METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, October 6, 1998

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Jon Kvistad (Chair), Don Morissette, Rod Monroe  

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Susan McLain

Chair Kvistad called the meeting to order at 1:35 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1998, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2708, TO ADOPT THE METRO NATIVE PLANT LIST AS REFERENCED IN THE TITLE 3 MODEL ORDINANCE ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 98-730C

Rosemary Furfey, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, presented the resolution. The substance of her comments are contained in the staff report.

Councilor Morissette said he continues to be concerned about native versus non-native plants, and that grass is a non-native plant. He said he is worried about the enormous cost of this approach to water quality as compared to other options.

Councilor Monroe will carry Resolution No. 98-2708 to the full Metro Council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2711, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING TIME EXTENSIONS TO THE FUNCTIONAL PLAN COMPLIANCE REPORTING DEADLINE

Mary Weber, Senior Program Supervisor, and Marian Maxfield Hull, Senior Planner, Growth Management Services, presented the resolution. The substance of their remarks are contained in the staff report. Ms. Hull said staff is currently reviewing jurisdictions’ reports, and preparing summaries and a timeline for work that will extend beyond the February 1999 deadline. She said the timelines and summary reports are intended to provide the Council with the information it will need to make decisions on extension and exception requests from local jurisdictions. She said most exception requests will not come before the Council until mid-1999.

Councilor McLain said paragraph nine of the resolution states that any necessary time extensions for implementation shall be determined based on review of completed compliance plans. She asked Ms. Hall to confirm that the Council would not be asked to grant extensions for until it receives completed compliance reports. Ms. Hall said yes.

Councilor McLain asked Ms. Hall to repeat the reason for granting West Linn an extension. Ms. Hall said West Linn is incorporating its compliance work into a major update of its comprehensive plan and transportation system plan.

Councilor McLain stated her support for Resolution No. 98-2711. She said it is important to recognize that compliance reports contain important information relevant to other issues before the committee today. She suggested reviewing the criteria for extensions, to ensure that the Council stays true to its past policy decisions.

Chair Kvistad said it would be a good topic for the committee to review, and he would look for time in the next few months.

Councilor Morissette will carry Resolution No. 98-2711 to the full Metro Council.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2715, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING AN UPDATED 1998 BUILDABLE LANDS AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS, REGIONAL FORECAST OF POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENT, ACTUAL DENSITY ANALYSIS, AND HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS

Chair Kvistad said there would be no action or public hearing on Resolution No. 98-2715 at this time. He said the Council is setting and making decisions on urban growth based on 1994 numbers, and since that time the Urban Growth Addendum has come forward, which shows a new set of numbers. He said the Council has generally selected a 200-foot setback and Model 1 as the model to follow. He said the committee will take action on this resolution in the next few weeks, and decide whether to continue using the same numbers, or change the numbers, thereby changing the housing units.

Councilor McLain asked if the committee will discuss the report at a future time. Chair Kvistad said yes. He said the resolution would set the variables based on the newest numbers. He said he wanted to present the resolution to the committee now to allow more time for review.

4A.  MOTION TO NOTICE URBAN RESERVE SITE 47 FOR POSSIBLE MOVEMENT OF THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB)

Councilor Morissette said he believes the Council made an error by not including urban reserve site 47 in its notification. He asked the committee to approve notification of the potential for an urban growth boundary move on site 47.

Chair Kvistad asked for general discussion.

Councilor McLain said she believes that if the committee agrees with Councilor Morissette’s thesis, it will need to address notification issues. She said because Metro is required to give at least a 45-day notice, it is important for the committee to come to a decision, or receive comments from legal counsel.

Chair Kvistad said if the committee and the Council generally agrees that urban reserve site 47 was omitted in error, he can notice site 47 and meet the requirements.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said in order for the Council to act on urban reserve site 47, there needs to be a notice in the newspaper 45 days before a public hearing on the site. He said the schedule of public hearings concludes on December 3, 1998. He said for the purpose of economy, the Council may wish to wait a week to notice site 47 in case the Council finds another property, not yet identified, to include.

Councilor McLain said she agrees with legal counsel that it may be appropriate to wait, if the Council finds another property that has been omitted in error. She said it is important to note that Chair Kvistad did not notice site 47 originally because he felt the master plan information was not available. She asked staff or the chair if the material has now gone to the appropriate party, and Metro has record of the information, and considers it to be complete.

Chair Kvistad said urban reserve site 47 was not included in the original notice because he had nothing before him to include it, and the Council was only including master planned facilities. He said this was Councilor Morissette’s proposal, and asked for his comment.

Councilor Morissette said he believes site 47 meets the Council’s standards. He said it would be subjective to ask staff about parcels as they go through the process, but site 47 certainly meets the 10 units per acre requirement.

