyone is still at the table talking about some very difficult issues. She said both Metro staff and Executive Officer Burton mentioned one item that is problematic with a committee approval of an extension at this point: Metro has been set up with its compliance plan review to be able to make sure that Metro staff can tell the Council that the substantial compliance meets Title 3 standards. She noted that Executive Officer Burton, Ms. Weber, and Ms. Bernards all said that they do not believe that at this time, the Washington County solution does that. She recognized that it is still a work in progress, but added that Metro needs to be comfortable that when the work is all done, it will comply with Title 3.

Mr. Curtis said they are committed to the approach of substantial compliance, but they realize that there are legitimate issues to discuss and room for adjustments along the way. They think they can make some adjustments that will answer staff’s questions. They also think that they can demonstrate that their plan is in substantial compliance, and that the differences are minor and technical in nature. He said part of their resources and time will be devoted to continuing to work with the staff, and part of it will be to develop a sound case to show Metro that their approach is in substantial compliance. He said that is one of the reasons why they need the time extensions.

Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro, said Mr. Curtis’s testimony expressed the intent of the City of Hillsboro as well.

Veronica Smith, City of Beaverton, said the City of Beaverton agreed with the statements made by Mr. Curtis. She said the cities are working hard jointly to find solutions. She noted that it takes time to figure out what processes to focus on, especially as USA has gone through recent staff changes. She said that once USA puts together a program, even though it has been working closely with each jurisdiction, each city council still must review the plan and decide if it is substantial compliance, which will take extra time. She said the City supports compliance with USA’s standards.

Chair McLain asked how much time jurisdictions have had to work on Title 3 compliance.

Ms. Weber said the compliance deadline was set for eighteen months from adoption of Title 3.

Chair McLain asked how many jurisdictions have complied with Title 3 at this time.

Ms. Bernards said the City of Wood Village has complied with Title 3, and the Cities of Lake Oswego and Oregon City are very close to compliance. She said the other cities in the region will be in compliance by the end of December, except for the Cities of Cornelius, Tigard, Tualatin, Johnson City, and the cities listed in Resolution No. 99-2834.

Chair McLain asked the committee for its position.

Councilor Bragdon said at the last committee meeting, he stated that he was not comfortable granting an extension on Title 3 to Washington County. He said he had not heard anything today that made him feel any more comfortable, and he said Metro needs commitment that a good faith progress is being made.

Councilor Park apologized that he had not realized earlier that the City of Gresham was included in Resolution No. 99-2834. He said he had a potential conflict of interest, and asked that the City of Gresham be removed from the resolution, and if successful, that a separate resolution be made to include the City of Gresham so that he could abstain from voting.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2834A to the full Council.

Councilor Bragdon will carry the new resolution to the full Council.

Chair McLain directed Metro staff to work with the staff at Washington County. She said the Council will grant the extension, but first it wants staff to be happy with the written work.

8.  Resolution No. 99-2838, For the Purpose of Providing Mailed Notice to Property Owners Affected by Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

Ms. Weber presented Resolution No. 99-2838. A staff report to Resolution No. 99-2838 includes information presented by Ms. Weber and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain thanked staff for its work to both meet state law and make Metro look good.

Councilor Park will carry Resolution No. 99-2838 to the full Council.

4.  1997 Urban Growth Report Update

Chair McLain opened a public hearing. No one appeared to speak with regard to the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update. Chair McLain closed the public hearing.

Chair McLain asked the Growth Management Committee for its questions and thoughts.

Councilor Park said he would like the committee or the Council to formally state that it is inclined to expand the UGB relative to the amount of environmentally constrained land that will be protected once the future Goal 5 regulations have been adopted.

Chair McLain said there is a transition process in place for the Metro Council to discuss what it means to change the UGB if and when more land is protected for fish recovery. She said she will distribute a memo at the next meeting outlining the committee’s options, and she asked the committee for its ideas to include in the memo.

[Recorder’s Note: Due to a malfunction of the recording system, the remainder of the meeting is not on tape. The following minutes are based on the recorder’s notes.]

Councilor Park asked how Mr. Shaw’s September 14, memo reflects his concern about process?

