MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, December 9, 1999

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  

Also Present:    

Chair McLain called the special meeting of the Growth Management Committee to order at 12:36 P.M. She stated that Presiding Officer Monroe would sit in for Councilor Park until he arrives; Councilor Park had called to say he would be arriving late.

1.  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.

Chair McLain stated that this was a continuation of discussion of the Jobs/Housing Report begun at the December 7, 1999 meeting. The jobs/housing ratio was one of the tools Metro used to decide subregional needs and issues.

Elaine Wilkerson, Growth Management Services Director said Dennis Yee and Sonny Conder, Growth Management Data Resource Center, prepared the report by gathering all information currently available at Metro and updating data from the 1994 Urban Reserve (UR) decision. They were also working on a comprehensive jobs research program that was due in June 2000.

Councilor Bragdon asked if impact on the transportation system was the primary significance.

Mr. Conder said that after much discussion staff had decided to let the numbers stand as defined in the 1997 Urban Reserve Report: 1.88, just over 2 and 3, which was defined as “whopping”. In certain circumstances a favorable jobs/housing balance would make the transportation system more efficient. He said that in the advanced modeling that staff would complete next June this balance had an effect on housing prices, 10-year splits and perhaps even transit use. From a public welfare viewpoint it could be very significant.

Councilor Bragdon asked what was wrong with having a jobs/housing imbalance - did it effect transportation and could it be a drag on the economy if people can’t afford to live near where they work. Also as the circumstances differ in different cases, do different measures make sense?

Mr. Conder said that this was the reason staff was developing more powerful tools to deal with these issues. A so-called jobs/housing imbalance could have identical numbers in 2 different places, but circumstances might call for a different response.

Ms. Wilkerson added that a jobs/housing balance was not just a transportation issue – it was a community issue. If jobs were located in one place with housing in another, then pedestrian strolling in the evening would not be safe; getting people back and forth was not enough. Historically Metro has had a more narrow focus. The Council should make the determination of what calculated imbalance was significant enough to allow a UGB amendment. She said that Councilor Bragdon’s question was much broader and would require a lot of work to answer. This report was a preliminary step to help Council reach an interim conclusion.

Councilor Bragdon agreed and said another question was jobs/housing for whom? The building of high-income homes would not help lower wage job-holders in the community. He said that this was an important point.

Ms. Wilkerson said she was pleased to hear that. MPAC spent time discussing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the jobs/housing balance. The committee recognized that it was a question of earning power and housing cost, not just numbers. Staff’s challenge was to develop the tools to help Council with this process.

Larry Shaw, Office of General Counsel, stated that he had just distributed a copy of a Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) rule change to Council dated November 15 but just received by Metro due to clerical error. While he had not yet read it, he had been told that, at least at the State level, the jobs/housing balance issue might be revisited.

Councilor Bragdon asked if consultant information was audited for accuracy?

Ms. Wilkerson responded that this report compared staff analysis with that of applicants and/or their consultants. For future applications the committee should simply direct staff to make such analysis as submissions came in.

Chair McLain said she believed that Councilor Park and the Committee had requested staff to review specific items dealing with issues to be decided in December-January and directed them to continue to perform that analysis as each request came in.

Mr. Shaw mentioned that a long-range facility plan had been faxed in yesterday from a consultant of Wilsonville school district, McKeever/Morris.

Chair McLain directed that all new information should be entered into the public record. She stated that this staff report provided a public review of the submittals brought in by proponents. There were some areas of general agreement and some areas where the facts presented were inconclusive.

Councilor Bragdon asked how double dipping, i.e. two claimants for a particular area, was guarded against.

Ms. Wilkerson responded that this point had been discussed at length at the Tuesday meeting; in essence in a small area review it was not a problem because impact was not significant. As the number of small areas compounded, staff would revisit the impact on the whole. Until Metro’s approach to jobs/housing balance was determined there was not a comprehensive answer - this was an interim approach only. She hoped that the problem would be resolved as the Council worked through this issue. In Metro’s analysis the tendency was to look at the Centers as the focus from a jobs perspective, i.e. how far people might drive, while in housing proposals the area was examined.

