MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, November 3, 1998

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Susan McLain, Ed Washington

Chair Kvistad called the meeting to order at 1:40 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27, 1998, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  PRESENTATION OF GOAL 2 AND 14 STAFF REPORTS FOR URBAN RESERVE SITES

Elaine Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services, gave an outline of the Preliminary Staff Reports, copies of which were distributed to Council members and placed in the decision record. Ms. Wilkerson said a limited number of binders containing all the reports were produced, but copies of the individual urban reserve area reports are available at the Growth Management Services reception desk. Ms. Wilkerson distributed and summarized the Index of Urban Reserve Reports and Council UGB Decision Making Factors, copies of which are included in the meeting record. She said Growth Management Services expects the Council to receive additional information over the next month at its public hearings, particularly urban reserve plans. She said no urban reserve plans have been adopted to date, but staff has received preliminary information, which was included in the Preliminary Staff Reports. She said the urban reserve plans, once they are received, will be incorporated into the existing information, and staff will prepare a table summarizing all the factors. Ms. Wilkerson reviewed the Council UGB Decision Making Factors. She said Metro has given notice to a number of areas through the newspaper and through mailings to property owners in the urban reserves and within 500 feet of urban reserve boundaries. She said if the Council considers expanding beyond the land that has been noticed, property owners will need to receive at least a 20-day notice.

Chair Kvistad said there will need to be a secondary notice of the ordinances on the table regardless.

Ms. Wilkerson suggested that staff will try its best to provide the Council with maps of the areas at which it is looking, and when Council begins deliberation, staff will try to create a spreadsheet that will keep a running tally of acreage and projected number of units as the Council considers different urban reserves. She said the spreadsheet should be available on November 24, 1998. Ms. Wilkerson thanked all of her staff for its work on the Preliminary Staff Reports.

Chair Kvistad thanked Growth Management Services staff for its hard work.

7.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-781, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE NO. 95-625A IN THE PLEASANT VALLEY AREA OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY

8.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-787, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE 95-625A IN THE PLEASANT VALLEY AREA OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY

Chair Kvistad said the committee would now begin its discussion of the ordinances before the committee. He said there are two sets of ordinances and resolutions in front of the committee; some are very similar while others are different. He said the committee would begin with the parcels on the east side, beginning with urban reserve areas 4 and 5. He said the committee would have a general discussion about that area and then a motion or discussion about those parcels.

Councilor Morissette said he had a few comments and a request to make. He said he, Councilor McLain, and Councilor Ruth McFarland have worked hard on a package that they believe meets the standards that the Council voted forward in the current Metro Code, including governance, master planning, and local support in most areas. He said they would prefer to have the opportunity to vote for their urban reserve sites as a package, although he has no problem discussing them individually.

Chair Kvistad said the committee will discuss the urban reserve sites individually, but Councilor Morissette could make a motion to discuss the parcels as a package.

Councilor Monroe said he would prefer to vote on the ordinances package by package, based on geography. He said some of the areas are controversial and he would prefer to move those sites forward to Council without recommendation.

Councilor Morissette said he believes Councilor Monroe disagrees with one of the urban reserve areas he is proposing. He asked Councilor Monroe if the committee could separate that one area from the package, and move it forward without recommendation, but still keep the package together.

Councilor Monroe said it would be cleaner to vote on the urban reserves by geographical package.

Chair Kvistad said there appears to be no agreement in the committee. He asked Councilor Morissette if he wished to vote on his motion.

Councilor Morissette asked Chair Kvistad how he wished to handle amendments to the ordinances and resolutions.

Chair Kvistad said the committee would deal with each ordinance, and if a Councilor has an amendment to propose, he can bring it forward then. Chair Kvistad said there would be no public hearing on the ordinances and resolutions before the committee today. He apologized to anyone who came to testify, but said this meeting would be a work session to put together the package.

Councilor Morissette said he has tried in the urban reserve process and urban growth boundary process to bring balance to the region’s pressing need for affordable housing, housing next to jobs, and fair distribution of responsibilities. He said the package that Councilors McLain, McFarland and he have brought forward provides that balance and meets the Council’s requirements. He said local government support is important and he does not want to see Metro forcing growth on local communities.

Councilor Morissette said he fought hard to see the Stafford area included in the UGB because he believes Stafford bears responsibility for some growth in the region, but now is not the time because of the governance issue, and because the density required by Metro is too high for that area. He said there are billions of dollars worth of jobs going out in the Washington County area, and the region needs to do its best to put housing near jobs. He emphasized that the committee is supposed to make decisions, and cannot put everything forward. He said expanding the UGB exclusively in Clackamas County would be a bad decision.

Chair Kvistad thanked Councilor Morissette for his comments. He said the committee would begin with Ordinances No. 98-781 and 98-787. He said the ordinances are similar, from packages one and two, respectively. He asked for a motion to accept one of the ordinances.

Councilor McLain said she believes Ordinances Nos. 98-781 and 98-787 are identical. She asked Chair Kvistad to recognize that four Councilors have signed Ordinance No. 98-787, and they would like to add Chair Kvistad and Councilor Monroe’s names to the ordinance, as it is not controversial. She asked to address the issue of adding their names, because the other Councilors are not on the committee and they want to stay active in the process. She said she would be happy to assist Chair Kvistad in ensuring that as the Council moves forward, the Council sees Ordinance No. 98-787 as something everyone sponsored.

Chair Kvistad said he appreciates Councilor McLain’s request. He said it would have been nice if she had done that with the ordinances that he brought forward, but as she did not choose to do so, the committee can move forward either set.

