MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, September 5, 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 3:06 p.m.

Mike Hammons, 20320 Southeast Highway 212, Clackamas, spoke in support of incorporating the area of Damascus. He submitted a map of Damascus, with the Damascus Water District shaded in gray, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He said based on an informal poll, area residents favor incorporation by about 3 to 1, with the goal of creating more jobs in East County. He asked if Metro would support efforts to incorporate Damascus. He also asked Metro to encourage Intel to build in the northwest corner of Damascus, if possible.

Councilor Monroe thanked Mr. Hammons for coming. He said he has long supported incorporation of Damascus as the best way to meet the community's service needs. He noted that while Damascus is in Councilor Atherton's district, he lives nearby on Mt. Scott and is very familiar with the area. He said he would be happy to assist or endorse Mr. Hammons's efforts.

Dan Cooper, Legal Counsel, said in order for a city to incorporate, it must be inside the urban growth boundary (UGB). While the County Commission will decide whether to refer incorporation to the voters, the Metro Council must also make a UGB decision.

Councilor Atherton said he has spoken with the Clackamas County Commission about creating a special planning district, in which Damascus residents would elect people to do planning and zoning, and tax themselves for it. In effect, Damascus would be a city, junior-grade. He said he is also drafting a proposal for the state legislature to expand the special districts planning law, to allow for the creation of planning districts. He said it is a local control issue, and he would be happy to talk with Mr. Hammons further.

Chair Park said the idea of incorporating Damascus is open to discussion, however there are many things which need to be considered. He noted that while Metro controls part of the process, other parts are outside its purview. He encouraged Mr. Hammons to continue talking with Metro and Clackamas County.

Councilor McLain encouraged Mr. Hammons to hold a community meeting and invite officials from Clackamas County and Metro. She stressed the importance of developing a vision about which people could speak and ask questions.

Chair Park thanked Mr. Hammons for his testimony.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the August 8, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  Goal 14 Administrative Rule Update

Mr. Cooper updated the committee on the August 24th work session of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (the Commission) concerning the Goal 14 Administrative Rule update. He noted key outcomes of the meeting. First, the Commission directed its staff that the 20-year land supply requirement means approximately 20 years, and is not intended to be both a floor and a cap. The Commission also created a working group to develop amendments to either Goal 14 or the urban reserve rule so that Metro is able to add a complete community, in phases, with certainty. Second, the Commission discussed how to do alternatives analysis for subregional needs. There was consensus that the current policy is acceptable. The Commission revised its schedule for adoption of the Goal 14 Administrative Rule. They added a work session in September, and plan to publish a rule redraft by mid-October. Public hearings are scheduled for October 30, and at the end of November. The Commission has not decided whether to vote in November 2000, or early January 2001.

Councilor McLain asked if the Commission gave more detail on how to prioritize land in an alternatives analysis for subregional need.

Mr. Cooper said the Commission's position is that the rule should be written clearly, so that once a subregion has been identified, land that is irrelevant to that subregion does not need to be studied. There was group consensus that subregional need is very complex, and the rule needs to provide flexibility. However, the state has identified a clear hierarchy of lands, so it should not be assumed that subregional need automatically means adding prime farmland to the UGB.

Chair Park thanked Mr. Cooper for his work. He added that the work session demonstrated the importance of Metro's current periodic review work program, and the complexity of the issues being considered.

3.  Draft 2000 Alternatives Site Study

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, gave a brief history of the 2000 Alternative Site Study. He reminded the committee that in December 1999, the Metro Council requested an extension from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for Metro's 1997-2017 work program. That activity will come to a close with the adoption of ordinances in September or October. When the Metro Council sought the extension from LCDC, it expected to amend the UGB this year. Staff began the 2000 Alternative Site Study in preparation for such an amendment. However, the ordinance coming before the Council this fall is to not amend the UGB. The delay in expanding the UGB allows Metro to use the 2000 Alternative Site Study to begin conversations with local jurisdictions and the public about where to expand the UGB in the future. The alternative site study recommends further study for some areas, and to cut other areas from consideration.

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, presented the 2000 Alternative Site Study to the committee. A cover memo from Ms. Neill to Mr. Cotugno includes information presented by Ms. Neill and is included in the meeting record. She said staff will develop another map highlighting the areas they recommend excluding from further study. A copy of the 2000 Alternative Site Study is included in the meeting record.

