MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), Rod Monroe (ex-officio), Rod Park

Members Absent:    David Bragdon (Vice Chair),

Also Present:    Bill Atherton, Ed Washington

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:37 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the November 16, 1999, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee Update

•  Committee Progress Report

•  Informal Review of Ordinance 99-833 For the Purpose of Amending the Section of the Metro Code, Chapter 3.08, on the Work Program of the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee to Extend the Time for the Committee to Complete Its Recommendation for the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Plan

A copy of Ordinance 99-833, Exhibit A, Work Products of the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) dated December 1999 and Staff Report dated November 24, 1999 are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain introduced Diane Linn, Multnomah County, 1120 SW 5^th, Portland, chair of H-TAC and three other committee members who were here to give an update on their work. She expressed appreciation for their past work and for taking time to come before the Committee.

Ms. Linn distributed a letter to Mike Burton and Metro Council Members dated December 1, 1999 from the Housing & Community Development Commission; H-TAC Work Progress dated December 7, 1999 and H-TAC Work Progress dated November 19, 1999 that are included in the meeting record. She introduced the other committee members testifying: Tasha Harmon, 802 SW 27^th, Portland, 97201; David Bell, 2164 SW Park Pl., Portland and Jeff Condon, Miller Nash, 111 SW 5^th, 97204, land use attorney. Ms. Linn noted that last night they had toured Multnomah County homeless shelters and met some of the people staying there. She said that people of all ages, from young people with children, seniors, etc., have been priced out of their homes and they have no place else to go. Affordable housing was a very important mission; H-TAC needed Metro’s help and support to see the whole project through. She believed they were on track to produce some very useful tools for the regional jurisdictions. They were also working on an outreach strategy in order to communicate their ideas to the community (region-wide) and assess the appropriateness of the strategies in development. . She said that a $40k work grant from Ginnie Mae had been secured to aid with this outreach work.

Chair McLain thanked them for their presentation. She said that the Committee had not gotten the H-TAC book in time to do a thorough read, but she assured the H-TAC members that Metro took H-TAC’s work very seriously.

Councilor Washington said that he was supportive of the request for additional time. The situation had taken years to happen and would take more than 9 months to resolve. He noted that he was just back from speaking at a conference in Dallas, TX regarding Brownfield. Most of the conversation there centered on affordable housing and how people could recover Brownfields to put affordable housing on those spots when and if they were able to. This was a tremendous issue and he was glad that H-TAC had taken the challenge on and relieved the Council of a massive amount of work. He strongly supported the time extension request.

Chair McLain noted that this agenda item was for information only, but would be back after first read at Council. She also supported the extension. One document would not solve this major problem of affordable housing, and every issue could not be addressed in this first go-around, but she hoped the extension would pass Council.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, said that this agenda item was at Committee because there was no other opportunity to come to Committee. It would be first read at Thursday’s Council meeting with a vote scheduled for December 16.

Councilor Washington commended Metro’s Growth Management staff for the great job they had done in this area and for their dedication: Ms. Wilkerson, Mr. Uba and Mr. Wilkinson.

Councilor Park said that in regard to Ms. Linn’s comment on the difficulty of finding affordable homes, the other side of that was that if Metro went with a different job type we might have testimony before Council to complain that property values were going down.

Ms. Linn responded that it was certainly a challenging arena.

Chair McLain noted that many of the Councilors would be at the MPAC meeting tomorrow night. By then they would have had a chance to review this information more thoroughly and could ask more questions at that time.

3.  Resolution 99-2862 For the Purpose of Appointing Jim Johnson, Clifton Deal and Todd Heidgerken to the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2862; Exhibit A-1 email dated October 20, 1999 RE: WRPAC Membership; Exhibit A-2 letter dated October 14, 1999 from Eann Rains, East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District; Exhibit A-3 letter dated October 28, 1999 from Todd Heidgerken, Tualatin Water District and Staff Report dated November 16, 1999 are included in the meeting record.

Ms. Wilkerson stated that under code requirements all changes must go before council.

