MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, November 16, 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 1:38 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the November 2, 1999, Growth Management Committee Meeting

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

A copy of a memo, Functional Plan Time Extensions, dated October 29, 1999 is included in the meeting record. Chair McLain explained that this was a continuation of discussion on this topic with Elaine Wilkerson, Director and Mary Weber, Manager, Growth Management Services. She asked if there was any pattern apparent in the second and even 3^rd extension requests received to date.

Ms. Wilkerson replied that yes, elements included 1. Turnover of elected officials, staff, etc. creates a disconnect in the process that causes delays while new people get up to speed, 2. Jurisdictions have found that when they went out into their community there was an educational process to bring the public up to speed on issues, 3. Jurisdictions understandably did not want to do the same work twice, e.g. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) where the rules are about to change. She said that Metro bears some responsibility for not having completed RTP sooner.

Ms. Weber added that other elements include timing for requirements such as Periodic Review work mandated by the State. Wilsonville, Tigard and Hillsboro have just begun or are in the middle of their Periodic Review work and have folded Metro’s elements into their Comprehensive Plan, sometimes with State funding. It was a huge undertaking, even for jurisdictions of their size. Also, planning and implementation at the local level requires understanding of the process; i.e. why Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) or partitioning? As time passes and the players change there is a continual process of re-education of how it all ties together and why it would make the region a better place.

Ms. Wilkerson added that some jurisdictions have to use consultants to do this work because of their size and lack of permanent staff as well as a lack of funds necessary to do everything Metro required within the timelines mandated.

Chair McLain said that she felt the most persuasive argument for granting extensions was that there would be lost opportunities if commitment was not made, e.g. Sherwood, whose neighbors have dealt with Title 4, possibly leaving Sherwood more vulnerable in regards to competition and market. Whether the people who have finished the work got grants or not, they did do the work. Metro should support those people and not just allow extensions without conditions or other motivational tools. She asked Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, for his ideas on what these conditions or tools might be.

Mr. Shaw said that a unique situation existed with Sherwood where their neighbors hired a consultant and set limitations on big box retail, without their participation. This made Sherwood vulnerable and application was made to bring the circumstance to Metro’s attention. Conditions were set as part of granting the extension and as an exercise of the Regional Coordination Authority of Metro. He cautioned that this coordination authority should be used sparingly.

Chair McLain’s direction to staff was 1. Continue to regularly bring a list of extension requests to Committee, 2. Look at any tools Metro may have available, e.g.. conditions, and 3. Look for resources that could aid jurisdictions. If more than one jurisdiction was working on the same item Metro could help bring them together to do joint work and share expenses. Staff should be proactive to be sure jurisdictions have the resources they need. Make sure everyone goes through the same criteria in requesting extensions. While it was a case-by-case situation and different jurisdictions have different needs, all staff working with them should use the same process; no one should be able to say Metro asked more of one jurisdiction than another did. The Committee agreed that this was reasonable.

3.  Resolution 99-2867 For the Purpose of Granting a Time Extension to Washington County for Compliance with Titles 1, 2 and 6 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

A copy of Resolution No. 99-2867 and the staff report, Exhibit A dated November 1, 1999, are included in the meeting record.

Ms. Weber said that most of the planning work was done, however Washington County faced an unusual circumstance; when planting season ended and farmers could come in predicated when the County Board could take action on the issue. The Board is done for the year and won’t reopen the Comprehensive Plan until March 2000.

Chair McLain said that Washington County had given some responsibility to the City of Beaverton, especially for the Cedar Hills/Cedar Mill areas for planning. She understood that now they were considering taking it back - how was the transition being handled? Specifically which pieces are still undone?

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner Growth Management Services, said that in planning re Town Centers, Cedar Mill and Raleigh Hills actually have not asked for an extension – they have until October 2000. She understood that the City of Beaverton and Washington County Board have ended their Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA). Washington County staff had been working in Beaverton City Hall, but went back to Washington County - work will proceed from the Washington County office going forward.

Chair McLain asked if staff had a clear understanding of what it was they would receive by October 2000.

