MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, November 2, 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 1:35 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the October 5 and 19, 1999, Growth Management Committee Meetings

2.  Annexation Process and Timelines

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner Growth Management Services, presented a staff memo entitled Annexation Process and Timelines, dated October 20, 1999 along with a packet of annexation forms. A copy of the package is included in the public record. She said that the packet addressed requests from people around the region asking about the process and fee structure for annexation to the Metro jurisdictional boundary, specifically the St. Mary’s property, Areas 39 and 41. The deposit, which staff has determined would cover the costs of the annexation process, has been set at $3,000. She said the bulk of the fee was to cover notice requirements as required by the statute. Two newspaper notices are required.

Councilor McLain asked if Mike Burton or staff had researched comparable costs charged by the Boundary Commission.

Ms. Neill said she spoke to Ken Martin, Annexation Coordinator Growth Management Services, about that fee and he had indicated that $3,000 was within the range; however, the Boundary Commission did not charge a fee based on cost recovery. Staff research showed that $2,500 was the average for the region. She stated that the process requires a minimum filing date of 45 days prior to being scheduled for a hearing. As there were no further questions, she thanked Ms. Neill for her assistance.

3.  Resolution 99-2855 For the Purpose of Requesting LCDC Approval of a Limited Extension to the Last Deadline of ORS 197.299 and Accepting the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update

Councilor McLain explained that Resolution 99-2855 had been before the committee previously and was taken to MPAC for further discussion. She asked Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel to walk the committee through the complementary amendments in line with the original resolution, but with certain clarifications and language refinements. A copy of Resolution 99-2855A is included in the public record.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, presented Resolution No. 99-2855A, with Exhibit A entitled 1997 Urban Growth Report Update, Exhibit B entitled Preliminary Draft Development of Measures to Conserve, Protect and Restore Riparian Corridors in the Metro Region “Streamside CPR” dated October 1999 and Exhibit C entitled Table 1, Natural Resource Protection work Schedule 1999-2000. A copy of the revised resolution and the exhibits are included in the meeting record. He said that the most significant change was the section where Metro Council accepts the 1997 Urban Growth Update and adds the language “with work to be completed” on 3 items; the density estimate used for environmentally sensitive lands, locations of jobs/housing and estimated accessory dwelling units. Staff would use the additional time to fine-tune the figures. Also, he said Richard Benner, LCDC (Land Conservation and Development) Director, had requested that any request for extension should include all of the reasons the work could not be met by the original deadline.

Councilor Bragdon asked if by specifying these 3 areas was the committee accepting the other factors, i.e. schools, streets, parks, etc

Mr. Shaw answered yes. Also there were other clarifications in the Resolve arising from its presentation at MPAC with suggestions from Mayor Rob Drake, City of Beaverton, and others. About ¾ of the suggestions made have been addressed, the rest will be addressed when staff has been able to contact the people who made the suggestions. He said that this was an effort to present the most complete version possible to the next LCDC meeting to be held this Thursday at 1:00 p.m. He said that if a ‘B’ version was necessary, due to further suggestions that require inclusion, then it would be presented at the next Council meeting November 18, at the same time as potential subregional UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) amendments are heard.

Councilor McLain said that she wanted to make it clear that these amendments came from a subcommittee of MPAC, but not discussed by the full MPAC membership. She said that it was expected that the amendments would be taken back to MPAC in order to validate the revised resolution.

Mr. Shaw stated that Item 5 addressed Metro’s work during the extension period for community building through subregional UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) amendments. It included a suggestion from Councilor Park that emphasized a review of both jobs and housing even though the statute emphasized housing to complete the 2-year statutory period.

Councilor Park suggested that the change from “will be supported” to “may be supported” should be returned to the former. He wanted to know who would bring forth these reports, etc. He then asked Ms. Wilkerson if her department was comfortable with the October 31, 2000 timeline set forth. He was concerned that the deadline is realistic, not to jam things together at the end to meet an artificial deadline, but do it right.

Elaine Wilkerson, Growth Management Director, said that they believed that they could meet it, and would come back to the Committee every 2 months or so to be sure staff was on track with what the Committee expected.

Councilor Bragdon said that some areas of subregional analysis, such as Dammasch, were already near completion – would these areas move ahead prior to the October deadline?

Ms. Wilkerson said yes, there are 2 types of consideration of subregional need and Jobs/Housing balance: the type where individual sites are looked at, and overall work on the region to identify any large-scale needs. She said that Council was not inhibited by this amendment and may go forward faster if all matters have been addressed to their satisfaction.

Councilor Bragdon commented that the Title 5 new wording appears to stress industrial lands surveys.

Ms. Wilkerson responded that the rationale was that everyone assumes that housing should be added where there are a lot of jobs; this was to clarify that it went both ways. This wording was put in to let people would know that both residential and industrial can be reviewed. She also said that it was more complicated to provide jobs, as it was not just land, but infrastructure and economic development potential must be looked at.

