MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Rod Monroe, Bill Atherton

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:40 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the September 14, 1999, Growth Management Committee Meeting

No action.

2.  1997 Urban Growth Report Update and Possible Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Extension Request

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, reviewed the memo, 1999 Metro Options on Urban Growth Boundary Issues, written by Mr. Shaw and Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst. The memo includes information presented by Mr. Shaw and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain mentioned that even though the committee talked about option 4 more than the other options listed in the memo, the committee wanted to be clear to the public what the options are so that public testimony can be more focused. She asked staff to bring copies of the memo to all the public hearings at Metro and in Gresham, Milwaukie, and Hillsboro.

Councilor Monroe thanked Mr. Shaw and Mr. Morrissey for preparing the memo. He said he prefers option 5, and said he hopes the committee will consider it seriously.

Chair McLain noted that she is not asking the committee for an immediate decision; the memo is intended as a working list of ideas from which to begin.

Councilor Atherton said he is troubled by the concept of sub-regional need. He noted that Metro calculates a regional need because state law requires it. He said in terms of common sense, however, it would be logical to look at the sub-regional needs, and then the sum of the sub-regional needs would create the regional need.

Mr. Shaw said Councilor Atherton was partially correct, and in fact the regional need is a compilation of the aggregate total of everything that is happening around the region. He said the concept of sub-regional need arose because while Metro is compiling the regional need information, specific issues may arise. For example, it may become apparent that the town center of City of Wilsonville has significantly more jobs than residents. The Council would then have to decide whether it wanted to address the situation as a separate problem and add land to the UGB near Wilsonville, or it preferred to add land anywhere in the region.

Councilor Atherton said in that case, logically, if the Council added land in Wilsonville, it would need to remove it elsewhere.

Mr. Shaw said that could be true if the Council 1) accepted the current update of the Urban Growth Report (UGR), and 2) stopped the 1999 update conclusion at the front end of range, thereby concluding that there was essentially no region-wide need. However, he said, the Council has a range of need in which it knows there will be a need number, it just does not yet know what the number will be. He said in these circumstances, the Council would not be inconsistent to do some small sub-regional need fixes, as long as the exception does not swallow up the rule.

Councilor Bragdon said the memo is a good start in framing the issues in front of the committee. He noted that first, the Urban Growth Report has a big question mark in it due to the regulatory flux regarding fish habitat restoration and protection. He said in his opinion, to accept the report and move on is not intellectually honest, therefore he does not like option 1. He said he does like options 4 and 5. Secondly, he said it is clear from the data and through common sense, that resolution of the question in the UGR will create a deficit of land. If lands are protected, the supply decreases. Thirdly, sub-regional needs are being asserted, and the Council owes it to the public and local jurisdictions to fairly evaluate those assertions. In conclusion, he said protection equals expansion, or without protection, there will be no expansion of the UGB. He said it is not consistent for people to argue against implementation of Title 3 or the Endangered Species Act (ESA) while simultaneously arguing for UGB expansion. He said he is leaning toward option 5.

Councilor Park thanked Councilor Bragdon, Mr. Morrissey, and Mr. Shaw, and said the quality of their work is helpful in framing the discussion. He said at this point, he is not inclined to discount any option based upon not knowing how the local jurisdictions and other parties will react. He said he looks forward to further discussion, and that the public testimony will be interesting. He said he will have questions about sub-regional needs analysis for staff.

Chair McLain thanked Councilors Park and Bragdon, and noted that this is the first time the current committee has worked together on a major decision process.

Councilor Atherton commented that at the last committee meeting, he asked about accessory dwelling units and their impact on the regional need forecast, because the Urban Growth Report forecasts a rate of 1.8%. He said after the meeting, he checked with the Cities of Lake Oswego and Ashland about their actual level of accessory dwelling units, and he learned that their rates are greater than 1.8%. He said the City of Ashland has committed to make a concerted effort to document its experience.

Chair McLain thanked Councilor Atherton. She noted that Metro staff said they used the most conservative figure of accessory units, knowing that there may be more accessory units in the region now that they are legal.

Councilor Park asked staff to do a sensitivity analysis of the accessory dwelling units rate, comparing the current assumption to an assumption half as large.

Councilor Monroe said he was not clear whether the goal was that 1.8% of all dwelling units would have accessory units, or whether the assumption was that change in the laws would create an additional 1.8% beyond what currently exists.

Ms. Wilkerson said the expectation is that there would be an additional 1.8% in existing housing, and that 1.8% would be achieved in the new housing stock, divided by half. Staff decided to make an adjustment to the rate for new homes, recognizing that they should use a conservative assumption as the existing housing stock tends to have some conversion over time. She said changing the assumption on future stock to a full 1.8% would only add another 1000 units. She noted that her memo to Chair McLain, dated September 20, 1999, details staff’s calculations of accessory dwelling units. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record.