Ms. Bernards replied yes, she had received calls from CPOs 1 and 4 asking questions. They are in the process of citizen review and scheduled to come back to the County in March with any concerns regarding the plans. However, this was not the work for which extensions have been requested, rather it was for Titles 2 and 6 that were essentially complete and in the public portion of the process.

Chair McLain thanked staff for the background and catch up.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2867 to the full Metro Council.

4.  Urban Growth Boundary

•  Status of Applications

Councilor McLain explained that Councilor Park had asked staff to develop a matrix indicating the status of UGB application letters to help in the review process. A memo dated November 16, 1999 from Michael Morrissey, Senior Staff Analyst, The Effect of Passage of Resolution No. 99-2855A on Metro’s Legislative Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Process is included in the meeting record along with the following attachments: Matix, Draft Status of UGB Legislative Amendment Proposals; letter dated September 20, 1999 from Mayor Charlotte Lehman, City of Wilsonville; letter dated October 13, 1999 from Stephen Lashbrook, City of Wilsonville; Agenda Item 4.6 of November 9, 1999 City of Tigard Council Agenda including Resolution No. 99-73, Exhibit A (maps); letter dated August 31, 1999 from Mayor Gordon Faber, City of Hillsboro; letter dated July 29, 1999 from Chairman Tom Brian and Commissioner Delna Jones, Board of Washington County Commissioners re Ordinance No. 99-812; letter dated August 3, 1999 from Mayor Rob Drake, City of Beaverton; and letter dated November 3, 1999 from Jeff H. Bachrach, Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach and Site 65 at Bethany UGB Amendment Table of Contents updated October 1999. She said that Metro had sent a letter in August 1999 to all jurisdictions requesting notification to Metro of any plans and work they might undertake in regard to UGB amendment.

Mr. Morrissey said that his memo explained what the next steps would be if Council passed 99-2855B Thursday, regarding the current deadline of the Urban Growth Report (UGR), its status and subregional need. The November 18 Public Hearing begins the creation of the record and the Council’s ability to spell out how and if it will consider subregional candidates, or candidates that would be more appropriate to consider when the final need has been established. It explicates the steps necessary for candidates who have applied, or plan to apply to be part of the process.

Chair McLain asked Ms. Wilkerson to go over the matrix Urban Reserve Area (URA) by URA.

Ms. Wilkerson said that the matrix included everything staff had to date on URA proposals that officially have begun the amendment process. There may be other areas that people have expressed interest in, but not in a formal way. If a segment was blank it was because staff had no information available. Staff expected more detail to become available at the November 18 meeting. This document will be updated as necessary. Wilsonville URA 39-41 notices have gone out for a hearing December 16 at which time Council could make a decision on annexation and UGB amendment, if the Council so chooses. Staff reports were done on all but URA 49 last fall and were the only reports created to date. The Committee might wish to consider requesting further reports when anticipated material from Wilsonville and perhaps others come in. While Sherwood had been given a Metro grant, she believed they would not request a UGB amendment until after completing their study.

.

Chair McLain noted that Wilsonville had requested URA 39, 41 and 42 originally, but sent a second letter limiting their request to 39 and 41. As to Sherwood, it should be made clear that while there had been no interest from government, 50% of property owners and voters had sent letters indicating interest in URA 45 and their intention to attend the November 18 meeting. She felt that URA interest by citizen groups should also be indicated somehow in the matrix.

Ms. Wilkerson agreed it would be included in the next draft.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Morrissey to make personal calls to all jurisdictions and interested parties to indicate that the November 18 hearing would be an opportunity to place material into the record. She asked Mr. Shaw, using URA 39 and 41 as an example, to tell the Committee what, if that application was complete today, the requirements would be for timelines, notifications and process in order to act on 1. Annexation, and 2. UGB amendment decisions.

Mr. Shaw said that notice for the annexation application for Wilsonville allowed Council to take final action December 16. Theoretically the UGB could be discussed as well. Their Concept Plan was reviewed in 1998 and Metro could go forward on that alone. Mr. Morrissey’s memo included doing subregional work now and waiting to do region-wide amendments after Goal 5 impacts were complete. He felt jurisdictions should be asked to identify any subregional need timelines so that the two could be separated. This would allow sorting between now-June and June-October. After sorting it could be sent back to the jurisdictions for verification. Then, while jurisdictions were before the Council, the hearing could be continued to a time certain date that would be determined in advance (sometime in December).