Councilor Monroe said he hoped that Metro and interested parties can reach agreement on a placeholder number and drive forward.

Councilor McLain responded that she believed that this was what the resolution does. She found nothing contrary to his stated desire in the work done to date; that the turnaround would be 9-10 months rather than a year. The other conversation necessary was for staff and committee to discuss parallel processes as jurisdictions respond and go forward.

Councilor Monroe asked the Committee’s advice on whether it might be advantageous to have Richard Benner, Director of Lands Conservation and Development C (LCDC) sit down with the entire Council, perhaps at the November 23 meeting, for a dialogue on the process.

Councilor McLain asked for Mr. Shaw’s advice, saying that personally she found both meetings the committee has had with Mr. Benner to be excellent and beneficial to the process.

Mr. Shaw agreed that it would seem an excellent time to have another meeting with Mr. Benner. He said that a review from the LCDC point of view of Metro’s request for extension and a Regional Framework Plan update would be useful for staff and Council.

Councilor Park moved to adopt the A version with his one word amendment.

Councilor McLain said that in addition she would like to change to a 10-month, rather than 12-month extension date.

Councilor McLain said she agreed with both amendments to the Resolution; a date of October 31, 2000 for the completion date and return to “amendments will be supported by decision record which includes the growth management department staff and reports.” Also Exhibit C will be amended to add the second phase to the schedule.

Chair McLain directed Mr. Shaw and Ms. Wilkerson to carry this Resolution to the LCDC meeting Thursday as an update with the understanding that Council will vote on the Resolution November 18 and have it to LCDC in time for the December LCDC Board meeting. She directed Councilor Park to carry Resolution No. 99-2855A with amendments to the full Metro Council.

4.  Resolution 99-2859 For the Purpose of Developing Performance Measures for Monitoring the UGB and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2859 and the staff report on the resolution dated October 22, 1999 are included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon commended this resolution as exactly what Metro should be doing now that the previous resolution was in process. He asked what the causal relationship between growth management policies and affordability was, or if there was such a link.

Mark Turpel, Long Range Planning Manager said that staff was proposing a set of measures so that if, for example, prices went up precipitously, then causes could be examined and possible corrective action taken.

Councilor Park asked about the profit margin factor – how do we quantify that? Are these issues addressed?

Mr. Turpel said that one of the substantial costs in building new housing was readily available serviced vacant land. If the Council wished to examine the components of that cost; staff could do so. He said now that Metro was asking the development community to be more creative and innovative, it would be more difficult to factor in the risk factor of untried designs on financial backing, etc. He said that the banking industry might not be at same point.

Councilor McLain commented that the committee has already agreed that first the foundation data must be identified, then it can be expanded to include causal links such as Councilors Park and Bragdon had mentioned, as well as additional data that would be collected as the process continues.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Shaw if this law was passed as an unfunded mandate?

Mr. Shaw said that 1. The performance measurement requirement came in ORS 197-299 that contained the 2-year time limit for completion of the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) amendment and 2. The way the unfunded mandate was written that this does not make the criteria. He would have to check back to be sure, as it was several years ago that he researched it.

Councilor Atherton then asked if Mr. Turpel had considered conducting a public survey with baseline questions to be repeated every 2 years such, as how would you rate your community as place to live today? How would you rate it 10 years from now?

Mr. Turpel answered yes, it was suggested that when staff looks at broader measures perhaps a report card for the region would be distributed to the public to gauge public perceptions.

Councilor McLain said that in discussion 2 years ago it was decided that statistical data should be collected first, then a report card should be considered.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2859 to the full Metro Council.

5.  Functional Plan Extension Process For the Second Time Extension Requests

Councilor McLain said she had asked staff to prepare a policy review of the issues involved in second and third extension requests in view of Item 6 below, a second request for extension from Washington County. A copy of the staff report dated October 29, 1999 is included in the meeting record

Ms. Wilkerson said that in the past 3 fiscal years there were opportunities for some financial support through a grant program of planning implementation of 2040, reserve areas and the functional plan. This current year there was no money allocated to that purpose. A number of jurisdictions have found it a challenge to allocate staff to meet Metro’s requirements while still performing day-to-day work.

Councilor McLain thanked Ms. Wilkerson and Mary Weber, Manager Growth Management Services, for the update on local government progress. She said it was important for the committee to understand the challenges faced by these jurisdictions. The information was also relevant to the Budget subcommittee’s work.

Councilor Park asked if there a correlation between recent additions to UGB and cities internal preparation as to participation or not and the staff time necessary.

Ms. Weber said that there was not such a correlation. When the Council adopted the Functional Plan it was assumed that local government could turn on dime and start up immediately. The reality was that it took 6 months-1 year to gear up for this effort; set up budgets, add staff, etc. Urban Reserves (UR) presented an even greater challenge in finding funding to do the work. In the case of Gresham they have the Functional Plan requirements to complete plus the UGB to plan for. She said that these juridictions could use any assistance that Metro could give them at the regional level. Another jurisdiction lobbying for UR to be brought into UGB was the City of Hillsboro. A lot of their work to meet 2040 requirements was done first as part of the light rail station planning. It continued as part of the State Periodic Review work plan, which incidentally, had State funding support available for the work. The Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Grant program also has funds available for Center plans, however the center plan does not deal with comprehensive issues such as minimum density; if there isn’t a Periodic Review pending a city has no other funding source.