Councilor Park said that he had worked with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Heidgerken and felt that they were both very well qualified. He looked forward to their technical and political input; it would bring new, interesting perspectives to WRPAC.

Chair McLain said that in Councilor Bragdon’s absence Presiding Officer Monroe was sitting in and would be voting.

Councilor Park will carry Resolution No. 99-2862 to the full Metro Council.

4.  Resolution 99-2845 For the Purpose of Appointing Karen Lewotsky to the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2845; Exhibit A, a letter dated August 23, 1999 from Hilary Abraham, Oregon Environmental Council and Staff Report dated October 18, 1999 are included in the meeting record.

Ms. Wilkerson said again that under code requirements all changes must go before council

Councilor Park will carry Resolution No. 99-2845 to the full Metro Council.

5.    Resolution 99- 2876 For the Purpose of Granting a Time Extension to Washington County and the Cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, Sherwood, Tigard and Tualatin for Compliance with Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2876; Exhibit A, a list of Title 3 Functional Plan time extensions and Staff Report dated November 29, 1999; Attachment A Future Implementation Options and Timing of Local Actions; letter dated November 24, 1999 from Tom Brian, Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County; letter dated November 9, 1999 from Tom Brian, Washington County RE: Washington County Title 3 Implementation; letter dated June 17, 1999 from Brent Curtis, Washington County RE Title 3; letter dated June 17, 1999 from Rob Drake, City of Beaverton; letter dated September 17, 1999 from Tracy Lee, City of Cornelius, letter dated November 2, 1999 from Roel C. Lundquist, City of Durham RE Title 3 Progress Report and Request for Extnesion of Time for Compliance – City of Durham; letter dated October 6, 1999 from Vergie Ries, City of Forest Grove; Letter dated June 16, 1999 from Winslow C. Brooks, City of Hillsboro RE Progress Report on Hillsboro Complance with Title 3 Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; letter dated November 30, 1999 from Keith S. Liden, AICP, McKeever/Morris, Inc. RE Functional Plan title 3 Compliance; letter dated October 20, 1999 from Greg Turner, City of Sherwood RE City of Sherwood 2040 Compliance Program – Draft Revised Timelines; letter dated October 29, 1999 from William A. Monahan, City of Tigard RE title 3 Time Extension; and letter dated October 4, 1999 from James F. Jacks, AICP, City of Tualatin RE Clarify Requested Deadline For Title 3 are included in the meeting record.

Mary Weber, Manager Growth Management Services, stated that Kendra Smith, Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) and Chris Eaton, Angelo Eaton & Associates, were here to answer any questions the Committee might have.

Chair McLain welcomed them to the meeting and noted that she had received a letter from USA, dated December 3, 1999 re: Adoption of Amendments to USA’s Design and Construction Standards related to Title 3 compliance along with Exhibit A revised The Agency’s Design and Construction Standrds, Resolution and Order 96-44, Chapter 3, Sections 3.11.1 through 3.11.4, and Resolution and Order In the Matter of Adopting an Amendment to the Agency’s Design and Construction Standards for Regulation of Storm and Surface Water Management Systems Pursuant to Ordinance 27, Superseding Portions of Resolution and Order No. 96-44 Providing for Administration of Such Regulations by City and County Entities Pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement; and Declaring an Effective Date and are included in the public record.

Ms. Smith thanked Metro and its staff for hanging in there and bearing with them as USA worked through the process. Environmental interests, the Home Builders Assoc. and various advisory groups had all participated in the process. She said they were pleased with the outcome of the packet. USA was looking at December 14 as the date of adoption, but the effective date would be pushed back a few weeks to allow time for training.

Chair McLain thanked Ms. Smith and Eaton for USA’s energy and effort. She said that USA had always been a good partner of Metro in water issues.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2876 to the full Metro Council.

6.  Resolution 99- 2877 For the Purpose of Granting a Time Extension to the Cities of Fairview and Wilsonville for Compliance with Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2877; Exhibit A, Title 3 Functional Plan time extension requests; Staff Report dated November 22, 1999; letter dated November 18, 1999 from John Andersen, AICP, City of Fairview; and letter dated October 4, 1999 from Chris Neamtzu, City of Wilsonville, are included in the meeting record..