Mr. Shaw said that Council and staff learned from both data and policy changes. In the future Metro might need to look at a mini version of what was done in downtown Portland. If Metro made decisions based on the data available today, Metro could revisit the decision later and take a different approach as more data came in. The Council made decisions based on the facts as they existed in a given time frame.

2.  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 opened the Public Hearing.

Stephen Lashbrook, City of Wilsonville Planning Director submitted written testimony and was included in the meeting record. He added that in a cursory review of city employee’s home addresses it was found that of 139 employees, 41 lived outside the UGB with the majority commuting in from the South: Canby, Newberg, Aurora, Woodburn and Silverton. He said he would not be surprised to find that this was characteristic of other Wilsonville employers.

Mr. Shaw noted that an internal memo recently generated by staff in response to Mr. Lashbrook’s letter estimated that approximately 32.9% of work trips originated outside of Wilsonville. The memo is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain closed the Public Hearing.

As there were no questions from the Committee, Chair McLain said it was appropriate that the Committee comment on their reasons for sending the Ordinance to Council for a vote.

Councilor Bragdon said he had visited both sites. He believed that this was an opportunity to do some community building in an area where it makes sense from the standpoint of existing jobs, transportation, etc. He felt that the City had done a good job in making their case.

Chair McLain stated that she would also vote yes. Whether looked at in the big or small framework it was apparent that the areas were job rich and the need existed to correct the housing imbalance. It was a sterling example of a good UGB amendment; the plan was complete and the jurisdiction that would carry it out had done all of the hard work needed in regard to transportation and school issues.

Councilor Park said he was surprised by Mr Lashbrook’s testimony; he had expected the percentage of people commuting to work would be even higher on the UGB boundary. He felt it would be interesting to track the percentage in other areas and hoped that in 15-20 years it would have proved to work out as well as everyone thought it would. He said that he too was in favor of this ordinance.

Chair McLain will carry Ordinance No. 99-834 to the full Metro Council.

3.  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-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.

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner Growth Management, noted that the 3-acre Nolte piece had been removed at the property owner’s request as they did not wish to be included in the UGB or annexation request.

Chair McLain opened public testimony.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends, asked that URA 65 be turned down at this time. She felt it was not legally justifiable and set bad precedent. The Council had recently adopted a resolution accepting the Urban Growth Report (UGR) and its 1999 update. The report concluded that there was no need for an UGB expansion in the region at this time. Nor did she think that a subregional need for expansion had been established at this time. Staff had testified that the Beaverton area was jobs rich and could not be justified for housing.

She said that the applicant’s own study relied on the employment base of Hillsboro to support a need for housing. Presumably this was the same employment base that Hillsboro had used to justify its need for more housing. She urged the Committee not to let these important policy decisions be made in the context of individual applications. She said that the arguments Ms. Wilkerson had given on Ordinance No. 99-834 were also valid for this amendment; a comprehensive approach to jobs/housing had not been developed. She urged the Committee to wait until that work was done.

At Tuesday’s Growth Management meeting on UGR 65 someone testified that this was marginal farmland. However, the record contained a letter from the Department of Agriculture that described this area as having prime and high value soils. She said his was not marginal farmland.

Councilor Park asked if Ms. McCurdy’s testimony was that Beaverton was jobs rich?

Ms. McCurdy replied that what she meant was housing rich, if she said jobs, she had misspoke.