Councilor McLain said the Council asked staff for either direct verbal conversation and/or a combination of written information that had been made available to Metro. She said they need to be sure that the material on site 47 gets into the right process.

Councilor Morissette said the goal of his motion is to notice as well as deliver this information. He said he understands his motion may incur additional cost, but the Council made an error, and he wants to rectify it.

Councilor McLain said site 47 is listed on the map as a Tier 1 urban reserve. Chair Kvistad agreed.

Councilor Morissette submitted information on urban reserve site 47 into the record.

Chair Kvistad said he would ensure the information was given to Growth Management Services staff. He asked Councilor Morissette to work with Council staff and Mr. Cooper to meet the notice requirements.

5.  PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE MOVEMENT OF THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB), WITH EMPHASIS ON URBAN RESERVE SITES 51-55, 62, 63 AND 65

Ruth Barber, 14754 South Quail Crest Lane, Oregon City, submitted written testimony. The substance of her comments are included in her written testimony.

Chair Kvistad said parcels in the area of urban reserve site 25 will be discussed at the October 13, 1998, Growth Management Committee public hearing, as well as the November 16, 1998, public hearing before the full Council. He said it would not be necessary for Ms. Barber to make another presentation before the committee, but he recommended that she testify again at the Council public hearing.

Councilor McLain submitted into the record a letter from William and Linda Woodworth regarding urban reserve site 51.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Coalition for a Livable Future, said she has mixed feelings about Chair Kvistad’s decision to not receive public testimony on Resolution No. 98-2715. She said she is profoundly disappointed that the committee has chosen to look at very narrow parcels of land before having a larger policy discussion on what kind of urban form the region will have. She urged the committee not to expand the UGB to include any of the areas on the agenda at this time. She urged the committee to be conservative in its expansion of the UGB this year, and wait until the urban reserve appeal is settled next year before expanding the UGB to include properties under appeal. She said it is extremely difficult to comment with any specificity without any information as to why these areas are coming before the committee now.

Councilor McLain said the Urban Growth Boundary Assessment of Need, which appendixes A-Q, contains some the information Ms. McCurdy requested. She said the committee will have an opportunity in the future to discuss the document further. She said she hopes the Council will stay with this need assessment.

Ms. McCurdy said she received the summary of the Urban Reserve Boundary Assessment of Need, without the appendixes. She said the document talks about the overall need, but not any specific urban reserve areas.

David Lawrence, Assistant City Manager, City of Hillsboro, represented Hillsboro Mayor Gordon Faber. He submitted Mayor Faber’s written testimony into the record. Mr. Lawrence summarized Mayor Faber’s comments, the substance of which is included in the written testimony. He added that the City of Hillsboro understands that the Council has a tough decision, as all the areas are under appeal. He said the Council needs to focus on the facts of this particular decision.

Wink Brooks, Planning Director, City of Hillsboro, gave an overview of the concept plan process. Mr. Brooks submitted written comments into the record. The substance of his comments is included in the written testimony.

Paul Morris, Project Manager, McKeever/Morris, submitted written comments into the record. The substance of his comments is included in the written testimony.

Chair Kvistad said the area in the City of Hillsboro’s master plan and draft concept plan takes in acreage which is outside of the urban reserve. He asked if the city, as part of its concept plan, is asking the Council to look at the entire parcel and bring in those areas, or exclude those areas.

Mr. Morris said the plan includes approximately 150 acres that are between the original boundary and a large dedicated reserve, and they believe the extra land is necessary for efficient, affordable development in the area.

Mr. Brooks said yes, the request to add the extra acreage came out of the city’s public involvement and infrastructure analysis.

Councilor McLain said both Mr. Morris and Mr. Brooks commented that service provision would be more efficient, effective, and inexpensive if the area is planned as a unit. She asked if they were saying that the exception land could be doable, but they want the certainty that all the land will come into the UGB eventually, over a span of 20 years.

Mr. Lawrence said it is preferable to plan the urban reserves as a unit due to the certainty it would give, and also due to substantial cost efficiencies.

Joe Hanauer, Managing Partner, Northwest Property Joint Venture, Butternut Creek Property, said he completely supports the South Hillsboro urban reserve area. Mr. Hanauer submitted written testimony into the record. The substance of his comments is included in his written testimony.

Doug Draper, General Manager, Genstar Land Company Northwest, submitted written testimony. The substance of his comments is included in his written testimony.

Don Odermott, 3720 Southwest River Road, Hillsboro, said he lives in the Gordon Creek area. Mr. Odermott submitted a letter into the record. The substance of Mr. Odermott’s comments is included in his written testimony. He said he is still in the process of collecting signatures for the letter, and expects it to be completed within a week.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Odermott if all of the land in question is basically exception land. Mr. Odermott said yes, the land is all exception land, and is also all designated as tier 1.

Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy and Associates, submitted written testimony into the record. The substance of his comments is included in his written testimony.

Steve Larrance, CPO #6, 20660 Southwest Kinnaman Road, Aloha, said he was on the task force for the South Hillsboro urban reserve representing CPO #6. He said he is a former Washington County Commissioner, a general contractor, and has worked as a volunteer in Oregon land use planning since the 1970s. He said he is concerned about Aloha, as it is directly adjacent to the South Hillsboro urban reserve. He said Aloha adopted a community plan in 1983, when it was one of the most densely developed areas in the region. He said the residents accepted the high densities based on three planning principles. First, the area included large farms which contributed to nice multi-family developments. Second, the lots in old Aloha were generally long and skinny, and future infill was anticipated. Third, a freeway ran along the edge of the planning area, and principle arterials were planned for feeding the neighborhoods into the freeway system. He said the plans for the freeway and the arterial network disappeared due to what he considers unsound planning principles. He said the real question is who pays for the arterials planned in the South Hillsboro urban reserve plan. He suggested that the region allow for an average of 10 units per acre, rather than requiring 10 units an acre on every acre. He urged the committee to ask the hard questions, expect site-specific answers, and who is going to pay for them, not the existing people who have to take minor collectors and make them into principle arterials.

Bill Isbister, “Save the Farm,” Post Office Box 6431, Aloha, submitted written testimony, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He said he concurs with the concerns of 1000 Friends of Oregon about Category 1 farmland being developed at this point. He said according to Don Logan, head of the Washington County Farm Bureau, this is the best farmland left in the region. He said another issue is livability. He said the South Hillsboro area was turned down for a prison site, primarily due to potential traffic congestion. He said a study recently released by Metro shows that the Farmington/Tualatin-Valley Highway corridor is already an existing problem, but the Council is considering 4,000 homes in the St. Mary’s property alone, which is 463 acres, and a possible total of 8,500 homes in the 1,600 acre urban reserve area. He asked the committee how this is feasible, and who will pay for the infrastructure. He said he has read the study released by the city planners of Hillsboro, and he sees nothing in the study about how the development could occur without a traffic nightmare. He asked for a future study to address the double standard: why the site was not acceptable for a prison site, but is considered acceptable for urban development.

Thomas McConnell, Alpha Engineering, Inc., represented Jim Standing, property owner of site 63 and a portion of site 62. Mr. McConnell submitted written testimony into the record. The substance of his comments is included in his written testimony. He said he had hoped to have a more current concept development plan for the committee, but when the public hearing date for the Hillsboro sites was moved up from October 13 to October 6, the deadline became too short. He said he will have an updated concept plan for the full Council hearing in November, demonstrating uses for the site.

Mark Greenfield, 111 Southwest Columbia, Suite 1080, Portland, represented Jim Standing. He directed the committee’s attention to a memo from Tom Armstrong to Mark Turpel, dated September 22, 1998, which is included in the written testimony submitted by Mr. McConnell. He said the memo explains an error in Metro’s Productivity Analysis, which listed site 63 as unlikely to develop. He said the correction shows that site 63 is appropriate for development. He said the site has been identified for affordable, medium-density residential development, and would place housing near jobs.

Councilor Morissette said the site has a strange configuration. He asked why the pie-shaped parcel of land north of the site has been omitted. Mr. McConnell said the wedge of land was removed because it was being actively farmed.

Mr. Greenfield said all of the property is resource land, but the property highlighted in yellow on the map is wooded and shows no evidence of prior cultivation.

Councilor Morissette asked if the small triangle of land below site 62 is in the UGB. Mr. Greenfield said that land is in the urban reserve, but is not owned by Mr. Standing. He said that parcel of land will probably be redeveloped by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for an interchange.

Mr. McConnell agreed. He said site 62 in total also goes south of the Sunset Highway, but he and Mr. Greenfield do not represent those property owners.

Councilor Morissette asked if the highlighted area on the map are portions of sites 62 and 63, or if it is the whole of sites 62 and 63. Mr. McConnell said 63 is in total, and 62 is a portion.

Councilor Morissette asked if there was a site 63A. Mr. Greenfield said site 63 was initially called 63A because it was a subset of the original site 63. He said with its adoption, it is now simply called site 63.

Councilor Morissette asked someone from the City of Hillsboro to address the memo from Tim Erwert, Hillsboro City Manager, to the Metro Council, a copy of which is included in Mr. McConnell’s written testimony. He asked if the letter speaks only to the portion of site 62 with an application that meets the standards. Mr. Lawrence said the letter refers only to the small piece that has been master planned.

