MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, March 21, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Ed Washington (Vice Chair), Rod Monroe

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    David Bragdon, Susan McLain, Bill Atherton

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the March 7, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

Councilor Monroe said he would abstain from the vote, as he was not at the March 7, Growth Management Committee meeting.

2.  Resolution No. 00-2899, For the Purpose of Appointing Andrew Stamp, Chris Hathaway, Bill Gaffi and Kendra Smith to the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee

Elaine Wilkerson, Director of Growth Management Services, introduced Resolution No. 00-2899. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor McLain thanked the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland for nominating Andrew Stamp to the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC). This was the first time the Home Builders Association had put forward a candidate for WRPAC, and she thought it would helpful to in WRPAC's deliberations to have a full complement of members.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 00-2899 to the full Metro Council, as chair of the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee.

3.  Resolution No. 00-2914, For the Purpose of Granting Time Extensions to the Functional Plan Compliance Deadline for the City of Troutdale

Mary Weber, Manager of Community Development, introduced Resolution No. 00-2914. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Weber and is included in the meeting record.

On a separate topic, Ms. Weber noted that March 15, 2000, was the deadline for submittals of locational adjustments, the quasi-judicial process for amending the urban growth boundary (UGB). Staff only received one complete application from the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) to bring in about 14 acres around the Jackson Bottom natural area off of Highway 219. She said it was a very good application, and Council could expect to see it in early or late summer.

Chair Park asked if Resolution No. 00-1914 granted a time extension to June 30, 2000.

Ms. Weber said yes, extensions typically went until the end of the stated month.

Councilor Monroe said he represented the Growth Management Committee at a recent Troutdale City Council meeting, and had indicated at that time that a small extension, perhaps to June, would probably be acceptable to the committee, but not to the end of the year.

Councilor McLain said she supported Resolution No. 00-2914, as it was similar to other jurisdictions' requests for extensions. She noted that the city had a limited, focused amount of work to complete.

Chair Park will carry Resolution No. 00-2914 to the full Metro Council.

4.  Resolution No. 00-2915, For the Purpose of Granting a Time Extension to the City of Troutdale for Compliance with Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

Ms. Weber introduced Resolution No. 00-2915. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Weber and is included in the meeting record. Ms. Weber reviewed a document listing the status of Title 3 compliance for each jurisdiction in the region, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Chair Park asked whether a city, such as Sherwood, that has received an extension to Title 3 compliance, must comply with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) if it needs to change its comprehensive plan or make a zoning amendment during the extension period.

Ms. Weber said the determining factor was consistency. Staff would have to demonstrate that a comprehensive plan or a zoning change in the interim would be consistent. For example, if a city adopted something into its code that was contrary to Title 3's balanced cut and fill requirements, that land use decision could be appealed by Metro. But if the city operated under its current zoning and comprehensive plan in the interim, there would be no land use action to appeal.

Ray Valone, Senior Regional Planner, added that it would only be triggered at this time upon a request for a comprehensive plan amendment or a zoning ordinance amendment. If a use was allowed by right in a zone, then a city would not have to show consistency with Title 3 until Title 3 regulations were adopted into the city's code.

Councilor Monroe asked why Resolution No. 00-2914 gave the City of Troutdale until the end of June to comply with the other titles of the Functional Plan, but Resolution No. 00-2915 gave until the end of May instead.

Ms. Weber said the extension request for Title 3 was in order to complete public hearings, not staff work, and Troutdale only needed a couple more months to complete its hearings. She noted that it was also the beginning of a building season, and permits would be issued. She added that staff recommended granting no additional time extensions after May 2000.

Councilor Monroe asked if the important argument for a May deadline, rather than June, was that if the extension went until the end of June, a number of building permits may be issued under the old rules that intruded into riparian areas that Metro wanted to protect.

Ms. Weber said yes, one of the Council's goals, at the time the Title 3 maps and model code were originally adopted, was to have the regulations in place for this building season. As time passed, opportunities for protection were lost.

Chair Park opened a public hearing on at 3:55 P.M.