Chair Kvistad asked legal counsel for a summary of the differences, if any, between Ordinances Nos. 98-781 and 98-787.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said the ordinances are identical. He said the ordinances could be amended to list all Councilors in favor, or the committee could forward Ordinance No. 98-787 as a recommendation by the Growth Management Committee, or the committee could do both and list the names of all Councilors in favor plus the Growth Management Committee.

Councilor Monroe said he would sign onto Ordinance No. 98-781.

Councilor Morissette said Ordinance No. 98-781 is the same as Ordinance No. 98-787, which lists Councilors McLain, Morissette, McFarland, and Washington as supporters. He said Jim Sitzman, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), asked him to add a fully developed mobile home park with a septic problem to the ordinance. He said bringing the mobile home park into the urban growth boundary (UGB) will take care of the septic problem. He said the property is highlighted on the map of the Happy Valley Mobile Home Park Proposed Sewer Extension, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Chair Kvistad invited Mr. Sitzman to testify as a point of information.

Mr. Sitzman said this issue was recently raised to DLCD by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). He said DEQ has the park owner under an order to correct the sewer system package plant, which is discharging into Mitchell Creek, which feeds into Johnson Creek. He said there is significant pollution resulting from the sewer system package plant that needs to be corrected. He said it occurred to DLCD that one way to expedite this would be to attach it principally to urban reserve area 4, which will be governed by the City of Portland. He said the area immediately to the east is already inside the City of Portland, so it is an adjacent parcel. He said it would be a half-mile extension down Southeast Barbara Welch Road into the city interceptor for treatment. He said DLCD appreciates the committee’s consideration of its request.

Chair Kvistad asked Mr. Sitzman if he will have documentation and a letter to submit into the record.

Mr. Sitzman said some material is available today, and other material is being prepared and will be submitted into the decision record.

Councilor Morissette submitted Mr. Sitzman’s map as part of the record. A copy of the map is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Monroe said he supports the proposed amendment.

5.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-780, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE NO. 95-625A IN CLACKAMAS COUNTY

6.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-786, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE 95-625A IN THE SUNNYSIDE AREA OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY

Chair Kvistad said the next two ordinances before the committee would be Ordinances Nos. 98-780 and 98-786.

Councilor Monroe asked if Ordinances Nos. 98-780 and 98-786 are identical. Mr. Shaw said yes.

Councilor Monroe said for balance, he would move Ordinance No. 98-786. Chair Kvistad seconded his motion.

A copy of Councilor Morissette Amendment No. 1 is included in the meeting record. Councilor Morissette said he is proposing an amendment to areas 14 and 15, known as the Hoffman and Eraker properties. He said John Fregonese, former Director of Growth Management Services, testified regarding this property.

Chair Kvistad said he recalls testimony and discussion on areas 14 and 15, and on a golf course, but he did not remember discussion on the Hoffman and Eraker properties. Councilor Morissette said the discussion about the golf course was not part of his amendment.

Councilor Monroe asked for more information as to why the addition is necessary.

Councilor Morissette said the Hoffman and Eraker properties are part of the master plan for the community. He said he did not want to paraphrase Mr. Fregonese’s testimony, but he would conclude that they think the properties are important to this area and that they were inadvertently omitted.

Councilor Monroe said he will support Councilor Morissette’s amendment at this time, but will reserve judgment for later in case his questions are not more specifically answered.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Morrissey to put on the record some of the other issues that the committee heard previously.

Mr. Morrissey said there is a letter from Happy Valley in the decision record regarding the addition of these properties. He said he recalls that some Clackamas County planners testified, and at least part of the issue was the running of sewer lines, and that this addition would be necessary to assist that.

Councilor Monroe said the Chair of the Clackamas County Commission was in the audience, and asked if it would be appropriate to ask for her views on this property. Chair Kvistad invited her to speak.

Judie Hammerstad, Chair, Clackamas County Commissioners, said she thinks these properties are probably appropriate to come into this urban reserve. She strongly suggested that the Council have some mechanism for including reasonable properties in the master planning process because she would hesitate to say where the lines should be drawn, and the Council probably could not actually do that. She said in the master planning process, jurisdictions can actually say where boundary lines should be drawn because they can look at topographical separations and what the reasonable boundary lines would be. She asked the Council to reserve its final decision until it receives verification during the master planning process.

Councilor Monroe said it sounds like his earlier statement was appropriate.

Chair Kvistad said the amendment is under advisory for discussion.

Councilor Morissette recommended including the properties, and said the Council could change its mind in full Council. He told Councilor Monroe he had a copy of the letter from the City of Happy Valley verifying Mr. Fregonese’s testimony about the master planning of this area.

Commissioner Hammerstad said the county is supportive of this area coming in, but in general, when the Council comes to these pieces of property that are being asked to be included, she would request that they be verified during the master planning process, so that local jurisdictions do not have to return to the Council for minor amendments.

Councilor McLain said Doug McClain from Clackamas County made a recommendation on these two pieces of property. She said his comments should also be on the record because as Commissioner Hammerstad said, the county did go on record as supporting these two properties with the master planning process. Councilor McLain said Commissioner Hammerstad’s issue on refinement of boundaries during the master planning is another issue which the Council needs to address. She said this is a universal issue that the Council has had in the hopper for 8 or 9 months. She said the Council does not have an answer yet, but she thinks where it comes is in the new amendments that would come in the new year to the Metro Code. She asked Mr. Shaw to correct her if she was wrong.

Mr. Shaw made no correction.