Jeff Bachrach, McKeever/Morris, Inc. testified that he represented proponents of URA 65. He said that it was stated that the jobs/housing figures were based on the Hillsboro Regional Center; that was not accurate. The original November 1998 Hobson Johnson report defined an entire Beaverton Regional Center area. The exact same area was defined in the August 1999 Update. Some numbers were updated, but the same area was used. Metro staff then asked Hobson Johnson to analyze jobs/housing using a different job shed; for which they produced the October 1999 supplement that showed what was defined as a Northern Washington County job shed. That job shed included portions of the Northern Hillsboro Regional Center as well as portions of the Beaverton Regional Center, based on a drive-time job shed, not on Regional center boundaries.

He said the primary approach that proponents had suggested be used for policy and legal reasons was the Regional center approach. In 1997 Metro defined the Hillsboro Regional Center to determine a jobs/housing imbalance. Metro adopted regional centers for job sheds. That was repeated in December 1998 when Metro adopted the Resolutions of Intent. The only difference between staff and Hobson Johnson’s conclusions was to use different boundaries for the Beaverton Regional Center area. He said that Mr. Yee and Mr. Conder used the same data, the same methodology and ultimately came to the same conclusions. The question for the Council was which was the better geographic boundary.

Mr. Bachrach stated that there was no overlap between Hillsboro and Beaverton; it stood on its own. Secondly, it was the boundary Metro relied on in 1997 when it adopted the Urban Reserve decision as well as the resolution of intent adopted in 1998. Beaverton and Hillsboro have relied on this boundary in all the planning that they have done. It was the same boundary these cities have asked Metro to recognize and adopt. He said that there was more history and substance to this boundary. The boundary that Metro staff used in their report was defined on a 1994 map in an arbitrary manner and they made some mistakes, e.g. the key town center area was Bethany, but with different boundaries than those used by Washington County in their Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Hobson Johnson mapping was better in that it had been through much discussion, a lot of review and worked over by local jurisdictions. The conflicting map that Metro staff came up with may have seemed reasonable as they developed it, but it did not correlate to what Metro Council and local governments had done historically. He urged the Committee to use Hobson Johnson as the appropriate boundary for the Beaverton Regional Center.

His final comment was to Councilor Bragdon. In determining that there was a significant enough jobs/housing imbalance to justify bringing in Site 65, it was not necessary to establish a number - there was no magic number. It depended on the circumstances of any given UGB amendment - where it was located, what the specific transportation issues were. He said Metro should not feel that a single significant number must be established and that number would create a precedent. The circumstances in this case justified bringing in Site 65. Metro would have to look at the particular circumstances of any other UGB amendment in the future and decide if that case warranted a UGB amendment on its own merits, not using the Site 65 number as justification. He urged a yes vote by Committee with a do pass recommendation.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Bachrach if Metro accepted the boundaries as laid out by Hobson Johnson and those solidify through further work, could the Council assume Mr. Bachrach would not be arguing to move the boundaries again – would he accept this as binding for the future?

Mr. Bachrach said one of the factors to be decided was if there was a jobs/housing balance or other need in this subregional area. There was not a legally adopted boundary definition in Metro’s Functional Plan or in Washington County’s Comprehensive Plan – it was the obligation of proponents and Metro Council to determine. In the future Metro might decide another boundary should be used based on the current data. The boundary was whatever Council thought it should be at any given time.

Chair McLain closed public testimony.

Ms. Neill stated that the applicants had submitted important additional information that went into greater detail on natural resources for this site. They used the new Metro Transportation Model, coordinated with Metro staff, to assess the transportation impacts of the site with recommendations to Washington County as to what improvements needed to be made adjacent to the site to urbanize it. They also completed an alternative analysis of various lands around the site.

Ms. Wilkerson noted that Mr. Bachrach had given her a paper indicating a condition of approval in the County’s Comprehensive Plan amendment was that future annexation to Beaverton was required. She understood that Beaverton was still planning the annexation, but at this point planning responsibilities had changed.