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

Chair McLain added to the meeting record a letter from the City of Beaverton regarding Notice of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Ordinance No. 546, and a memo of a phone message from Peter and Becky McGovern opposing Ordinance No. 99-812. Copies of both documents are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

Bruce Hollingsworth, 2431 Northwest 160th Avenue, Beaverton, said he did not come to the committee meeting to oppose or support Ordinance No. 99-812. He said his concern is to support the current infrastructure, and noted he is particularly concerned about schools, traffic, and recreation. Mr. Hollingsworth’s speaking points include information presented by Mr. Hollingsworth, and are included in the meeting record.

Martha Moyer, 16638 Northwest Graf Street, Portland, testified in opposition to Ordinance No. 99-812. Ms. Moyer’s written testimony includes information presented by Ms. Moyer and is included in the meeting record.

Dr. Susan Nolte, 17055 Northwest Springville Road, Portland, testified in opposition to Ordinance No. 99-812. A letter from Dr. Nolte and Lee Grunes includes information presented by Dr. Nolte and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park noted that Ms. Moyer mentioned Title 3 and salmon recovery, and indicated that she feels Title 3 is a sham.

Ms. Moyer said she feels it is a spin.

Councilor Park asked whether, if indeed the environmentally sensitive lands are protected in that area, and Metro then shows a deficit of land for future growth, would she still oppose expansion.

Ms. Moyer said she needs to see the evidence, and so far she has not seen any clear evidence why it is necessary to add this parcel at this time. She said she is not anti-growth, but she sees this as a “hole in the dike”; if urbanization crosses Springville Road, she can envision Metro being continually pushed until the UGB is at German Town Road.

Councilor Bragdon pointed out in terms of this particular application, the plans do protect the resources on this particular site. He said when he spoke earlier about how Metro should not tolerate inconsistency in terms of expansion and stream protection, he was speaking more broadly in terms of people who are arguing against regional protection of streams but who are simultaneously arguing for growth.

Councilor Monroe asked Mr. Hollingsworth if the traffic back-up to which he referred on page 6 of his speaking points occurred on Sunday, September 19, or Monday, September 20, 1999.

Mr. Hollingsworth said the date in the speaking notes was a typographical error; the traffic back-up occurred on Monday, September 20.

Don Guthrie, Ryland Homes, said he had not realized that the committee would be accepting public comment today, and had not prepared any lengthy comments. He said Ryland Homes’ master plan includes over 20 acres of playground, park and neighborhood openspace, in addition to the 200-foot buffers allowed for Title 3. He noted that Ryland Homes’ planned stream buffers far exceed the legal requirement for 50-foot buffers. He said there is also an 8-acre school site dedicated for the City of Beaverton. As far as transportation needs, Springville Road would be widened, including sidewalks and street improvements, and Ryland Homes would pay for its share of the regional transportation needs.

Jeff Bachrach, Ryland Homes, said the concept of sub-regional need is not new to Metro; it was a concept on which the Metro Council relied for several of its urban reserve decisions in 1997. There is already an established methodology and decisions based upon the concept of sub-regional need. He said obviously the Hillsboro regional center analysis is one of the better known and more controversial, because it was the justification for the urban reserve decisions that were made in Hillsboro. He said the sub-regional housing analysis done by the Council in the urban reserve decision was affirmed by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He said the Metro Council has a very solid legal and evidentiary basis for how it does sub-regional need. Building on that, a sub-regional analysis was submitted for the Beaverton regional center area last year, and the Metro Council endorsed it when it adopted the resolution of intent to approve site 65 last December. That was one of the key need findings the Council made to support its resolution of intent. He offered to bring in a representation from Hobbs and Johnson to answer any committee questions.

Chair McLain noted that as chair of the committee, she recognizes anyone to speak on anything on agenda if he or she submits a testimony card. She said in addition, the Council has designated specific dates for public testimony, and noted that the next public hearing will on September 23, Hillsboro. She said she would be happy to hear any more information Mr. Guthrie would like to present.

Mr. Guthrie offered to submit Ryland Homes’ most recent update of the sub-regional need economic analysis, and to ask Mr. Hobson to attend Thursday’s Council public hearing to answer questions.

Chair McLain accepted.

Councilor Park asked staff if they had reviewed the report on the jobs/housing balance on sub-regional need which Mr. Guthrie mentioned. He asked if Metro staff has done any similar work.

Ms. Wilkerson said staff did not review or comment on the study because it was submitted into the record after staff completed its reports.