Councilor Monroe commented that he is pleased that the City of Happy Valley supports this amendment. He said he has a lot of friends in Happy Valley and a lot of respect for them, however he has not always supported every land use decision that the City of Happy Valley has sought to make, and therefore he needs additional information to assure him that this land is appropriate for inclusion in the UGB, and that it will meet 2040 guidelines when and if it is brought in.

Chair Kvistad asked for further comment on the amendment. There was none.

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-779, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE 95-625A IN AREAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-788, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE 95-625A IN AREAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY

Chair Kvistad said the next items before the committee were Ordinances Nos. 98-779 and 98-788. He asked for a motion on one of the ordinances. He told Councilor Monroe the ordinances are for urban reserve areas 43 and 47, or 43, 47 and 55.

Chair Kvistad said Ordinance No. 98-779 includes sites 47 and 43. He said Councilor Morissette has an amendment before the committee on urban reserve site 47.

Councilor McLain said Ordinance No. 98-779 is not exactly the same as Ordinance No. 98-788. She said Ordinance No. 98-779 includes areas 47 and 43, while Ordinance No. 98-788 also includes what is inside of area 55, which is exception land near the Tualatin-Valley Highway in Hillsboro. She asked for committee discussion about how the committee will handle the two ordinances because the sites are packaged differently.

Chair Kvistad said the committee could vote on Ordinance No. 98-779 and then discuss Ordinance No. 98-788 and Resolution No. 98-2728 together.

Councilor McLain recommended amending areas 43 and 47 as desired by the committee, and then voting to amend Ordinance No. 98-779 by adding area 55. She said this way, it would still be an ordinance and keeps it together.

Councilor Morissette requested that the committee consider Ordinance No. 98-788, if Chair Kvistad agrees. He asked for Chair Kvistad for his opinion on the addition of the exception land in area 55.

Councilor Monroe said he moved Ordinance No. 98-779 because area 55 is in a different geographical package than 43 and 47 in his estimation, and the committee needs discuss area 55 when it discusses the entire South Hillsboro plan.

Councilor McLain said she and the other sponsoring Councilor have very carefully gone through the geographic and legal elements, as well as the difference between an ordinance and a resolution. She said there are some connections between South Hillsboro and Wilsonville, and there is a difference in how area 55 exception land would be treated in a resolution than it would be treated in an ordinance. She said there is also the additional problem of one property owner issues, which necessitates that some of the parcels be packaged with others in order to be a legislative amendment rather than a locational adjustment. She said there are reasons why the portion of area 55 inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary exception land needs to go with the ordinance.

Councilor Morissette added that these properties are also within Metro’s jurisdiction, whereas the other properties in the area north of Hillsboro are outside of Metro’s current boundary and would require annexation.

Chair Kvistad he would rather sever areas 43 and 47 from the controversial lands that are St. Mary’s property. He said if the committee agrees to Ordinance No. 98-779, it could keep Ordinance No. 98-788 on the table and amend out sites 43 and 47.

Councilor Morissette said he believes the exception lands in area 55 are noncontroversial, like areas 43 and 47.

Mr. Shaw said the committee has several options. He said based on committee discussion, it sounds like there is support for all three of these areas, just a difference on how they are packaged. He said the portion of area 55 in Ordinance No. 98-788 is a multiplicity of ownership situation, and it is a portion of 55 that is outside the controversial St. Mary’s area, but is part of the same urban reserve plan by the City of Hillsboro. He said because of the multiplicity of owners in 47, the committee could add areas 43 and 47 through a legislative amendment, and then vote on a separate ordinance for area 55 alone.

Chair Kvistad said the question is whether or not the committee bundles the three areas or packages them separately.

Councilor McLain said when this issue was discussed previously with legal counsel it seemed to make more sense to not have a singular urban reserve area as a package, so they tried hard to put the areas together in logical packages. She said if Mr. Shaw is comfortable with it, the committee can follow Mr. Shaw’s suggestion, as long as it is on the record that the Council is considering them ordinances and wants to add the areas as a one-step process.

Chair Kvistad said should Ordinance No. 98-779 pass, the committee will then consider Ordinance No. 98-788 later in the meeting and possibly amend out areas 43 and 47 so that area 55 stands alone.

Councilor Morissette presented his amendment, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He said the southern boundary of area 47 currently follows an inaccurate floodplain line and bisects the Whitney property. He said it is one of the areas for which Metro has not drawn a distinct property line, and he wants to verify that the property is fully inside the urban reserve. Councilor Morissette said the map attached to his amendment is not the right map.

Councilor McLain said she believes this amendment needs to be held over for a later time or at the Council because the amendment prepared by staff addressed the location of the floodplain. She said the issue Councilor Morissette wants to address is a divided lot and whether that lot is actually in the floodplain or not. She said legal counsel is concerned that the Council has nothing on the record verifying the applicant’s public testimony. She said it is important for Mr. Whitney to be represented and for the Council to consider his request, but there is not enough evidence at this time to make the amendment appropriately.

Councilor Morissette said not to debate the point, but he believes it is important to not landlock property between the floodplain and the urban reserve boundary. He said there was testimony in committee that the map is inaccurate in relation to the floodplain. He said his goal is to not have a sliver of property between the real floodplain and where the property at the base of site 47 goes to. He said he has no problem making this amendment subject to final delineation of the 100-year floodplain.

Councilor Monroe said he will not support the amendment. He said the appropriate time to consider the amendment is before the full Council when the additional information is available.

Councilor Morissette asked for a vote.