Joe Grillo, Community Development Director, City of Beaverton, said Ryland Homes and its design consortium approached the city several months ago to request the city’s participation in master planning a portion of urban reserve site 65. He said the City of Beaverton has worked with the City of Hillsboro and Washington County, and in continuing to work with Washington County to write a memorandum of understanding. He said site 65 is of interest to the City of Beaverton, principally because it is within the city’s urban service area. He said the city is looking to provide guidance and comment on the master plan effort, and so far Ryland Homes and its design team has been forthcoming with information on its proposal. He said the city also wishes to provide guidance on a public participation plan and public information. He said the city wants to encourage Ryland Homes to coordinate with other service providers, particularly a school district and parks. He said Ryland Homes has taken the city’s comments to heart, and he hopes there will be a consensus as this project goes forward. He concluded that the city is looking for two things, in regard to the Council Summary Table, Status of Requirements for UGB Amendments: 1) to have site 65 classed as a Beaverton/Washington County urban reserve area, and 2) to add the phrase “in progress” under governance.

Chair Kvistad said the committee would take Mr. Grillo’s testimony under advisement, and discuss his suggestions with Growth Management staff.

Councilor Morissette said one of the requirements for consideration in the first tier is to have a letter from the city or jurisdiction that would be serving the area, stating its support of bringing that property into the UGB. He asked Mr. Grillo if he had such a letter.

Mr. Grillo said he sent a letter to the Presiding Officer indicating that the city would be fulfilling that obligation. He said this urban reserve area is somewhat unique, and the city needs more time to work out the details of governance with Washington County.

Chair Kvistad said a letter was required before the urban reserve sites were noticed for possible inclusion in the UGB.

Councilor Morissette asked if the letter to which Mr. Grillo referred met Metro’s requirements. Mr. Grillo said yes. Chair Kvistad said the letter distributed to each Council member.

Don Guthrie, Division President, Ryland Homes, introduced his team of designers and gave a brief summary of urban reserve site 65. He said he expects to have a completed urban reserve coordination agreement by the Council public hearing in November. Mr. Guthrie submitted written testimony into the record. The substance of his comments is included in the written testimony.

John Godsey, Consulting Engineering Services, added a couple of clarifying comments on the Productivity Analysis. He said the site rated very highly because there is a 21-inch trunk sewer line within 300 feet of the property, and a 24-inch water transmission main that is in Springville Road, immediately in front of the property. He said site 65 will meet the required densities with or without the proposed school. He said from a connectivity standpoint, site 65 is very attractive and desirable, as two Tri-Met routes travel Springville Road. He said urban services can be easily provided to the site.

Councilor McLain said Mr. Grillo indicated that this is only part of site 65; she asked to what portion of site 65 his letter refers. Mr. Grillo said his letter only applies to this portion of site 65.

Chair Kvistad closed the public hearing.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor McLain asked legal counsel about the responsibilities of Metro and of master plans to address issues of governance and annexation, and how those issues are affected by the site’s inclusion, partial inclusion, or total exclusion from the Metro boundary.

Mr. Cooper said the Metro Code specifically provides that when the Council is considering any UGB amendment, whether through locational adjustment, major amendment, or legislative amendment, if the property is outside of the Metro jurisdictional boundary, then the Council uses a two-step process. He said first the Council, by resolution, declares its intention to move the UGB and makes the appropriate findings to support the land use decision, and at the same time it states its policy position declaring its intent to approve the annexation and consenting to the annexation. He said there then must be a separate process to annex the lands to the Metro boundary. Finally, Mr. Cooper said, the matter comes back to the Council for the adoption of the UGB amendment as a final decision, by ordinance, which incorporates the previous findings and makes the UGB action final and official.

Councilor McLain said this is an important issue as the committee discusses these pieces because there is a difference between the one-step process and the two-step process, and it would be unfair to the public that has testified it they were not aware of that, or did not understand its effects on their properties.

Councilor Morissette asked for a map showing what portions of current applications are inside and outside the current boundary. He asked Mr. Cooper if the two-step process would require a final decision by next year’s Council. Mr. Cooper said it most likely would.

Chair Kvistad directed Metro staff to prepare an estimate of the number of housing units contained in each of the parcels being discussed in front of the committee by October 30, 1998.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Kvistad adjourned the meeting at 3:17 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1998\grwthmgt\10068gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1998

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

Oral Testifiers (testimony cards included)

Public Hearing

Ruth Barber

Mary Kyle McCurdy

David Lawrence

Wink Brooks

Paul Morris

Joe Hanauer

Doug Draper

Don Odermott

Ed Murphy

Steve Larrance

Bill Isbister

Thomas McConnell

Mark Greenfield

Joe Grillo

Don Guthrie

John Godsey