Ms. Weber reported that both Fairview and Wilsonville needed time extensions to complete the Title 3 work for different reasons. Fairview was a small community with a small shop and had recently lost their planner. While most of the work was done they still have cleanup to do. Wilsonville was in the middle of a total rewrite of their code, which would be done in June. John Anderson and Stephen Lashbrook, Planning Directors for the Cities of Fairview and Wilsonville, respectively, were here to answer any questions from the Committee.

Councilor Park will carry Resolution No. 99-2877 to the full Metro Council.

7.  Staff Report on Jobs/Housing Balance Criteria

A copy of the Staff Report dated December 1, 1999, The Consideration of Jobs/Housing Analysis & Data Regarding 1) The Significance of Jobs/Housing Rations; 2) Overlapping Boundary Consideration; 3) A staff Review of Urban Growth Boundary Amendments Proposals for Areas Nos. 39 and 41, Nos. 51 –55 and No. 65 and Attachments: 1.Map, Town Centers (Regional Jobs/Housing Balance Analysis dated 12/1/99; 2. Memo to Councilor McLain, from Larry Shaw, dated 09/29/99, re: Subregional Jobs/Housing Balance Analysis; 4. Page 1 of Memo (showing Map) from Jerald Johnson, Hobson Johnson & Associates, dated August 1999 re: URA 65 – Ryland Homes Urban Reserve Plan; 5. Page 1 of Memo (showing Map) to Jeff Bachrach, O’Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach from Jerald Johnson, Hobson Johnson & Assoc. dated 11/12/98, URs Nos. 51-55; 6. Summary of Potentially Applicable Adopted Findings and Conclusions in Determining the Relevancy of the Jobs/Housing Ratio; 7. Adopted Findings and Conclusions – Ordinance No. 96-655E, March 6, 1997, URA Designation; 8. Resolution No. 98-2726B, for the Purpose of Expressing Metro Council Intent to Amend the UGB to add URA No. 65 in Washington County and an excerpt of Exhibit B (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) are included in the meeting record.

Elaine Wilkerson, Growth Management Services Director said that Dennis Yee and Sonny Conder, Growth Management Data Resource Center, would answer any questions on the report.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Yee how the transportation connection was handled, e.g. downtown Portland had a jobs/housing balance number of 9, a high number, and people were pleased with this balance at the regional core. If transportation improvements were made would that change the ratio?

Mr. Yee said that staff had found that historically the transportation issue was less significant than the jobs/housing balance. When the full report was done in June there would be several land use models that would provide the impacts to transportation needs. The choices that people made as to where to live and where to work effected the entire region simultaneously.

Councilor Park asked about the building blocks in the process – which model was cleaner, the overlapping-type job shed or 2040. Was there a way to use a percentage of one on commute time vs. another.

Mr. Conder replied that the deeper into this issue one got, the more confusing it was. There were ways to delimit trade areas, etc., but staff decided to go with a concept already in place (2040) for this interim report. The methodologies staff would introduce in June would allow them to show the impact of land use just as the transportation model does now. The model would identify impacts throughout the region.

Chair McLain asked if the size of the Urban Reserve (UR) as well as the location would have some impact on how it related to a town or regional center.

Ms. Wilkerson said that the impact on the analysis overall when adding a small area would be very small because of its size. Conversely, a huge area coming in would have more import on the relationship of overlapping areas and conflicting analysis. Staff would make this a dynamic analysis so that if Metro added an area, then that area would be a component of the next analysis. There were overlapping areas; just because jobs were added near the area where people live did not necessarily mean those people would have the jobs. What was required was to balance opportunities in such a way that people were not forced to travel long distances.

She said jobs/housing balance was often looked at in context of what it does to travel patterns, but more than that was the question of balanced communities. It was reasonable to expect a downtown area to have more jobs than housing, but by including housing a safe environment was created for evening use of the area. Regional Centers should have the same balance. When staff worked on policy analysis with the Council next Spring these were some of the issues that should be examined.