Chair Kvistad said he cannot support the amendment at this time, but he will support it at the full Council once he receives more information about the floodplain line.

Chair Kvistad called for further amendments to Ordinance No. 98-779. There were none.

Chair Kvistad said Ordinance No. 98-788 is still on the table for action and discussion later in the meeting.

9.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-782, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE NO. 95-625A IN THE STAFFORD AREA OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY

Councilor Monroe said the question on Ordinance No. 98-782, the Stafford property, has to do with governance and whether or not the governance requirement has or can be met. He said he believes the governance requirement has not yet been met, as required by the Metro Code; however there are ongoing discussions and there is still the possibility that it may be met, in which case his position might change. He said he moved the ordinance forward to give the people still negotiating an opportunity to meet the governance requirement. He said if they cannot come to an agreement on governance, the land cannot come into the UGB this year and will have to wait until next year.

Councilor Morissette commented on the general process of moving forward all of the ordinances. He said if the committee moves everything forward to Council it is just delaying a decision, and is not fulfilling local partners’ expectation that the committee would try to come up with a number that mirrors half the established need. Councilor Morissette said he cannot support Ordinance No. 98-782; he said now is not the appropriate time and he is ready to make that decision now.

Councilor McLain there is another issue to consider when taking forward items that the Council is not able to utilize because of the need assessment that has been made. She said she made a commitment to MPAC to work for half the need assessment this year, so the Council could review the growth report and other items still on the table in MPAC for refinement next year. She said it is important to distinguish between those properties that are good for this year, and those that will still be on the table for discussion next year. She said she agrees with Councilor Morissette that the Stafford area does not have the governance in place. and it looks like they need more time to work on the urban reserve plan.

Chair Kvistad said he stepped back from the discussion in MPAC about the need for 42,000 versus 32,000 housing units. He said the Council is under a state guideline to add at least 50 percent of the assessed need, not 50 percent. He said he does not support randomly picking properties to get to an arbitrary number; he wants to pick lands that make sense for urban form and are workable. He said he supports including the Stafford property in the UGB because it is both workable and meets better urban form requirements. He said governance is not state law or a state requirement, it is a Metro Code requirement. He said he believes, however, that the people in this area have the right to work to secure governance prior to a final Council decision. He said he supports moving Ordinance No. 98-782 forward to the full Council.

Councilor Morissette said in his opinion, governance is no more that local control. He said it is very important that the Council not make a misstep as it moves forward with this planning process. He said it takes a lot of people working together to accomplish Metro’s goals. He said the majority of the Council has determined the need to be 32,000 housing units, and as the Council moves forward it has enough land to meet that need with a good distribution of lands. He said voting forward his package would keep Metro’s partners working with Metro. He said his comments are not a representation to the neighbors in Stafford area to whether or not the area should ultimately be developed, but Metro needs a partnership as it moves forward. He said the land coming into the UGB should not all be in Clackamas County, because there are not enough jobs there. He said as the Council balances this process, he hopes the Councilors clearly understand that whether or not governance is a requirement, it is important because one gets a lot farther working as a team than apart. He said he does believe eventually the communities in West Linn and Lake Oswego will support some form of a plan, but one of the reasons he resisted this property is that ten units per acre up in Stafford does not make sense.

Councilor Monroe said governance is Metro’s Code, and it is required in the Code, and the Council cannot say, but it is only in the code and not State law, it is the Council’s law. He said the Council agreed to it with MPAC’s recommendation, and until the Code changes, governance is required. He encouraged the governments in the Stafford area to try to work out governance, because he believes the land will come into the UGB in the relatively near future. He said putting the ordinance forward without recommendation says to those governmental bodies, the committee encourages them to work on this region and to try to work out the questions of governance for this region. He said if they find a way to accomplish that in the next two weeks, then it might be possible to include Stafford in the Council’s package this year. He said he thinks that is very unlikely, but possible. He said if they do not settle the governance issue, the Council will have to take other action next year to try to resolve it.

Councilor Morissette said the Council has enough acres to solve the problem, and there is no need to make everyone mad in the process.

10.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2726, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPRESSING COUNCIL INTENT TO AMEND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO ADD URBAN RESERVE AREAS 39, 62, 63, 65 IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

12.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2729, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPRESSING COUNCIL INTENT TO AMEND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO ADD URBAN RESERVE AREAS 39, 41, AND 42 IN THE VICINITY OF WILSONVILLE

Chair Kvistad asked for any comments or motions on either of the resolutions.

Councilor Morissette asked if the committee should discuss Ordinance No. 98-788 before moving onto the resolutions.

Chair Kvistad said the committee is going around the area, and will go back to the ordinance as it pertains to the areas when it gets there. He said the committee is now looking at resolutions concerning areas 39, 41, and 42; or area 39 only.

Councilor Monroe asked staff to review the resolution.

Mr. Shaw said Resolution No. 98-2729 is in the Wilsonville area. He said area 39 is a school site to serve the Dammasch urban reserve plan area 41. He said area 42 is the Day Road industrial/proposed prison site. He said Resolution No. 98-2729 would be a review of the UGB amendment process and then a resolution to bring these lands into the Metro jurisdictional boundary. He said the Council would vote on an ordinance after the land is brought into Metro’s boundary, giving time for the state legislature to settle the prison siting issue before Metro’s adoption of a final ordinance. He said the resolution would allow for movement of Metro’s jurisdictional boundary to be ready at that point, and Metro’s UGB process to be up to that point.