Chair McLain responded that the reason planning has changed was because the public was unhappy with Beaverton dealing with the land use planning while Washington County continued to deal with transportation planning. The Comprehensive Plan changes would be to Washington County’s Plan annexation at this time. She believed it was important to keep straight just who had the primary responsibilities and which comprehensive plan was being dealt with.

Ms. Wilkerson said that that the Conditions of Approval were in the County’s plan. Regarding the jobs/housing balance, she said Mr. Bachrach indicated that staff had asked for the second analysis. In fact it occurred as a result of a response she had given at a meeting where she was asked what she thought of the first analysis – if it was significant. She had indicated that she was uncomfortable with determining that it was significant because it established an existing 1.65 ratio while staff was working on something nearer to 1.88 as a significant figure. In fact the staff report suggested a range of 1.75-2.0 were the kind of ratios that might draw attention in the subregional analysis. The Committee had suggested that she follow up with the proponent, which she did. She indicated to the proponents that if they were concerned that her opinion might be that it was not significant, they might look at a different geographic area to see if that would resolve the question. They proposed the area, not staff, and in fact, the second analysis was much closer to the range staff had suggested would be significant

Councilor Park moved to recommend the Ordinance 99-812A with no recommendation to Council.

Chair McLain said that the Committee was voting on the Ordinance with the technical amendments made by staff.

Councilor Bragdon said that since he had made comments on this ordinance last summer he felt he should follow up. At that time he had expressed skepticism since the Council was in the middle of the UGR Update and a need number had not been established. He felt that the case made seemed as if it was written based on the existence of an overall need number; it struck him that the jobs/housing assertion was made as an afterthought. Another reservation was to what was planned to protect the natural resources. Metro has accepted the UGR Update, however there was still a very big question mark on the placeholder. As the Endangered Species Act and Goal 5 went into effect, there would be a need number. This particular site did not seem advantageous, in terms of logistics, getting to market, parcel size and adjoining uses.

He said that the developer had made a commitment to affordable housing; that was very important and in the public interest. Transit service was an important feature with ½ hour frequency; better than in some areas of southwest Portland. With the set-aside for school sites and protection of stream corridors, this concept plan was actually ahead of the jurisdiction it was in. He said that Hobson Johnson’s further refinements had resolved the jobs/housing issue for him. He believed it should be very, very difficult to expand the UGB anywhere, but when proponents did make the case and had a good concept plan, then it should move ahead. He would support the ordinance.

Councilor Park said he would let the process work. In many cases he agreed with Councilor Bragdon, but he did not agree with the filter criteria. He was concerned about how do you say yes to one and no to the next without clear criteria. He said that he would not be in favor of the ordinance until the mechanism was in place; it was a question of timing and premature, he felt, at this time. Metro should have a credible, understandable process; Metro was judged by how it judged.

Chair McLain said that she wanted the ordinance to go forward – it had been in committee long enough. While she opposed it she believed it should be carried to Council for a vote. She had received 75 calls, email and letters on this issue. She enumerated the following concerns: 1. After reading the staff report, the need for expansion was not established conclusively with either the old regional/town center or the transportation shed; 2. Regarding overlapping areas she had more questions now than she had originally. Again, whether using the large area, the Northern Washington County job shed, or regional town center she thought the needs were inconsistent; 3. As to Precedence, she could vote for URA 39 and 41 because there was a clear range of need, but did not find that need here. She said Council must be consistent. She agreed with Councilors Park and Bragdon that this Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land may not have as many credits as other EFU land because of surrounding land that included a community college and other urban uses.

She said that if there was an award for being creditable and professional and presenting an excellent plan, it should go to the proponents of this area. However this UGB decision was predicated on the needs assessment. A lot of work still needed to be done within the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, (including some recommendations made by the proponents), before this future community would be feasible. She said that she was voting it out of Committee to the full Council so that they could read the staff report and make their own decision.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Ordinance No. 99-812A to the full Metro Council.

4.  Councilor Communications

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 1:56 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\12099gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 1999

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