Chair McLain said that in UR 65 proponents believed their geographic area needed more housing to balance jobs, yet the Bethany Town Center appeared to be a housing rich town center, with no jobs. How would the jobs/housing analysis work in this case?

Ms. Wilkerson responded that in looking at the larger issue of subregional need, the Regional Center may be balanced in part by Bethany, but to make the Town center work in the long term, besides the ussue of additional lands now, the issue of more jobs should be addressed. That would be necessary to get the balance she mentioned previously. Using the Wilsonville example, a community identified as jobs rich, she said that a town center needed more housing as well as that town center area. It was important to look at many levels: the town center level, the regional center level and the overall level of regional need. Today Metro was looking at other than regional need on an interim basis, but next summer she believed the Committee would review all levels. At that time considerable additional information would be available from the research staff had undertaken.

Mr. Shaw said that the interim concept meant that Council took the legal framework with the 2040 Growth Concept as it stood today. When a more sophisticated version of the transportation portion of the jobs/housing analysis was available, Council might decide to amend 2040 in a conceptual way.

Councilor Park asked what constituted a significant size that would effect the area?

Ms. Wilkerson responded that URs were set up with the intention that someday they would come into the UGB with some expectation of use. In the next round she expected that more land would be designated as employment lands. UR 65 and 41 were planned as residential and to come in at some time. In these cases the size was not a significant factor in the decision to bring them into the UBG.

Councilor Park asked when did the cumulative effect become a problem. In Washington County every acre added as commercial/industrial land continued to make the problem worse; every acre added as residential land theoretically alleviated the problem.

Ms. Wilkerson responded that the overall need in Washington County would probably be for more housing and the proposals seen to date were for more housing. A certain number of jobs came with any new housing. Clackamas County might be a better example in this case.

Chair McLain thought that Councilor Park’s question was more to having extended acres of housing with no town centers with the 2040 concept of pedestrian friendly communities or parks, etc. Was the 2040 zoning in UR 65 counter to the request in front of the Committee?

Ms. Wilkerson answered no; it was designated residential. Also, the plan for the Bethany Town Center was still in process.

Councilor Atherton asked if staff had the ability to measure the regional need. Community needs were real, but could regional need be measured?

Ms. Wilkerson replied that in time Metro’s research would enable staff to measure that need. She did not believe that individual jurisdictions could solve the needs of the region. The idea that each community could plan for itself without considering its neighbors was not a valid concept. Planning today had moved away from the idea of separating uses so that there was no overlap. She said the answer was yes.

Councilor Atherton replied that his answer was no; that he would be testing regional needs over and over. He felt that a region was the sum of its parts. He asked what made Metro think that it could dictate to communities as to how they should grow just because there was a regional need to be met.

Chair McLain asked that this information and discussion go into the record for Council. She asked the committee to review the materials presented and be ready with questions and comments at the December 9 meeting.

Councilor Park thanked staff for their excellent work; he found it very helpful.

8.  Ordinances 99-829 and 99-830 (DRAFT) For the Purpose of Annexing Lands within Metro Urban Reserve Areas 41 and 39 to the Metro Jurisdictional Boundary

A copy of Ordinance No. 99-829 (DRAFT); Exhibit A; Exhibit B, Staff Report dated November 8, 1999 and Ordinance No. 99-830 (DRAFT) Exhibit A; Exhibit B, Staff Report dated November 23, 1999 are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain stated that these ordinances were draft for information only and would be carried over to December 9 for a vote by Committee.

Lydia Neill Growth Management testified that Metro had received petitions from the majority of land owners to annex these areas to the UGB. In Area 41 the two properties exempted had recently requested inclusion. Staff was awaiting a new legal description, expected today, at which time legal counsel would make the appropriate amendment to the ordinance.