Councilor Monroe said by previous action the Council added the Day Road site to the urban reserve if, and only if, a prison was sited there. He asked if Resolution No. 98-2729 would in any way change that action.

Mr. Shaw said no, it would move towards the process that would continue to assume that the prison would go there, make a resolution that would move the Metro jurisdictional boundary to include that area, and then when the Council gets to the ordinance, only if there was a prison at that site would that ordinance include all of these sites. He said the Council would have to review the record at that time.

Councilor Monroe asked for the approximate timeline of the ordinance coming forward next year.

Mr. Shaw said legal counsel expects to have it back from Multnomah County within six months, and then the Council has 30 days to act after it comes back.

Councilor Monroe said the Council is looking at springtime, at the earliest. Mr. Shaw said yes.

Councilor McLain said speaking to the issue brought up by Councilor Monroe on geographic area, they packaged these areas together for a couple of reasons: 1.) it deals with the Wilsonville/West Linn area, 2) it is a resolution, and 3) this area, like the Hillsboro area, is job-rich and housing-poor. She said they were looking for like properties with like responsibilities in terms of Metro’s urban reserve planning requirements and needs. She said the City of Wilsonville’s master plan for the Dammasch area has been on the Council’s books longer than any other jurisdiction’s plan.

A copy of Councilor Morissette Amendment No. 3 is included in the meeting record. Councilor Morissette said he wants to add seven acres to site 39 so the full school district property can be brought in.

Councilor Monroe said he is concerned about efficient use of land in school siting, and he did not think the school board fully made its case for the need for this additional land. He said he is not yet sure if he supports the amendment, and would prefer to make this decision before the full Council. He said he would not support Councilor Morissette’s amendment at this time.

Chair Kvistad invited Stephen Lashbrook, Planning Director, City of Wilsonville, to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Lashbrook said at the committee’s hearing last week the committee heard from both the Mayor of Wilsonville and the Deputy Superintendent of the West Linn/Wilsonville School District. He said throughout their presentations on the urban reserve study areas, and then the urban reserves, they have asked for 20 acres for school siting purposes. He said the school district went through an extensive process with property owners and citizens within its district to come up with a plan for this property. He said the school district is planning two additional schools on the property, which adjoins a middle school. He said when the plan is complete, there will be a campus of three schools.

Councilor Monroe said Mr. Lashbrook’s testimony helped, and he would support the amendment.

Councilor Morissette thanked Mr. Lashbrook for speaking.

Chair Kvistad said he has a hard time supporting areas 41 and 42 because of the prison siting issue. He said he wants to support the City of Wilsonville, but he is afraid that his support of the resolution will give an advantage to the people who want to site a prison at Dammasch. He said he will probably not vote for Resolution No. 98-2729.

Councilor Morissette said this was an unbelievable twist. He said he assumes the people engaged in this process have that pretty well figured out, and the one ability to keep the prison from Dammasch has to be that there is a potential for a master plan, let alone that it is next to a school. He said he will honor Chair Kvistad’s decision, though he is floored by it. He said he would rather Chair Kvistad abstain from the vote than vote no.

Councilor Monroe said he is not shocked and appalled at anything Chair Kvistad does anymore. He said since this is a resolution, and an ordinance would be forthcoming in several months, he is hopeful that the new legislature and the old governor will be able to resolve their differences by then. He said he supports the Wilsonville/Dammasch town center idea; the planning for area 41 is delightful and fits well with Metro’s 2040 needs, and it would be tragic to build a prison there. He said he believes the governor now recognizes that, and soon perhaps, the legislature will as well. He said it will be well into spring and those decisions will have been made, before the Council makes final decisions on an ordinance, consummating the committee’s decision today. He said even for those people who have questions about the prison siting, it is appropriate to support moving the resolution today, and withhold judgment until the legislature acts, and reflect that decision when the ordinance comes up for a vote.

Chair Kvistad asked for further comments. There were none.

Councilor Morissette verified that everything but Stafford has moved forward with a recommendation for adoption. Chair Kvistad said yes.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-788, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE 95-625A IN AREAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY (Continued)

Chair Kvistad said the committee would now consider areas 54 and 55: Resolution No. 98-2728 and Ordinance No. 98-788, beginning with Ordinance No. 98-788. He said the committee has had preliminary changes to Ordinance No. 98-788. He recommended that if there is a motion on Ordinance No. 98-788, that it be amended to remove areas 43 and 47.

Chair Kvistad said there is an amended motion before the committee. He asked Mr. Shaw if it would be preferable to move Ordinance No. 98-788, and then move the amendment, or if the committee can move it as a package. Mr. Shaw said the committee could act either way.

Chair Kvistad accepted Councilor Monroe’s motion of Ordinance No. 98-788 which reflects that part of urban reserve area 55 which is fully within the existing Metro boundary. He asked for general comments to the motion.

Councilor Morissette asked if the Ordinance would become an “A” version to delineate the fact that areas 43 and 47 are already in. Chair Kvistad said yes.

Councilor McLain said besides being inside the Metro jurisdictional boundary, this land is also all exception land.

Chair Kvistad said Ordinance No. 98-788, as proposed by Councilor Monroe, is before the committee. He said it will be an “A” version because there will be a change from the originally published version. He asked for further questions or comments on the item. There were none.

11.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2728, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPRESSING COUNCIL INTENT TO AMEND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO ADD URBAN RESERVE AREAS 54, 55, 62, AND 63 TO THE HILLSBORO REGIONAL CENTER AREA

Councilor Morissette said Resolution No. 98-2728 concerns the potion of areas 55 and 62 that are outside of Metro’s jurisdictional boundary, in addition to areas 54 and 63.