Councilor Bragdon thanked Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Bachrach for responding to the points raised by the people who testified. He noted that Ryland Homes’ master plan supported many laudable items such as bus service, affordable housing, schools, and protection of natural resources. He said if planning had incorporated all those aspects for the past 20 or 30 years, the region would not be in its current situation. For the record, he said that was not his concern.

Chair McLain closed the public hearing.

Chair McLain noted that the Council received a letter from the City of Wilsonville asking the Council to consider expansion of the UGB this year in another area. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain asked the committee for its preference in regard to Ordinance No. 99-812. She said the committee can choose to send it forward to the full Council with or without recommendation for adoption.

Councilor Monroe said he knows that the committee feels it may need additional time and may wish to see additional evidence of sub-regional need, and that the committee may wish to act on Ordinance No. 99-812 at the same time as it acts on Wilsonville’s request. He said the committee could do that in a couple of ways. First, if the committee did not need more committee time on Ordinance No. 99-812 itself, it could move the ordinance to the full Council now, and the Council could delay action until the Wilsonville discussions and committee action occurs, so that both two requests could be acted on simultaneously. Secondly, the committee could choose to keep Ordinance No. 99-812 in committee and set it aside. He said the committee may wish to move the ordinance to Council if it feels it has had enough committee time and work on this issue and would like to get it off the committee’s docket. He said if the committee wants to do additional work on Ordinance No. 99-812 once it has drafted an ordinance for Wilsonville, it could hold the ordinance in committee and act on both requests together.

Chair McLain asked the committee for its preference. She said she is comfortable with either approach. She noted that a Council public hearing on Ordinance No. 99-812 is scheduled for September 23, in Hillsboro.

Councilor Monroe said the public hearing will take place even if the Council does not yet have jurisdiction.

Councilor Park said he is not yet comfortable forwarding Ordinance No. 99-812 to full Council. He said he wants a clean process in the sense that it is credible and understood. He noted he still has some questions on the sub-regional needs analysis. He said there are still many variables outstanding, and he is trying to determine the Council’s basis for approving or opposing expansion of any future requests to expand the UGB based on sub-regional need. He said he does not want the decision making process perceived as a coin flip or a political decision. He said as environmentally sensitive areas become protected, the Council will have a better idea as to which sub-regional areas will require additional lands. He noted that some areas have been designated regional centers, and thus are expected to draw employees from the entire region. He said the Council needs to determine how it will distinguish which jobs should pull from the region as a whole, and which jobs are sub-regional.

Councilor Bragdon said he would vote against Ordinance No. 99-812 if the committee voted today. He said, however, that he made a commitment to Presiding Officer Monroe that he would not act as a censor for the other four Council members. He said he does not support the application because Metro needs to do more analysis on the sub-regional need, and because he has grave concerns about natural resource protection in the region. As a courtesy to the others, however, he is willing to move the ordinance to the full Council without recommendation for approval. He deferred to Chair McLain.

The committee decided to leave Ordinance No. 99-812 in committee, continue working on it, and bring it forward to Council when the committee feels it is the appropriate time.

Councilor Monroe said that is fine. He noted that even if the committee voted the ordinance out today, the Council would not schedule it for action until the Growth Management Committee said so.

Councilor Park said he would be more comfortable leaving Ordinance No. 99-812 in committee as the committee begins to discuss the letter from the City of Wilsonville. He said keeping the ordinance in committee will keep public expectations at a lower level, and will allow the committee to determine fair criteria for approving expansions for sub-regional needs.

Chair McLain stated for the record that in her opinion, leaving Ordinance No. 99-812 in committee is not creating a procedural bottle neck. She said the committee’s goal is to make the process logical and follow in the best way for consideration by both the committee and the Council. She said she would reschedule Ordinance No. 99-812 when appropriate.

Councilor Park said a concern was brought up by the applicant in terms of public hearings. He asked if it would be possible to make sure that nothing is brought into the record on Ordinance No. 99-812 without notifying the applicant.

Chair McLain asked staff to make sure the applicant has at least 2 weeks notice before any Growth Management Committee meeting in which action is scheduled.

Councilor Park said Chair McLain had commented that if someone came to a meeting and filled out a testimony card, she would allow him or her to testify.

Chair McLain said she would never deny the public the opportunity to speak if they came to a meeting, if the item was listed on the agenda.

4.  Regional Framework Plan Acknowledgment: Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Recommended Clarifications

Mr. Shaw reviewed his memo, dated September 14, 1999, regarding Regional Framework Plan (RFP) Acknowledgment: DLCD Recommended Clarifications. The memo includes information presented by Mr. Shaw and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain clarified that she is not asking the committee to decide whether it agrees with the amendments requested by DLCD; instead she is asking for direction to Mr. Shaw to give 45-day notice to the DLCD, so the committee can have a debate and public hearings on the issue.