Rich Faith, Community Development Director, City of Troutdale, said the City had strong feelings about its request for a time extension to comply with Title 3 of the Functional Plan. He said he had the utmost respect for Metro's staff, but they failed to say that the City of Troutdale believed that it already came very close to complying with Title 3. He said when they first looked at Title 3, they considered making a case that they already met substantial compliance. He acknowledged that there were some differences between Troutdale's current standards and Title 3, and briefly elaborated on those differences. He said first, Title 3 addressed water quality and erosion control. The City of Troutdale has had measures in place since August 1994 for protection of water quality. Within its development code, the City had the hillside and erosion control overlay district, which applied to slopes of 15% or greater. The City required pre-development erosion control measures, post-development re-vegetation, and filtration of stormwater. Its standards required special water quality facilities to be constructed for any development that drained directly to any one of the four major waterways running through Troutdale.

He said the City of Troutdale's development code also included provisions for flood management, which effectively established a minimum fifty foot setback from the banks of various streams. The City of Troutdale believed its flood hazard standards substantially complied with Title 3 flood management performance standards, except for the following: the City did not have a provision for balanced cut and fill, and it only imposed a 25 foot no-disturbance zone, or set back, from wetlands, whereas Title 3 required a 50 foot minimum set back from designated wetlands. He concluded that the City of Troutdale's standards currently in effect substantially complied with Title 3. He noted that Troutdale regulated development on all slopes in excess of 15%, and prohibited development specifically on slopes in excess of 25%, therefore in some instances, their vegetated corridor may exceed Title 3 regulations, although the reverse was also true.

Mr. Faith said the basis for the City of Troutdale's requested extension was that the City would like to await the outcome of Metro's Goal 5 work in order to see with what additional standards it will have to comply. Given the City of Troutdale's position that it already substantially complied with Title 3, and that it had significant standards in place for protection of water quality and for flood management, the City felt it was only prudent to wait to see how the more extensive setbacks in Goal 5 would affect the streams and water resource areas within the City of Troutdale. He showed the committee maps of two specific parts of Troutdale, which compared Title 3 regulated riparian areas to the broadened scope of Riparian Goal 5 proposed regulated areas. A copy of the maps is included in the meeting record. He said it did not make sense to give notice to property owners and go through the full public hearings process twice, and that was the primary reason for the extension request.

Paul Thalhofer, Mayor of the City of Troutdale, noted that the City of Troutdale was the recreation capitol of Oregon. He said the people in Troutdale cared a lot about the environment and fish and wildlife habitat, but they also had a keen interest in people's property rights. Many of the people who lived along the rivers and wetlands, such as Sandy River and Beaver Creek, had invested their life savings in their properties. With the passage of Title 3, and certainly with Goal 5, their property rights would be diminished in many cases, and lawsuits would probably be filed. Because the City of Troutdale cared so much about both the environment and property rights, it moved through its public hearings process slowly and deliberately, and did not limit public testimony to three minutes per person during its public hearings. He said they thought Title 3 and Goal 5 should be considered together because they both had potential impacts on the environment and property rights. He said there was a very interesting situation in Troutdale: the pig farm development. The pig farm development, if and when it was completed, would be a star attraction for families and tourists. He said they did not know the potential effect on the pig farm development of implementing Title 3 in May, and then implementing Goal 5 next year. At least one creek ran through the property, in addition to wetlands. He concluded that the City of Troutdale thought that Goal 5 and Title 3 should be logically heard together, even if it meant missing a building season. He recommended doing the two together so that when it was all done, everyone would know exactly where they stood, everyone would have had a fair hearing, and the environmental and property rights issues would have received a thorough hearing.

Councilor McLain asked if the City of Troutdale had held any public education or open houses for Title 3, other than the one public hearing.

Mr. Faith said no, not exactly. Title 3 had already gone through hearings before the Planning Commission. Metro staff came out and gave a presentation on Title 3 at the Planning Commission. He could not recall whether the City Council had held a work session, but one hearing was held before the City Council. During the public hearing, the City Council decided that it needed to hold open houses or public workshops to better educate the public about the issues, because there a lot of confusion and concern was raised. They were preparing to do that when they realized the scope and magnitude of Goal 5, and decided that perhaps they should slow down and take a closer look.

Councilor Washington asked what impact granting an extension to end of 2000 would have on Metro's rules or staff's work plans.

Ms. Weber said the general direction given by Council to staff was to complete Title 3 implementation by the end of the year.

