MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, March 16, 1999

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), David Bragdon (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Bill Atherton

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:34 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2769, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 98-788C, FOR RECONSIDERATION

Larry Shaw, Assistant Legal Counsel, summarized Resolution No. 99-2769. A memo from Mr. Shaw to Chair McLain, dated March 10, 1999, includes information presented by Mr. Shaw and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

Linda McQuinn, 2560 Southwest 229th Avenue, Hillsboro, read into the record her written testimony in opposition of Resolution No. 99-2769. A copy of Ms. McQuinn’s written testimony is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked Ms. McQuinn to explain what it means to have a waiving right of remonstrance against customarily accepted farm practices.

Ms. McQuinn explained that she has the right, with a permit, to use her property for uses other than exclusive farm use (EFU). She said certain criteria must be met, such as road clearance, roadways and parking.

Chair McLain asked Ms. McQuinn if Washington County granted her the exception.

Ms. McQuinn said yes, and added that the exception would stay with the property if sold.

Councilor Park asked if the exception was granted prior to 1983.

Ms. McQuinn said the her records show it was granted on August 25, 1983.

At the request of Chair McLain, Ms. McQuinn submitted a copy of the waiving right of remonstrance against customarily accepted farm practices into the meeting record, to be attached to her written testimony.

Tim Sercombe, Preston, Gates and Ellis, spoke on behalf of the City of Hillsboro. He reviewed a letter from Gordon Fabor, Mayor of the City of Hillsboro, to Chair McLain, expressing the City of Hillsboro’s opposition to Resolution No. 99-2769. The letter from Mayor Fabor includes information presented by Mr. Sercombe and is included in the meeting record.

Pat Ribellia, Planning Department, City of Hillsboro, added that affected stakeholders in the community were involved extensively in the creation of the South Hillsboro Urban Reserves Concept Plan. He said the City of Hillsboro is concerned that changes in the conditions, including the removal of 48 acres of EFU land, may have a substantial impact on the feasibility of the concept plan. He asked that, should the Council choose to reconsider Ordinance No. 98-788C, a process be followed that would involve the community and determine whether the reconfigured plan can work.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, said 1000 Friends of Oregon supports Resolution No. 99-2769 for two reasons: 1) to remove the EFU acres from urban reserve area (URA) 55, and 2) to ensure that the concept plan for the exception areas is a stand-alone plan, and separate from the concept planning done for the entire South Hillsboro area. She said the original decision was rushed. She added that the City of Hillsboro’s concept plan is not yet final, and could be revised. She said she believes the objections to Ordinance No. 98-788C can be resolved on voluntary withdrawal.

Councilor Park asked Ms. McCurdy if she believes any of the appeals before LUBA will resolve the question of how to include the resource land in URA 55 that is inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary, or if she believes there is already criteria in place that resolves that question.

Ms. McCurdy said this is not the only area in the region with EFU land inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary. She said 1000 Friends of Oregon is concerned about EFU land inside the urban growth boundary. She said the jurisdictional boundary is an issue of governance, not an issue of land use planning.

Councilor Park asked if Ms. McCurdy if she felt the 197.296 criteria for which lands to take first was not a factor.

Ms. McCurdy said it was not a factor for 1000 Friends of Oregon, because the land in URA 55, minus the EFU land, is exception land, and 1000 Friends of Oregon has always supported bringing in exception areas first. She said under the statutory scheme, Metro is supposed to consider exception lands first, if there are no urban reserves. She said in her personal opinion, it would be possible to resolve this issue more quickly by withdrawing the decision than by letting it go forward.

Meg Fernekees, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), testified that the City of Hillsboro applied for an urban technical assistance grant from the state Land Conservation and Development Urban Program to support a technical plan exercise for the South Hillsboro Urban Reserve Concept Plan. She said the program money dedicated to planning for the first tier lands only, exclusive of resource lands. At the request of the City of Hillsboro, DLCD agreed that the entire urban reserve area could be planned, but the grant money could only be used on first tier planning. Only 10 to 15 percent of the final document prepared by the City of Hillsboro, however, is devoted to the first tier plan. Last week, DLCD sent a letter to the City of Hillsboro indicating that it wants to see the plan revised to strengthen the first tier plan so it can be a stand-alone document.

In response to a question from Chair McLain, Ms. Fernekees clarified that in the eastern portion of URA 55, “first tier lands” and “exceptions lands” are synonymous. She said the South Hillsboro Urban Reserve Concept Plan uses the term “first tier.”

Councilor Bragdon said the City of Hillsboro testified that if the 48 acres of EFU land in URA 55 are removed, the concept plan will need significant revision. He asked whether, in Ms. Fernekees’s opinion, the viability of the site would have been significantly affected if the concept plan had been done originally with regard to the first tier.