Chair McLain said this meeting is the final opportunity for the committee to influence the list of possible actions that she will draft for the next meeting. She said in her opinion, the committee should suggest to Council that there is an updated range of a 200 dwelling unit surplus to a 15,000 dwelling unit deficit. After looking at Mr. Shaw’s work, she recommended that the committee acknowledge the UGR, ask for an extension to complete the placeholder work by summer 2000, and then look at sub-regional need in the short term, and any UGB amendments that could address that need, in order to finish up the two-year process. She said she would bring her recommendation to the next committee meeting for further debate.

Councilor Bragdon echoed Councilor Park’s question. He said the question relates to the resolution of Goal 5 issues, and he suggested that the Council ask for extension in the work program. He recommended acknowledging that the Council received the UGR, and that what it received in the UGR was uncertainty, and what will determine the range is the actual regulatory protection of lands. He said the work plan could then outline how the Council will follow through once the regulatory protection of land is resolved and adopted, and the surplus turns into a deficit.

Mr. Shaw agreed with Councilors Bragdon and McLain, and noted that the basis for the extension itself is the uncertainty coming out of the report. He said part of what the committee needs to do is ask for an extension and give a commitment to complete this process. He said the next question is the committee’s options, and Factor 2 relates to its options. He said one option is to wait until the precise amount of Factor 1 region-wide need is determined. Another option is to recognize that the Council will have to do some amendments, because some land will be protected as environmentally constrained, and then begin work on UGB amendments, and schedule adoption for after the Council knows the final need number. The third option is to hear requests for UGB expansion based on sub-regional need, and then decide if there are sub-regional needs so important that they need to be addressed in 1999, as long as the scale of Factor 1 and Factor 2 needs are not out of proportion. He said the fourth option is a combination: the committee could generally prepare UGB amendments, and consider a select, small number of sub-regional needs for adoption in 1999 before the Council knows the precise number of the region-wide need.

Councilor Park asked what would happen if Metro finished its Goal 5 work and adopted regulations, but it was appealed. He asked if land under litigation would still be buildable during the appeal process.

Mr. Shaw said Oregon House Bill (HB) 2709, which is codified, says to use historic calculation of capacity until there are adopted measures in place. Once the regulations are written, Metro can calculate ramp-up and do a good faith estimate, regardless of enforcement problems. Mr. Shaw added that an appeal would not change the fact that the Council declared the land unbuildable.

Councilor Park noted, however, that areas that have not yet complied with Title 3 are still building under their old codes. He asked if that situation was parallel to Goal 5.

Mr. Shaw said no. He said there is a ramp-up period in which the old code still applies; for Title 3 the Council gave an 18-month ramp-up period. He said litigation does not remove the ramp-up deadline.

Councilor Park asked if Metro’s control lies in determining the amount of ramp-up. He asked if the former Council could have made Title 3 effective immediately, instead of giving 18 months for compliance.

Mr. Shaw said yes.

Chair McLain summarized that the committee is interested in looking at a time extension, it is interested in getting work done on the environmentally constrained lands placeholder, and the committee has suggestions as to what to include in the work plan. She acknowledged that Mr. Shaw’s memo is confusing, and asked the committee to read it four more times and talk to Mr. Shaw separately before the next meeting.

Councilor Park said he is not ready to go to Factor 2 need without first nailing down the Factor 1 need.

Councilor Bragdon asked if last week’s agenda item about extensions on non-Title 3 items is returning to committee.

Chair McLain asked the committee asked staff to return with paperwork.

Ms. Wilkerson said Executive Officer Burton sent a letter to Tom Brian, Chair of the Washington County Commission, asking for more clarification. She said once staff receives the information, it will put together a report and Executive Officer Burton will forward the report to the Growth Management Committee.

Chair McLain noted that the Title 3 extensions are separate. She added that the committee is not willing to accept Washington County’s proposed buffer zone alternative until the committee is convinced that it meets Title 3 standards.

Ms. Wilkerson said Mr. Curtis understands that any consideration of an extension for Title 3 demonstrates no commitment to their substantial compliance approach.

9.  Councilor Communications

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 5:56 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\09149gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1999

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