Chair McLain asked the Committee for any further items they wished discussed and added to the list of parallel work to be done on review of subregional needs. .

Councilor Bragdon asked if, on the matrix, the “no” under “local government expressing interest” meant no action yet taken, rather than lack of interest.

Ms. Wilkerson agreed that yes, it meant Metro had not yet heard from them, e.g. Hillsboro UR 62-63 had been submitted to the City, but so far they have not taken action.

Councilor Atherton asked if any communities indicated that they did not want to grow, would Metro consider that as well?

Ms. Wilkerson answered that the matrix was put together based on responses to the Chair’s August letter.

Chair McLain said that there was a set process to switch land going in and land going out in locational adjustments. Metro was dealing with current State law; for land to opt out would require a change in that law. She said that 24 cities and 3 counties had indicated support of the growth concept.

Councilor Atherton suggested that it might be possible that there was a need to take lands out and that this should be considered at the same time.

Chair McLain said she thought that was an interesting concept and looked forward to hearing more about it when Mr. Atherton had a solution.

Councilor Park asked what the bar should be on jobs/housing balance itself, i.e. was 75% jobs/housing out-of-balance justifiable or 50%? How will areas be distinguished as to which jobs they may claim?

Chair McLain requested staff review Mr. Shaw’s memo dated September 29, 1999, Subregional Jobs/Housing Balance Analysis, that addressed subregional needs, particularly the questions asked by Councilor Park. The memo is included in the meeting record. She felt this memo captured the points for Committee discussion. She asked if more than one contiguous area claims jobs, e.g. if both Beaverton and Hillsboro claimed jobs, who would be awarded the jobs, the first claimant, the one within 25 minutes travel-time, or? What criteria would the Committee use to referee between them?

Ms. Wilkerson agreed that staff would put together criteria as to how to deal with that sort of overlap, as well as what constitutes a significant imbalance in terms of jobs/housing ratio. They will also assess the subregional needs analysis issue in view of material that comes in November 18.

Chair McLain said that a summary of areas with jobs/housing imbalance that were identified over the past 3 years through work on Urban Reserve, 1997 Growth Report and Update was needed. This would allow Committee members who were not part of the earlier work to understand what this agency already knows. In addition, she asked that staff review all subregional needs applications to ascertain the legitimacy of the data used in support of the request.

Councilor Atherton asked if the City of Cornelius had been sent a letter.

Chair McLain said that the letter was sent to all 24 jurisdictions and 3 counties.

Councilor Atherton said he asked because of conversations that he had last week with people from Washington County in terms of Jobs/Housing imbalance and a significant number of people commuting from Cornelius going South and East. He wondered why no request had come from Cornelius.

Chair McLain said that there was an URSA, 30 acres in size North of Cornelius that was requested when UR decisions were made a couple of years back. That particular industrial piece did not make the cut. Cornelius has indicated that in the future that they may be back with another request for industrial land, but at the present time they have made no official request. She said she had just done a Metro Update at Cornelius City Council 2 weeks ago.

Ms. Wilkerson summarized the Committee’s requests; at the November 18 hearing Metro expects a lot of information to come in, including, hopefully, more on subregional needs from areas that think that they can support that need. The next Growth Management Committee meeting will be December 7. Staff will produce a report for this meeting that deals with the overall issues, including the two introduced by Councilor Park. Staff will also summarize the information received November 18, along with a response to that information so that the Committee can assess the subregional need analysis issue; just that issue, not the Goal 14 factors overall.

Councilor Bragdon wanted to be sure that parties interested in the hearing schedule would get a realistic idea of what to expect.

Chair McLain said she expects to go over the schedule with Mr. Morrissey and Council Presiding Officer Monroe to lay out such a schedule for both the Council’s and the Committee’s plans for work to be done between November 18 and December 16 - what issues will be on the agendas. This information will be available at the November 18 Council meeting for interested parties, as well as disseminated to the appropriate jurisdictions. A time certain will be set for the second public hearing. She also expected some discussion would have to be held over into January due to quantity of material and the Committee’s desire to do a thorough and comprehensive review.