Councilor Washington asked Mr. Faith and Mayor Thalhofer if they wanted the extension to run through the end of the year, with completion of Title 3 compliance in 2001, or if they would try to complete everything this year?

Mr. Faith said the City's original request was for an extension of six months, following adoption of Goal 5. The request was made under the premise that Metro would adopt Goal 5 in June 2000. He said he would like to link Title 3 compliance to Metro's adoption of Goal 5 regulations.

Councilor Washington asked if the Council's original plan was to adopt Goal 5 in June.

Chair Park said yes, but the committee would discuss moving back that deadline during the next agenda item.

Councilor Washington said he knew that the Council wanted to complete Title 3 compliance this year. He asked if he was correct that not many cities had asked for extensions.

Ms. Weber said that was correct. A lot of the planning work had been done, and all the cities in Washington County and USA had completed their work, and most of the cities would be done by June 2000. She said the issues raised by the City of Troutdale, in terms of Goal 5 and Title 3 and doing the public hearing process twice, had been raised by other jurisdictions, but none had pressed the issue.

Chair Park said if he recalled correctly, when the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) voted on the issue of whether to tie together Goal 5 and Title 3, the vote was unanimous against the idea.

Councilor McLain said when MPAC discussed whether to separate or unite Title 3 and Goal 5 regulations, MPAC chose to go forward with the Title 3 work independently for a number of reasons. She noted that the same issue was raised by Washington County, which wanted to wait until Goal 5 was finished before complying with Title 3. However, Metro indicated that it was important for Washington County to finish its work on Title 3 and not lose anymore opportunities to protect the narrow Title 3 corridors.

Chair Park asked Mr. Faith if he felt that City of Troutdale's current standards pretty much complied with Title 3.

Mr. Faith said yes, he thought the City was very close to complying already.

Chair Park asked Ms. Weber if Metro staff believed that Troutdale's current standards substantially complied with Title 3.

Ms. Weber noted that the City of Troutdale had never requested an analysis by Metro staff for substantial compliance. In the staff report prepared by Troutdale before the Planning Commission, it said that over 800 acres would potentially be affected by the changes from the existing regulations to the new Title 3 areas. Based on that information, she did not think that staff would agree that Troutdale substantially complied with Title 3. Metro staff believed Troutdale still had some work to be done, and staff had understood that Troutdale had also believed that it still had some work to do.

Mr. Faith corrected Ms. Weber by noting that the staff report said that Title 3's regulations would affect 800 acres, however those acres may already be protected under Troutdale's existing standards. He said he did not know how many of those acres were already protected, but he would bet that most of those 800 acres were already protected.

Chair Park asked Mr. Faith if he felt the City of Troutdale's code essentially complied with Title 3.

Mr. Faith said there were only a few areas in which Troutdale fell short: the City did not have a provision for balanced cut and fill, and in some instances the Title 3 setback would exceed the City's setback, although in other areas, the City's setback would be larger because it regulated all slopes in excess of 15%.

Chair Park asked about Mayor Thalhofer's concern over property rights. If, as Mr. Faith stated, Troutdale's current regulations essentially complied with Title 3, then property owners' rights should not be a major factor.

Mayor Thalhofer said the average person did not understand that, and the City of Troutdale needed to go through a painstaking public education process. Unless Metro granted the longer time extension, then after the adoption of Goal 5 regulations, they would have to go through the education process again. He said it was better to move slowly, listen to what people had to say, and do it right the first time. Even if the City of Troutdale was in substantial compliance, which he believed it was, the people still needed to understand Title 3, what the City had done already, and what affects Title 3 would have. Then when Goal 5 rolled around, they would have to go through it all over again, unless they could combine the two, which made a lot of sense to him.

Councilor McLain noted some important issues that set this extension request apart from the others. First, balanced cut and fill and 50 foot setbacks around wetlands were major components of Title 3, and the lack of either one meant that a jurisdiction was not in substantial compliance. She asked Ms. Weber if the City of Troutdale was in substantial compliance with Title 3.

Ms. Weber said no, staff did not believe that the City was in substantial compliance.

Chair Park closed public hearing at 4:30 P.M.