Chair Kvistad said there are corresponding resolutions for areas 62, 63, and 65.

Councilor Monroe asked if Councilor Morissette moved the resolution to Council with recommendation for adoption.

Councilor Morissette said he would first like to try voting on the resolution with recommendation for adoption. Councilor Monroe said he could try it.

Councilor McLain said as Chair Kvistad pointed out, areas 55 and 54 have been packaged with areas 62 and 63 due to single-ownership issues. She said it is important that areas 62 and 63 are maintained in their resolution. She said it would be fine to have two competing resolutions at full Council, but they could not accept removing areas 62 and 63 from their resolution.

Chair Kvistad called for discussion of the motion.

Councilor McLain said the committee needs to strive toward a need assessment. She said they are not trying to blindly reach an arbitrary number of dwelling units, but have carefully reviewed the master plan and the issue of schools. She said they cannot accept this format. She asked Chair Kvistad to honor their package of areas 62, 63, 54, and 55 because they have packaged them together for both legal and practical purposes. She said it is fine if Chair Kvistad wishes to bring up area 53 or 65, but she asked that he not sully their package.

Councilor Morissette said he would like the Council to have an opportunity to vote on their package.

Councilor Monroe said he will support Chair Kvistad’s motion. He said he supports removing areas 62 and 63 because they are not part of this geographical area. He said if the committee is going to consider area 54, the St. Mary’s property, which is farmable farmland, then it seems ludicrous to not also include area 53, which is commonly known as a stump farm and is not farmable.

Councilor McLain replied that in some circles, a stump farm is known as a forestry area. She said areas 62 and 63 are in the same geographical area as 54 and 55, in terms of the job region. She said all four areas are in her district, and are not in different geographical areas. She said areas 62 and 63 are to the north of the jobs, and areas 54 and 55 are to the south of the jobs, and they will be connected by north/south roads. She said she would accept the inclusion of areas 53 and 65, but asked that areas 62 and 63 not be removed.

Councilor Morissette said he worked hard with Councilor McLain and the committee to make a package that makes sense. He said the committee cannot bring everything forward to the full Council. He said he has no problem with area 53, but the reality is that the Council is trying to move a big boat down a river, and it does not turn easily. He said the Council is required to bring forward what it can realistically expect its partners to deal with. He said he is shocked that after he has spent so much time on this committee, not only is he not allowed to vote on his package of ordinances and resolutions, which are supported by three other Councilors, but he has to resist the fact that it is just a free-for-all to bring land in. He said he understands everyone’s politics, but asked to please be allowed to vote on his package.

Chair Kvistad said the mayor of Hillsboro came to him following the committee’s last meeting and said he did not understand why this parcel was broken up and why the master planned area was not being taken in. He said Councilor Morissette is saying it is okay to take the Sister’s property, but it is not okay to take the stump farm.

Councilor Morissette said that is not what he is saying, he is just asking Chair Kvistad to let the committee vote on his package. He said he has no resistance to voting on area 53 right after the committee votes on his package.

Chair Kvistad said it is fair enough to make that request. He said Councilor Morissette has a resolution before the committee that deals with these sites; there is no competing resolution that deals with these sites.

Councilor Morissette encouraged Chair Kvistad to make one.

Chair Kvistad said the vehicle is in front of the committee to make these additions and changes.

Councilor Morissette said he has made a request, through a lot of hard work, to have the opportunity to have a vote on his package. He said if the resolution is not approved, he would like a vote to move it forward without recommendation. He said this is very important to him. He said he does not mind voting on the record on area 53 immediately after a vote on his resolution. He said he is not trying to avoid deciding whether or not the full master planned community comes in, he just wants a chance to see his work come to a vote.

Councilor Monroe said the only way to add area 53 legally at this point is as an amendment to Resolution No. 98-2728. He said no one is trying to deprive Councilor Morissette of a vote. He said in addition, Metro has a weak committee system, and Councilor Morissette will have another opportunity before the full Council.

Councilor McLain said she is not disagreeing with Chair Kvistad’s opinion of the process for adding area 53; she is disagreeing with the fact that he needs to take areas 62 and 63 out. She repeated that areas 62 and 63 are one ownership, only 28 acres, and are in the same geographic area.

Councilor Monroe said there is another resolution dealing with areas 62 and 63 that the committee can address; they are not being cut out. He said he may support bringing areas 62 and 63 into the UGB, but they are in a different geographic area, and it is appropriate to deal with it in a separate vote. He said he hopes he and Councilors Morissette and McLain can respectfully disagree.

Councilor McLain said in response, looking at the makeup of the committee, it seems obvious that there are enough votes in committee for areas 55, 54, 53, 62, 63, and 65 to all come out of committee. She said by packaging the sites in this way, more amendment work will need to be done at the Council level, but she is willing to do that.

Chair Kvistad called for further discussion of Resolution No. 98-2728.

Councilor Morissette clarified that the amendment is to add area 53 and delete areas 62 and 63. He asked Chair Kvistad if he would consider keeping areas 62 and 63 in the resolution. He said he could potentially support that.

Chair Kvistad asked Mr. Shaw if the committee were to vote for two competing resolutions that have the same properties, whether the committee would have to rectify that by either a subsequent resolution and/or amending one or the other. He asked if the committee could potentially vote forward both of these resolutions, with the parcels of 62 and 63 that seem to be in contention, as different packages for discussion. Mr. Shaw said yes.