Councilor Park said that in discussions with the City of Gresham he understood that the UR area work cost $200,000 in staff time above the $50,000 in Metro funding. It does take resources to complete this work.

Ms. Wilkerson responded that Clackamas County had spent over $1 million on the Regional Center Plan. Metro, together with Clackamas County, received a $.5 million grant from the Federal government for the planning of Gresham, Pleasant Valley and Clackamas County – and that still was less than the total job which was estimated at $1 million.

Councilor McLain said she appreciated the discussion and while this memo was for information only, these issues will be put on the agenda again for next time so that it can be discussed more fully with staff.

Councilor Bragdon noted that a lot of fighting was also being waged against the UGB by some localities. How does the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) relate to the Functional Plan – what portion of it will happen? How relevant was it?

Ms. Weber said that the intent was that Title 6 requirements would be part of RTP. She thought that was the reason for local governments’ hesitancy in tackling it.

Councilor Bragdon said that even if the financial elements of the RTP did not come together, the region still needed new street design guidelines.

Ms. Wilkerson said a revisit to the Functional Plan should be made in light of later experience since it was written to be consistent with RTP. It could have been worded better and expectations for street plans should be clarified. In setting priorities it seemed to be easier for some local jurisdictions to put off street-related issues while working on the balance. Ms. Weber stated that the Council would likely see revisions to Title 6 by the end of the year from staff.

Councilor Bragdon observed that some things seem to get tabled by jurisdictions, e.g. accessory dwelling units.

Councilor McLain said that while the Council will work with the jurisdictions on extensions, they will be closely questioned if no accessory dwelling units are included.

Ms. Wilkerson added that Ms. Weber had sent out a letter asking for a specific response to items that these jurisdictions have not addressed. As to the question of timing, it was thought that peer pressure might help in the process. If it does not, the only option left was to ask for an exception or for Metro to enforce. At this point it has been identified as a possible issue only. Ms. Weber stated that staff was preparing a piece for the Committee and Council to think about on policy in terms of exceptions. It also outlines the process of mediation with MPAC before it gets to the Council.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Shaw to discuss these issues.

Mr. Shaw said that 1. The RTP, in effect a state law functional plan, requires new maps on streets, bike and transit system plans that didn’t exist before, and 2. The committee may wish to combine moral suasion of peer pressure and a proposed resolution of possible sanctions. Even granted extension requests may be revisited by the Council and amended.

Councilor Park suggested that staff might put together a possible matrix for compliance in spreadsheet form of “good faith efforts” by each jurisdiction for the committee. He felt the historical perspective would be useful for newer members of the Council.

Ms. Weber said that staff was preparing a narrative history since everyone was different; however, she was not sure that a simple matrix could capture the rich history of each jurisdiction

Councilor Park said that Councilor Bragdon had earlier touched on RTP changes, transportation issues for areas like Beavercreek that are not workable as there was only one way in and one way out.

Ms. Weber said that as the Functional Plan moves ahead with sub-basins and watersheds, it was expected that the Plan edges might move. This would be new task for staff to look at these issues.

Councilor McLain said that as the UR was on appeal, changing the UR has many implications. As far as the RTP, any changes suggested would be aired in that document. MPAC had suggested a joint subcommittee meeting between their funding group and the JPAC funding group where funding would be prioritized. She said that due to time limitations this discussion would be continued at the next Committee meeting.

6.  Resolution 99-2857 For the Purpose of Granting a Time Extension for Compliance with Titles 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan for the City of Sherwood and Requiring Actions to Assure Coordination among the Comprehensive Plans of the Cities of Sherwood, Tualatin, Tigard, Beaverton and Washington County Concerning Title 4 of The Functional Plan

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2857-A, City of Sherwood Oregon letter dated October 20, 1999 from Greg Turner, the staff report on the resolution dated October 26, 1999 and a revised letter from Larry Shaw dated October 26, 1999 are included in the meeting record.

Mr. Shaw said that inside this approval of an extension are special conditions that constitute an exercise of Metro’s authority to go beyond requiring a change in the comprehensive plans to measures to effect actions under comprehensive plans prior to those required amendments being done. It would require Sherwood to coordinate their Title 4 situation with their neighbors and should apply to industrial areas as well as employment areas. The principal was that where several neighboring comprehensive plans have been written and are in conflict, Metro has the authority to resolve the conflict. The amended version also adds the language “Industrial Areas and” in Item 5 and 7 “. . Building or business on land in “ and “Employment Areas”.

Chair McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2857-A to the full Metro Council.

7.  Councilor Communications

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:20P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\11029gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1999

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