Councilor McLain said it was very important for Metro to be responsive to its partners and help them do a good job. In her opinion, public education was important, but marrying Title 3 and Goal 5 was not necessarily the way to do it. In her experience, allowing Title 3 to go forward would help the public better understand Goal 5 issues later. It was better to explain twice than once, and to get the basic understanding in place. Secondly, many opportunities to protect resource lands would be lost if Troutdale waited until the passage of Goal 5 regulations. She believed the issue of property rights could be addressed by June, and she promised that Metro would continue to assist in public education through Goal 5 presentations and other outreach efforts. She hoped the committee would go forward with the standards that the Council had asked other jurisdictions to meet.

Councilor Washington said he would vote against the resolution today as a matter of principle, and face the issue at full Council.

Councilor Monroe said this was a tough call. He had tremendous respect for Mayor Thalhofer and the citizens of Troutdale, but he believed that additional time for hearings beyond two months would not bring the community closer to unanimous agreement. There came a time when a jurisdiction needed to hear from its citizens and make the call. The May deadline gave enough time to do that and protected the next building season from intrusions into fragile riparian areas. He said he would reluctantly support the resolution.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said he could not vote at committee, but if he could he would vote yes in support of the staff recommendation. He was respectful of what the jurisdictions had been going through, however Metro adopted Title 3 in December 1998, and the Council had been generous with extensions. All the extensions granted to date were based on specific, technical work plans. An extension for public hearings and to work out constitutional issues was very different, and he did not foresee a path to resolution of those questions in a six-month timeframe. He agreed that public involvement was important, and what he heard frequently from citizens was that they wanted the water quality of the region protected.

Chair Park said he would have to support staff on this resolution, based on the testimony he heard from the City of Troutdale. The City felt that it was substantially in compliance, and therefore Title 3 would not have much effect. At the same time, however, the City was concerned about property rights. He said he was confused, because if the City already had similar regulations in place, then it should have already gone through the public education and hearings process. Also, if he understood correctly the concerns about the McMenamin's pig farm project, that the current zoning would not allow for the desired usage, then any change in the zoning would have to comply with Metro's Functional Plan. Therefore, a time extension on Title 3 would not make any difference to the prig farm project. He said the full Council would hear the resolution on March 30, and the City of Troutdale was welcome to return with more information.

Chair Park will carry Resolution No. 00-2915 to the full Metro Council.

Mayor Thalhofer said during committee discussion, many of the Councilors emphasized Troutdale's concern over property rights. He clarified that that was not their only concern; they were also concerned about the environmental issues. The City of Troutdale was trying to strike a balance. He noted that Troutdale was very concerned about environmental issues, because it was one of the most pristine areas in the region.

Councilor Monroe said he had known Mayor Thalhofer for a long time, and knew that he was speaking the truth. He thanked Mayor Thalhofer for his statement.

Chair Park agreed.

5.  Resolution No. 00-2917, For the Purpose of Appointing Thomas Donaca of Washington County and Robert Traverso of Clackamas County to the Metro Boundary Appeals Commission

Peter Sandrock, Executive Analyst, introduced Resolution No. 00-2917. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Mr. Sandrock and is included in the meeting record. He noted that they were still waiting for a nominee from Multnomah County, and should have one shortly.

Chair Park asked Mr. Sandrock to summarize the purpose of the Boundary Appeals Commission.

Mr. Sandrock said the Boundary Appeals Commission, under Metro Code, received appeals from those authorities. There was now an appeal pending, therefore there was some urgency the resolution. The Happy Valley and Damascus Water Districts applied to Clackamas County for designation as a water authority. Clackamas County denied that request. The Water Districts filed an appeal to the Boundary Appeals Commission, and time was now running.

Councilor McLain asked where the nominees lived.

Mr. Sandrock said Mr. Traverso lived in Canby, but he did not know Mr. Donaca's address.

Councilor McLain said she hoped there was a balance of people from both inside and outside the jurisdiction. She asked how the Boundary Appeals Commission differed from the old Boundary Commission, and if the process was the same, other than the differences in the Council's relationship to that body.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said the standards for appeals were in Metro's ordinance. The Boundary Appeals Commission would look at the underlying statutes for the substantive provisions, just as the former Boundary Commission did. However, the Boundary Appeals Commission was required to take into account the adopted regional policies, including the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO). Those kinds of standards did not exist for the former Boundary Commission.