Councilor Morissette suggested a friendly amendment that the committee vote on area 55, outside of Metro’s jurisdictional boundary in the reserve area; 54, the Sisters property; 53, 62, and 63.

Chair Kvistad, as maker of the motion to amend the main motion, agreed to the friendly amendment to include areas 62 and 63, as a courtesy to Councilor Morissette. He said he would reserve the right to make a motion to remove them at Council.

Councilor Morissette said the amendment on the table is now his Resolution No. 98-2728, with the addition of area 53.

Chair Kvistad said yes. He said he believes the retention of areas 62 and 63 in Resolution No. 98-2728 puts these parcels at risk due to the controversial nature of other parcels in the resolution.

Councilor Morissette replied that due to fact that the committee has no other proposal short of area 65 up by areas 62 and 63, there is no other choice but to do this, due to single ownership. He said they packaged the sites this way under the direction of legal counsel, based on the recommendation that due to single ownership, areas 62 and 63 have to be bundled with other parcels. He said he does not support adding site 65 because he is trying to make choices. He said he does not see another choice to areas 62 and 63, short of that.

Chair Kvistad said he needs to be clear about what he is trying to do in committee. He said this is a difficult decision for him because he has a different view of these sites. He said these properties were not in his proposal to come forward. He said he believes areas 62, 63, and 65 are best bundled separately.

Chair Kvistad said he would proceed with his original motion to amend the main motion, which would add area 53 and remove areas 62 and 63.

Councilor Morissette clarified for the record that Chair Kvistad said that because areas 62 and 63 are under single ownership, that if area 65 does not come in, he is not supporting areas 62 and 63.

Chair Kvistad said that was not what he said.

Councilor Morissette said that is the practical reality of Chair Kvistad’s proposal.

Chair Kvistad said they have a different approach. He reminded Councilor Morissette that there is still a full Council process to go through, and there can be amendments on these parcels at that time. He said he believes areas 62, 63, and 65 are best bundled together as a package; they fit better together, the single ownership requirements are addressed, and it separates out the controversial St. Mary’s property from the noncontroversial areas of 62, 63, and 65.

Councilor Morissette said regardless, if area 65 does not come in, there will be no opportunity to add areas 62 and 63. He said Chair Kvistad is risking those two properties with his hope that area 65 comes in as well. He said there are already three Councilors who have gone on record recommending area 54. He said based on the committee’s votes, there might be four Councilors in support. He said the understands Chair Kvistad’s strategic point, and it is valid, but he thinks he might be making a mistake.

Chair Kvistad said they have a difference of opinion on this issue. He asked for further comments. There were none.

Councilor Morissette said he would not support Councilor Monroe’s motion.

10.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2726, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPRESSING COUNCIL INTENT TO AMEND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO ADD URBAN RESERVE AREAS 39, 62, 63, 65 IN WASHINGTON COUNTY (Continued)

Chair Kvistad said Resolution No. 98-2726 includes areas 62, 63 and the master planned portion of 65.

Councilor Monroe asked for a quick review from staff.

Mr. Shaw said areas 62 and 63 are the single ownership of just under 30 acres, and area 65 is a portion of a northern urban reserve area, part of which has been master planned, that is done in coordination with the City of Beaverton. He said areas 62 and 63 are adjacent to some of the industrial employment in Hillsboro.

Councilor Morissette asked Mr. Shaw if there is a way to separate areas 62 and 63 from area 65.

Mr. Shaw said no, because single ownership needs to be in a package with something else so the Council is not dealing with a legislative amendment. He said areas 62 and 63 have to be packaged with something else; in Resolution No. 98-2726, they are packaged with area 65.

Mr. Shaw said areas 43 and 47 are addressed as ordinances; the committee is now considering resolutions.

Councilor Morissette asked Mr. Shaw where the closest parcels that are part of a resolution are in proximity to areas 62 and 63, not counting area 65.

Chair Kvistad said Councilor Morissette would need to amend areas 62 and 63 to the Dammasch Wilsonville properties.

Councilor Morissette said he would like to do that if he could.

Chair Kvistad said the motion before the committee is different than the motion made by Councilor Monroe. He asked Mr. Shaw how to deal with competing motions not on the main motion point. He asked if the committee needs to vote on the motion on the table before there can be an additional motion.

Mr. Shaw said as he understood it, the original motion was for the currently proposed 98-2726, which is the motion on the floor. He said the proposed amendment seems to be an amendment to Resolution No. 98-2729A, that was previously adopted by the committee.

Chair Kvistad said the committee will need to vote on the motion on the table, and then on the subsequent motion. Chair Kvistad asked for discussion on the motion on the table.

Councilor McLain said one of their goals as they put together package 2 was to keep separate the resolutions and ordinances. She said with the removal of areas 62 and 63, which they felt was geographically connected to housing in the southern part of Hillsboro, the committee has caused them some problems, and she wants that on the record. She said areas 62 and 63 have governance resolved; the City of Hillsboro has indicated an interest in providing services. She said area 65 is not connected to Hillsboro, and is not the same governing body. She said they have had conversations and phone calls with Washington County, and Washington County Commissioner Kathy Christy has indicated that there has been no discussion of how Beaverton would actually handle service provision to the master planned areas of 65, because there has been no action taken on the board level, it has completely been staff-level talks. She said areas 62, 63, and 65 may look geographically close, but they are two different jurisdictions, and residents of the area understand the differences between Washington County, unincorporated Hillsboro, and Beaverton. She said putting areas 62 and 63 together with area 65 does not make sense; they are quite different and 65 is quite controversial. She said putting the three properties together will not be helpful for distinguishing some of the differences between the Hillsboro governance and the Beaverton governance. She said as far as dealing with the findings for these areas, the Council will be dealing with a package of findings addressing the master planning capabilities of certain jurisdictions. She repeated that the committee is coupling urban reserve areas that do not belong together. She asked Mr. Shaw if would still be possible to have an amendment at the Council level that would put areas 62 and 63 in a different resolution, given that areas 62 and 63 have been removed from package 2, and assuming that Councilor Morissette removes his request from the table to have them added to Resolution No. 98-2729A.