Councilor McLain asked why the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) directed Metro staff not to consider the cost of providing urban services, nor to prioritize the areas at this time.

Ms. Neill said DLCD told staff that the cost of services is not a criteria for removing an area from study. DLCD preferred using broad categories: moderately easy to serve, easy to serve, and difficult to serve.

Mr. Cotugno added that DLCD realizes that Metro is at a very conceptual level of planning, and does not want to require costly, extensive analysis at this point. In addition, DLCD's first priority is exception lands, and they do not want exception lands eliminated from further study simply because they are more expensive to develop than flat farmland. He said staff would like to begin discussion of the Alternative Site Study with the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), then schedule meetings with interested local jurisdictions.

Councilor McLain said the process proposed by Mr. Cotugno sounds reasonable and practical. She said it is important, however, to have a real question to pose to the local jurisdictions, and a clear idea of how their comments will be used. She noted that jurisdictions with little exception land will be reluctant to eliminate any nearby study areas from further consideration.

Mr. Cotugno said it is important to keep the Alternative Site Study in context. It studies only the first priority exception lands around the UGB. It does not look at the lands that will need to be considered should exception land be insufficient to meet the region's needs.

Chair Park invited Mr. Vandehey to testify.

Kim Vandehey, 17207 Southwest Siler Ridge Lane, Aloha, noted that the Alternative Site Study states that area 18A contains 398 acres of high-value farmland. He took exception to that statement. While there is a lot of farmland that is currently farmed, the farmland is not high value. Most of the soil is type 3, with very little soil types 1 and 2.

Chair Park asked Mr. Vandehey to speak further with staff about his concern.

Councilor Monroe said Mr. Vandehey made a very good point. There is high-value farmland, and then there is marginal farmland that is of high value because it can potentially be developed.

Mr. Cotugno said the classification is intended to indicate the land's value as agricultural land, not its monetary value. He said he would reexamine the classification in case staff misrepresented the land in the study.

Chair Park noted that "high-value farmland' is a legal term with a precise meaning.

4.  Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Acknowledgement of Metro Regional Framework Plan

•  Metro staff comments to issues raised at LCDC

Mark Turpel, Manager, Long-Range Planning, Growth Management Department, reviewed his memo to Chair Park regarding state acknowledgement of the Regional Framework Plan. A copy of Mr. Turpel's memo is included in the meeting record.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, added that DLCD staff will recommend some minor amendments to the Framework Plan, in part because the Framework Plan is so complicated, and was adopted in 1997. He said Mr. Turpel has done an excellent job working with DLCD staff, and they expected DLCD to write a positive staff report.

Councilor McLain asked if DLCD and Metro staff have settled the question of whether or not the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) is considered part of the Regional Framework Plan, as it is included in the Framework Plan's appendix.

Mr. Shaw said yes, the Functional Plan is considered part of the Regional Framework Plan. When DLCD staff does its compliance order on the first two components, they will state that in order for a component to be acknowledged, all policies must include both a policy statement, and implementation at Metro and local government levels. The Regional Framework Plan, with the Functional Plan included in its appendix, does that.

Mr. Cotugno noted that LCDC plans to vote on acknowledgement of Metro's Framework Plan at its meeting on September 29, 2000. He expects that the LDCD staff report will be available in the next few days, and will probably include recommendations for amendments to the Framework Plan. He said he will give a copy of the staff report to the Council as soon as it is available.

Mr. Shaw said he is fairly confident that the Metro Council will agree with the recommended amendments. Metro staff is hoping that LCDC will acknowledge the Regional Framework Plan, subject to the changes recommended in its staff report. Then, once the Metro Council has made those changes, the Framework Plan will be acknowledged, and LCDC will not need to take further action.

The committee expressed its satisfaction with staff's responses in Mr. Turpel's memo, and directed staff to go forward.

5.  Goal 5 Vision Statement

Mr. Turpel directed the committee's attention to the August 14, 2000, version of the Streamside CPR Program Outline, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. A cover letter from Executive Officer Mike Burton to Chair Park includes information presented by Mr. Turpel, and is included in the meeting record. The MPAC/MTAC Goal 5 Subcommittee is scheduled to vote on the Vision Statement at its next meeting at 4:00 p.m. on September 13. Mr. Turpel asked if the Growth Management Committee had any comments it wished to convey to the subcommittee. He distributed copies of a memo to Mr. Cotugno from the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Policy Committee regarding the Goal 5 Vision Statement. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno for his response to the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Policy Committee's comments.