Councilor Monroe asked how the nominees were selected.

Mr. Sandrock said the County Commissioners in each county were requested to submit nominees. Washington County submitted the one nominee, and Clackamas County submitted four nominees.

Councilor Monroe asked who selected from among the four nominees.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said the ordinance required that the appointments be nominated by the three county commissions. The county commissions could submit a name or names to the Executive Officer who then made the appointments, subject to Council confirmation.

Councilor Monroe offered to move the resolution without recommendation for Council adoption. He said he knew one of the nominees well, and knew the other nominee slightly, and he had some questions to ask before he could decide whether to support the resolution. He noted that the Boundary Appeals Commission could have a great deal of power. He asked that Chair Park either delay action on the resolution, or move it without recommendation.

Chair Park asked staff if there was any reason not to delay consideration of the resolution for a few weeks.

Mr. Cooper said legally, Metro was supposed to hold a hearing within 45 days of the record filing, and the clock was running. However, the attorneys for both sides had agreed to wait till mid- or late April for the hearing because one attorney would be out of the country. He said it would be prudent to have the Boundary Appeals Commission in place by the third week in April. If this resolution was ultimately approved by the full Council, then the Boundary Appeals Commission could meet immediately and hold the hearings with only two members. If the nominee for Multnomah County was submitted before the Council meeting, then that nominee could be confirmed at the same time.

Chair Park asked if there was sufficient time to delay committee action on the resolution until April 4, and then forward it to Council for adoption on April 6, 2000.

Mr. Cooper said yes, there was enough time.

Councilor Monroe said he would be satisfied by Chair Park's proposal.

Chair Park said the committee would delay action on Resolution No. 00-2917 until its April 4, 2000, meeting. He said the third nominee from Multnomah County may have been submitted by then.

6.  Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection (Goal 5) Riparian Corridor Update

Chair Park noted that each member of the committee had received copies of the minutes from the March 8, MPAC meeting and the February 14, WRPAC meeting. A copy of both set of minutes are included in the meeting record. He added that the minutes would be distributed to the full Council shortly. He said staff would suggest that the work plan needed to be altered due to factors beyond control.

Paul Ketcham, Principal Regional Planner, listed the reasons for requesting a time extension for the Goal 5 work beyond June 2000. 1) Staff received volumes of substantive comments from local governments and Metro advisory committees on the Goal 5 proposal, and needed time to analyze and respond to each suggestion. 2) Many of the local governments asked that Metro slow down and allow them time to consider and assimilate the Goal 5 proposal. 3) Legal counsel needed more time to ensure the legal defensibility of the program. 4) In order to pursue Endangered Species Act (ESA) exemption from take requirements under the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 4(d) Rule, Metro needed to add a stormwater component to the package, which would take more time. 5) The 4(d) Rule itself would not be finalized until June 2000, and it could be necessary for Metro to make adjustments to its Goal 5 program and stormwater submittal based on the final 4(d) Rule. He said if it pleased the committee, staff would return in two weeks with a more detailed analysis of the work program and an estimate of the time needed for completion.

Chair Park asked if the extension on the Goal 5 component would affect the final timeline for the UGB expansion.

Ms. Wilkerson said staff would try to complete the work in that time frame. Should Council find that it is unable to complete the Goal 5 work by then, staff is pursuing other alternatives so that the UGB amendments can still be completed by the end of October. She said she spoke briefly with Jim Sitzman, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and he agreed that Metro should look at other alternatives if necessary. She said she was not in a position to say at this date whether the Goal 5 work could be completed by September, for example. She and Mr. Cooper talked, and they felt there were possible alternatives. Last time the Council amended the UGB, Metro was just beginning the Goal 5 process. She did not believe this need would influence the outcome of decisions on the UGB amendment.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Shaw how the Council would estimate the amount of land that needed to be protected under Goal 5. Legally speaking, when making a case for need for protection that was not yet adopted, how would that affect Metro's legal findings for need?

Mr. Shaw said Metro needed to be done with the Goal 5 ordinances and code revisions to put in the record by the time Council made the UGB amendment decisions. The timing and the overlap merely affected the quality of the estimate as the Council began the UGB amendment process. By the time the Council completed the process, it would need more than an estimate in order to comply with House Bill (HB) 2709.