Stefan Lashbrook Planning Director, Wilsonville read from written testimony, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. Charlotte _, Mayor of Wilsonville was also available for Committee questions

9.  Ordinance 99-812 For the Purpose of Amending Metro Urban Growth Boundary and the 2040 Growth Concept Map in Ordinance 95-625A in Urban Reserve Area 65 in Washington County

A copy of Ordinance No. 99-812; Exhibit A, Map; Exhibit B Map, Exhibit C, Findings and Conclusions will be available prioor to the final decision; Staff Report dated July 20, 1999 and Staff Report dated November 24, 1998 Urban Reserve Area 65 (Beaverton Area, north of Highway 26 and Ordinance No. 99-812A Amendments recommended by General Counsel are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain stated that this ordinance was for information only and would be carried over to December 9 for a vote by Committee.

Councilor Park asked if the whole of Area 65 was designed as residential.

Ms. Wilkerson replied that there was some greenspace included due to the creeks running through it.

Councilor Park asked if, when the work was done for the Bethany Town Center, was staff confident that the area would be in relative balance.

Ms. Wilkerson replied that it would be more in balance because of the jobs created by a town center. The plan presented also included some neighborhood commercial, several different types of housing and school sites; that would make a more complete community.

Councilor Atherton asked why the green section of the map to the north was designated as farm area – why was it not included.

Ms. Neill responded that she understood that the area was an actively farmed parcel and designated previously for farm use. There were also some topographical problems there.

Councilor Atherton asked if some of the other yellow areas in the map were being farmed.

Ms. Neill answered yes.

Councilor Atherton asked why the difference in designation.

Chair McLain stated that there were a number of issues: water quality, green space and Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) issues in the original decision.

Councilor Monroe added that other issues included the size of parcels and farmability. Some sites were marginal; farmers had testified that they couldn’t make a living on them. Several single-owner large parcel farmlands were taken out on the west side of 185^th. It was a balancing act of what should be in UR and what should not. He asked if staff found planning in accordance with Metro standards.

Ms. Neill responded yes, staff found it one of best plans received to date – there were no 2040 conflicts.

Councilor Monroe asked what were the buffers to the stream flowing through the site?

Ms. Neill answered that it was 200’.

Councilor Monroe asked what was the travel time between that site and the high tech NE Hillsboro site that included Intel, etc.

Ms. Wilkerson said she believed it was within 20 minutes, but it depended on the area and the day.

Ms. Neill added that staff had received a transportation analysis with the proponent’s request, and included recommendations for a series of improvements.

Councilor Atherton asked what jurisdiction was the area to be developed under?

Ms. Neill responded that the City of Beaverton had indicated that eventually they would like to govern the area and had developed an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Washington County to coordinate that transition to urbanization.

Chair McLain stated that at the present time Washington County has taken back those responsibilities from Beaverton, because it proved confusing to the public to have one entity in charge of land use and another in charge of transportation; more changes would be forthcoming.

Councilor Atherton asked if there were Neighborhood Associations operating in this area?

Chair McLain responded that CPO 1 was on the edge, also CPO 7 and others were active.

Councilor Atherton said that based on the letters Metro had received it appeared that the majority were against UR 65 inclusion in the UGB. If Metro adhered to the basic premise of communities finding their own solutions, not disenfranchising their constituents, this would not pass.

Ms. Wilkerson said that staff would check on the progress of the Bethany Town Center and report back to Committee.

10.  Ordinance 99-834 For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary and the 2040 Growth Concept Map in Ordinance 95-625A in Urban Reserve Areas 39 and 41 in Washington County

A copy of Ordinance 99-834; Exhibit A, Map of Draft 2040 Design Types; Exhibit B, Maps of URA 41 and 39; Exhibit C, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments and D Findings and Conclusions will be available December 13, 1999; Staff Report undated by J. Bradford with Attachments 1-3 are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain stated that this ordinance was for information only and would be carried over to December 9 at 12:30 P.M. for a vote by Committee. This would be an actual UGB amendment rather than an annexation request for URA 39 and 41 in the Wilsonville area.

11.  Councilor Communications

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 1:15 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\12079gmm.doc

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

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