Mr. Cotugno said he is comfortable with the current version of the Vision Statement. Staff will respond to the group's comments, but in general, he believed staff had accommodated the spirit of their recommendations in most places.

Chair Park asked if the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Policy Committee includes all of the elected officials in Washington County, or just a part? He noted that the cover memo was not on letterhead, and had not been signed by anyone.

Mr. Cotugno said the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Policy Committee has included staff and elected representatives from each of the jurisdictions in Washington County. He suspected that each of the city councils has not adopted a position, however. He could not speak to attendance at those meetings, as Metro was not invited.

Councilor McLain said she has spoken with people who have attended the meetings, and they said attendance has been sporadic, so it is unlikely that each member voted on each comment. She said if the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Policy Committee becomes formalized, it will be positive, because it helps ensure consistency in the message that they send to Metro. She recommended supporting their work.

Mr. Cotugno said staff will complete its response fairly soon, in order for it to be included in the agenda packet for next week's subcommittee meeting.

6.  Metro Jurisdictional Boundary Annexation Procedures

•  Recommendation on administrative process

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, reviewed his memo to Chair Park regarding his recommendation for Metro Boundary Annexation procedure. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain thanked Mr. Morrissey for his work, and said she agrees with his recommendation. She asked about applicants who believe there is a reason to go forward with their application. She said it was not her responsibility to decide that for them. Instead, it is her responsibility to ensure that the process is fair, and the same for everyone, and that it has been clearly explained. She said Sherwood is a good example: they understand the process, and they still want to go forward, because they believe they meet the criteria in Metro's Code. She said the 2000 Alternative Site Study, published today, shows that their area is still being considered for future UGB expansion, and they could interpret that as an indication that Metro is still looking at them. She noted that the Council told the Sherwood applicants, in a public meeting, to go ahead with their application, if they understood that they were applying for an amendment of the Metro jurisdictional boundary, not the UGB. While the Council can clean up the process, the Sherwood applicants deserve the opportunity to bring their request to Council if they so choose.

Mr. Morrissey said there has not been a public hearing on the Sherwood application, so he was not sure to which public meeting Councilor McLain referred. He said a more draconian approach might be to not allow an applicant to come forward unless the Council has shown clear evidence, like a resolution of intent, that it plans to move the UGB in that area. Instead, the approach he proposed follows Councilor McLain's advice and allows applicants to still come forward, after addressing the question of the Council's intent to move the UGB. He noted that he has spoken with the Sherwood applicants' spokesperson, and she has indicated that she is aware of the Metro Code criteria.

Councilor McLain said she was referring to the public meeting in which the Council amended the code. At that time, the Council spoke with the Sherwood applicants, and they said they wanted to go forward with their application.

Mr. Cotugno said if the committee agrees to follow Mr. Morrissey's recommendation, his staff will contact the applicants and explain the code criteria and new procedure.

Councilor Atherton said he would prefer to change the Metro Code and eliminate the criteria. He proposed viewing the Metro jurisdictional boundary as a tool for creating a regional concept. The regional concept boundary would be much larger than the UGB.

Chair Park said he had a different opinion on the matter.

Councilor McLain said she has spoken with Councilor Atherton about his proposal. It is partly in response to people who have asked to come inside the Metro jurisdictional boundary not to urbanize but to protect park land and natural resources. She supports Councilor Atherton's suggestion to reexamine the language in the Metro Code. She said she supported Mr. Morrissey's recommendation, however, because it is important for the Council to address the situations of the applicants whose applications are pending.

Chair Park said there are a number of ways to protect natural resources through state and county regulations. He noted that Washington County's water quality regulations, adopted to comply with Metro's Title 3, apply to all of Washington County, even those areas that are outside of Metro's jurisdiction.

Mr. Cotugno noted that once an application is formally filed, Metro must indicate within 30 days when it will schedule a public hearing.

Chair Park thanked Mr. Morrissey for his work.

7.  Councilor Communications

Chair Park expressed his condolences to Mr. Cotugno, whose father had passed away.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\090500gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2000

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