Mr. Shaw added that the committee also needs to give direction that it does not object to the approach to acknowledgment taken by the Office of Legal Counsel.

Chair McLain said if Mr. Shaw feels the approach is legally correct and can be done by Metro staff and the Council, she will take his direction.

Councilor Park asked Jim Sitzman, DLCD, for comment.

Mr. Sitzman said he has reviewed the issue with Mr. Shaw extensively, and the legalities of the approach are solid. He clarified that the “component” under discussion is Chapter 1 of the Regional Framework Plan, minus the housing section, the 2040 Growth Concept, and the portions of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan that relate to Chapter 1 and the 2040 Growth Concept.

Mr. Shaw said a letter was sent by fax to Richard Benner, Director, DLCD, from the attorneys for the parties that appealed Title 3 to LUBA (The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, the Realtors Association, and the Columbia Corridor Association). A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record. He said the attorney for that group earlier submitted a letter to the Commission raising the same substantive issues, essentially that they think Metro’s Title 3 violates Goal 5 by not going through all the Goal 5 process for adopting the regulations. He noted that both DLCD and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) submitted briefs in Metro’s case, as interveners, in LUBA, which supported Metro’s interpretation of Goal 5; therefore, DLCD, if not LCDC, has already taken the position that Metro is not violating Goal 5. He said the latest letter basically complains that their earlier letter was not noted in the staff report. He said the letter goes further, and includes a sentence to which the Council may wish to respond. Mr. Shaw read, “It appears that Metro may be attempting to implement Title 3 before it can be reviewed [by the Commission] and possibly changed. The Commission should not become a party to this rush to implementation.” He said they are requesting that LCDC consider the first part of Title 3 a component and complete as to Goal 6 and 7, so that Metro’s Title 3 can be declared a violation of Goal 5 prior to when local governments are required to implement Title 3. Since Metro’s legal counsel believes that DLCD, DEQ, and LUBA agree that Title 3 does not violate Goal 5, he requested authorization to respond positively and tell LCDC that Metro would like it to modify the staff’s original recommendation, because it would be advantageous to receive clarity and certainty for local governments.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Shaw to summarize the crux of the argument.

Mr. Shaw said this has been a long-standing discussion, and to settle the issue, Metro went for a year and a half to meetings when the Goal 5 rule was being considered, which amended Goal 5 and did a section that interpreted the relationship of Goal 5 to Goals 6 and 7. He said Goal 5 is a list of resource areas, including riparian areas and wildlife. Goal 6 is air and water quality, and can involve some of the same water and lands adjacent to water. He said because Goals 5 and 6 occasionally overlap, in the past cities and counties have done their Goal 5, 6 and 7 work together in the Goal 5 program. Metro and DEQ argued that this approach shortchanges Goals 6 and 7 by not allowing them to be treated separately from Goal 5, and regulations to enhance water quality to be undertaken without completing all the riparian Goal 5 resource work, which involves different criteria and work. He said an amendment was added to the Goal 5 rule which, in Metro’s opinion, clearly states that as long as a jurisdiction is regulating for purposes of, in this case, water quality and flood management (Goal 6 and Goal 7) and does not cheat and try to take in a lot of other Goal 5 land to try to avoid the Goal 5 process, then it can regulate Goal 6 and Goal 7 all day long. He said Metro made that argument in LUBA, he thinks it is a winning argument, and DLCD and DEQ both filed briefs with that approach. He said there is fairly strong support in LCDC that this clarification and distinction between Goal 5 and Goal 6 should exist.

The committee asked Presiding Officer Monroe to direct Mr. Shaw to support Metro’s position that Title 3 can be implemented before Metro concludes its work on Goal 5, at a meeting with LCDC on Thursday, September 23.

5.  Responses to Letters to Local Jurisdictions Seeking Interest in Special Need UGB Amendments

Chair McLain noted that the committee received a letter from the City of Wilsonville, which is the first letter received, with the exception of a letter from the City of Hillsboro supporting urban reserve 65. She said the committee will talk about the status of Sherwood and other issues raised by the committee members. She delayed committee action on agenda item 5.

6.  Councilor Communications

Councilor Bragdon said the presentation at Council on Thursday by Randy Pozdena, EcoNorthwest, rested on the affordability argument. He noted that an article in Sunday’s Oregonian newspaper addressed the complexity of the affordable housing issue. A copy of the article, Middle-class buyers can still find a way home, is included in the meeting record. He asked staff to summarize the information in the article for Council.

Chair McLain said the September 20, memo from Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Turpel responds to Councilor Park’s comments. She told Betty Atteberry, Westside Economic Alliance, that she wants it to be an open process, and she asked Ms. Atteberry to work with Metro staff.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:14 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\09219gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

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