Chair Park commented that while he agreed with the Goal 5 premise that all streams needed to be protected, he asked whether the protection should be equal. He said he wanted to distinguish between perennial and intermittent streams and man-made ditches.

Councilor Washington asked staff for a rough idea of when the Goal 5 work would be completed.

Mr. Ketcham said based on internal staff discussions, he thought they could have Functional Plan language drafted by early or mid-September, maybe before. He said they were aiming at that time as the outer limit.

Chair Park said he hoped that was the extreme outer limit.

Councilor Washington said this issue grew more complicated each day. He knew that Council had given staff explicit directions and timeframes, but he thought that this was not the easiest topic with which Council had wrestled. He wished staff good luck.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, said when staff returned to the committee, not only was the timeline important, but the committee needed to understand exactly what the issues were that were being rethought, or needed more data or new criteria. He noted that staff had already proposed its recommendations to the committee on five policy items, to which the committee gave a head nod. He said staff needed to clarify how it proposed that those issues be reconsidered, or what other issues had arisen.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said it was wise to assimilate the comments made during the February public outreach effort on the fish and wildlife issue. He agreed with Mr. Morrissey that staff should focus on the issues that were identified in the staff report and during discussions with local jurisdictions. He touched on two related issues that needed to be decoupled or resolved: 1) Metro's Goal 5 work was being confused with the 4(d) response, and while there was overlap, they were not identical, and 2) the extension on the UGB expansion was based on the need to complete Metro's Goal 5 work in a certain timeframe. He said it was very wise to say more time was necessary and to heed what was said in February.

Councilor McLain said Metro went through the same start and stop process with Title 3, also for very legitimate reasons. In doing so, they learned the importance of clearly explaining to the public the items that needed more time, and why. She added that when the Council asked for the UGB extension, it committed to completing its work, which meant doing parallel work in addition to Goal 5. She asked staff to clarify how that parallel process of the UGB amendment package would continue.

Ms. Wilkerson said only the Goal 5 piece would be slowed down, not stopped. Staff would continue on schedule, to the best of its ability, on the alternatives analysis, on the Urban Growth Report analysis of accessory dwelling units, the method for calculating density in environmentally constrained areas, and the jobs research. She anticipated that staff would have a preliminary estimate of capacity in time to give notice for UGB amendment consideration in June.

Councilor Washington said in regard to Resolution No. 00-2915, if the committee was willing to listen to its staff and grant time extensions because circumstances changed as a result of talking with the public, then the committee should also listen to city officials when they said they needed an extension because circumstances had changed as a result of talking with their public. He said these issues were very complicated for everyone, and sometimes there was not enough flex in the system to address issues that changed.

Chair Park asked staff to return to the next meeting with a new time line and with the issues narrowed down and well defined.

7.  Periodic Review Schedule Continuation of Discussion

Mr. Cooper said staff would have a proposed resolution before the committee at its next meeting. It was not necessary for the committee to act at that time, as long as the resolution was considered by the full Council by April 20, 2000. The resolution would request that the periodic review process begin, and would include as an attachment a proposed, non-final work program for periodic review. Under the proposed schedule for periodic review, Metro would complete its amendment of the UGB within its extension period, and would not request any further delay.

Chair Park said he had a question about a related subject not on the agenda. Given the circumstances with the City of Troutdale and other jurisdictions, the question of enforcement had come up. He noted memos from Mr. Shaw and from Ken Helm, Assistant Council, copies of which are included in the meeting record. He asked Mr. Shaw for a summary of Metro's options if a jurisdiction refused to comply with Metro's Functional Plan.

Mr. Shaw reviewed his memo “Metro Enforcement of Regional ‘Requirements,'” a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Chair Park said Council would probably be pushed on the issue of enforcement, and it was good to know its options.

8.  Councilor Communications

Chair Park shared with the committee that when Ms. Wilkerson was out of the building and in Salem she was working hard on behalf of Metro on Goal 14, with assistance from Mr. Shaw.

Chair Park said Councilor Monroe had made a request to move Growth Management Committee meetings to 3:00 P.M. because the Council Transportation Planning Committee, which met at 1:30 P.M. did not generally use its full time. Chair Park and Councilor Washington agreed to the request.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5:31 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\032100gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2000

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