Mr. Shaw said yes.

Councilor Morissette said he fully intends to move bring package 2 forward. He asked if the committee can vote on areas 62 and 63 separately from area 65. Chair Kvistad said no.

Councilor Morissette said he supports areas 62 and 63 at this time, and has no particular problem with area 65, but the reality is that they have to make choices. He said he hopes Ryland Homes continues its hard work with the City of Beaverton master planning that community. He said he hopes area 65 will come in next year. He said it seems the committee is not making choices today, and he is trying to make some of those choices as the Council goes through this process. He said he thinks the conclusions will be different when it goes to the full Council.

Chair Kvistad said the committee is making choices, it is just making different ones. He said in terms of 65, he understands the Mayor of Beaverton will attend during public testimony to say that there is governance for area 65. He said he understands from the applicants that area 65 meets all of the requirements, and he supports it. Chair Kvistad asked for further questions on Resolution No. 98-2726.

Mr. Morrissey clarified that when Chair Kvistad says area 62, he is actually referring to a portion of 62. Chair Kvistad said yes, he is using the generic urban reserve numbers, whereas the resolution itself specifies the exact parcel.

Mr. Morrissey said he asked for clarification because the agenda packet includes fairly generic site maps for all the urban reserves.

13.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Chair Kvistad said the packages as amended and moved forward by committee will be the packages taken out to the public hearings. He said the opportunity for revisions before the Council will take place prior to Council review. He said as always, as the Council moves into final deliberations in December, any of these packages can be amended.

Councilor Morissette asked Chair Kvistad to consider giving the package Councilors McLain, McFarland, Washington and he put together an opportunity to be voted on as one package at Council.

Chair Kvistad said the actual votes that will take place as the Council moves into December are open for amendments and changes to the items before the Council. He said all the parcels are going forward to the Council public hearings and any combination can be voted on during final deliberations.

Councilor Monroe said Councilors Morissette and McLain may make any motions they wish, but philosophically he is opposed to omnibus packages. He said the Council is held more accountable if its votes are registered parcel-by-parcel or by geographic area. He said ultimately when the Council has crafted a package, there will be final vote on that package, but in the crafting of that package, he believes the votes should be separate on individual geographic areas so that each Councilor can be held responsible and can feel responsible for those individual votes.

Chair Kvistad agreed.

Councilor McLain thanked Councilor Monroe for his comments. She said she and Councilor Morissette did not indicate that they were not interested in geographic likenesses, but what he needs to understand that in District 4, Western Washington County, there are three or four jurisdictions involved. She said in addition to the many jurisdictions, there are also more glitches between the UGB and Metro’s jurisdictional boundary in District 4 than anywhere else in the region. She said the boundaries in that area are not perfect, and because of that she and Councilor Morissette have had to do their best to put the parcels together in a way that makes sense of the one- and two-step processes for inclusion in the UGB. She said they have not in any way taken their package lightly; they have taken into consideration every legal and geographic aspect, in addition to what makes sense as far as the steps and responsibilities. She said what Councilor Monroe considers to be geographically connected and what she and Councilors Morissette and McFarland see as geographically connected and legally possible might be two different things. She said they are more than willing to bring these motions up again at Council.

Councilor Morissette told Councilor Monroe that they each have different ways to be on the record, but both are just as legal and clear. He suggested there are two ways to get to everything, and both of them might sometimes be a good way. He said he did not feel the committee process was particularly productive, and the committee did not end up with better regional form; he said the committee just voted forward everything and avoided making decisions. He said he hopes the committee can narrow down the discussion to what makes sense. He said while Councilor Monroe does not have to support all of his motions, he is on the record every time he votes. He wished Councilor Monroe luck on the election.

Councilor Monroe said he did not mean to be critical of his colleagues, and he appreciates the time and hard work they put into this issue while he tried to get elected. He said the process was not easy and their work helped narrow the issues dramatically. He said he feels strongly, however, that public officials always need to be held accountable, on the record, for the decisions they make. He said the U.S. Congress, for example, often votes on omnibus bills which make it difficult to hold people responsible. He said he wants to make sure the Metro Council is never accused of doing business in that way.

Chair Kvistad asked for further comments for the record.

Mr. Shaw asked for clarification on Councilor Monroe’s motion to amend Ordinance No. 98-781 to include the names of all the Councilors who wish to be listed as supporters. He asked if Chair Kvistad wished to include the names of all interested Councilors, plus the Growth Management Committee, as sponsors of every ordinance and resolution, except for Resolutions Nos. 98-2726 and 98-2728.

Chair Kvistad said the amendment only applied to Ordinances Nos. 98-781 and 98-786.

Councilor McLain recommended applying the amendment to every ordinance and resolution with a unanimous committee vote. She said otherwise, Chair Kvistad would be leaving out the parties that initiated the bills.

Councilor Monroe said he had no objection to Councilor McLain’s request.

Chair Kvistad agreed to Councilor McLain’s recommendation.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1998\grwthmgt\11038gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1998

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