Mr. Shaw suggested that it might be useful to have staff list dates where Council could fit date certain into their schedule as well as handout background information on how the Committee reached the decision.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Morrissey to work on dates and background for Council.

5.    MPAC Update

Chair McLain asked Ms Wilkerson to give a report on final action items decided at the MPAC meeting.

Ms. Wilkerson reported RTP would be on the next MPAC calendar for disposition, hopefully at December 8 meeting. January 12 was set for an off-site meeting to review MPACs effectiveness, expectations and identify major policy issues for 2000. The group unanimously accepted the UGR and recommended the extension request be accepted. They discussed creating a subcommittee to look at Metro’s work plan/timelines to ensure MPAC and local jurisdictions’ ownership of the matters.

Chair McLain suggested that staff should give MPAC any appropriate information for review.

Ms. Wilkerson said that staff worked on 4 items in the context of extension. The first two, Goal 5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Job/Housing balance have been before both Committee and MPAC. The other two, Density for Environmentally Constrained Lands and ADU have been put together. She asked for direction on distribution of the package.

Chair McLain felt it would be useful to give the Committee the material for informal review. If anyone felt more discussion was needed it could be done December 7.

Ms. Wilkerson expected to have the package ready as early as tomorrow.

Councilor Park requested clarification regarding the subcommittee –was it a subcommittee of MPAC and would the material go back through regular MPAC channels?

Ms. Wilkerson said that Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) will review the extension request, (if Council adopts the Resolution), on either December 16 or 17. The MPAC subcommittee would report back briefly to MPAC on December 8 and hopefully approve without much discussion, as that meeting will be primarily devoted to RTP.

Chair McLain said the subcommittee was formed just to review the documents discussed at the MPAC meeting and to make sure they understood what was included. If they have additional information it could possibly be done during the extension time..

6.  Councilor Communications

Councilor Park brought up Resolution 99-2855AB for some language clean up. In discussion with Homebuilders and others there was some concern about making the document internally consistent and easier to read by those without the same access to documents referred to in the resolution. Hopefully these changes would clarify the resolution for LCDC as well.

Chair McLain approved and appreciated the changes. She said that there was more parallelism and clarity. She was concerned about the 20-year housing capacity inside the UGB including the final review of the 1997 UGR update. She said that the Committee must get this done prior to the end of this year. She asked Mr. Shaw if it was appropriate to make a motion to this.

Mr. Shaw said that since it was not an agenda item, it was appropriate to make the 2855B-version amendment before Council and indicate the Chair’s support of the cleanup at that time.

Councilor Bragdon indicated his support as well.

Chair McLain asked committee if there were any additional issues or staff requests that Committee felt would help in reviewing the need assessment.

Councilor Park asked Ms. Wilkerson if she still felt, in view of the hiring freeze, that staff could still meet the deadlines facing Metro - were the extension deadlines still realistic?

Ms. Wilkerson said that staff has been given instructions on 0-based budget and resources assigned to the highest priorities. Goal 5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and completion of the UGB process are the department’s highest priority, and will have to let other things go. Other departments have also offered help. Staff plans to go outside Metro, and with some creativity they will make the schedule.

Chair McLain said that Council has prioritized Metro’s work; there will be opportunities for further decisions as to how much work will get done. Choices must be made on what can be done with limited resources. She thanked Mr. Turpel and Ms. Wilkerson for the thorough work they have done to date in the pre-budget process.

Mr. Shaw reported on the Title 3 Appeal that came down last Friday. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) opinion deferred the issue of whether Title 3 amendments complied with Goal 5, a major issue raised by opponents. They deferred to LCDC since they are considering Metro’s Regional Framework Plan of which Title 3 is a part. Counsel does not agree with the opinion and thinks Metro has 2-3 options going forward. He said that given the Council’s extremely heavy session Thursday, it was hoped to have an executive session at the informal next Tuesday. Staff will prepare a recommendation as to options and legal strategy for this session.

Chair McLain suggested that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ken Helm, who did most of the work on this appeal, would be available to discussion it if Committee members desired.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 2:58 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\11169gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1999

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