Ms. Fernekees said the proposed removal of the 48 acres of EFU land would only affect some low density lands, and would not significantly affect the main proposed town center of the Gordon Creek neighborhood.

Richard Whitman, Oregon Department of Justice, spoke on behalf of the Oregon Department of Agriculture and DLCD, both of which have filed appeals of Ordinance No. 98-788C. He believes the removal of the EFU land would not require significant revision of the concept plan. As Ms. McCurdy testified, the concept plan is still in draft form and has not been adopted yet by the City of Hillsboro. Therefore, the status of a public process to make the necessary adjustments to the concept plan would remain the same. He said LUBA’s recent interpretation of Metro’s urban reserve decision sent a strong signal that EFU land can only be included in a UGB if there are no feasible alternatives. He urged the committee to support Resolution No. 99-2769.

Steve Larrance, Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth (CAIG), 20660 Southwest Kinnaman Road, Aloha, said CAIG strongly believes that unless Metro is willing to open the process on the remand to full consideration of public facilities defects in the urban reserve concept plan, and to require additional information before making a new decision, then the appeal should continue forward the way it is. He said this would allow for an impartial LUBA review on the existing case and the defects inherent in the case. He said Washington County has grave concerns about the transportation impacts of urbanizing the South Hillsboro area, and last Wednesday, signed a contract with DKS for a transportation analysis. He said CAIG strongly feels that any plan to serve this area needs to be funded and immediately implemented.

Councilor Bragdon said Mr. Larrance has testified that his concerns would not be satisfied by the removal of EFU land in URA 55. He assured Mr. Larrance that approval of Resolution No. 99-2769 would not compromise his rights; he would still have his standing to proceed.

Mr. Larrance said he understood, but Resolution No. 99-2769 would allow Metro to more fully develop its findings. He said if Metro made its decision correctly the first time, it should not need to be improved. He concluded that if the decision needs to be revisited, it should be revisited as a new decision by the new Council, with new information.

Councilor Atherton said he shares Mr. Larrance’s concerns and believes Metro’s job is to ensure that new urban settlement does not overburden regional facilities.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Larrance if Metro transportation staff ever did an independent analysis of the UGB change before this past year.

Mr. Larrance said knows of a staff report, but has not been able to learn if there was an independent analysis, due to the appeal.

Councilor Park said Mr. Larrance’s primary concern with URA 55 is transportation infrastructure. He said the residents of URAs 4 and 5 could raise the same issue, and he asked Mr. Larrance where urbanization should occur, if not in areas consisting solely of non-resource land.

Mr. Larrance said he believes the state has always required transportation to be the foundation for land use planning. He said Metro should start the UGB expansion process in areas with commitments from governments to provide transportation services. He recommended expanding the UGB in Washington County in the Highway 26 corridor. He said density should be created around transportation corridors, not vice versa.

Councilor Park said at a transportation seminar yesterday, Henry Hewitt, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), said that siting facilities along state highways, and using them as local thoroughfares, hinders interstate travel.

Mr. Larrance said that would be analogous of Highway 99 and the Tualatin Valley Highway, which are surface streets, but on a freeway situation with interchanges and limited access, facilities have a different affect.

Chair McLain closed the public hearing. She asked for a motion or further discussion.

Councilor Park said he empathizes with the landowners, and regrets that the 48 acres of EFU land were originally included in Ordinance No. 98-788C. He said in his opinion state laws are clear that governments are required to preserve EFU areas, and he would support Resolution No. 99-2769. He told Mr. Larrance that the transportation issue is much broader than South Hillsboro.

Chair McLain said she would vote yes on Resolution No. 99-2769 because it was an issue of consistency. She said approval of Resolution No. 99-2769 would allow all affected parties to argue why the EFU land is unique and should be included in the UGB. She said the City of Hillsboro has not adopted the concept plan, and property owners will have an opportunity to consider how the plan may need to be revised with the removal of the EFU land. She concluded that property owners have other processes to address UGB decisions, such as locational adjustments, which would take less time than Ordinance No. 98-788C.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2769 to the full Metro Council.

EXECUTIVE SESSION, HELD PURSUANT TO ORS 192.660(1)(h), TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF A PUBLIC BODY WITH REGARD TO CURRENT LITIGATION

There was none.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2758, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING FILING FEES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

Mark Turpel, Manager of Long-Range Planning, Growth Management Services, presented Resolution No. 99-2758. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Mr. Turpel and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked when the filing fees were last changed.

Councilor Bragdon said the filing fees were last changed in 1986, 13 years ago.

Councilor Park recommended that Resolution No. 99-2758 be amended to automatically trigger periodic review of the fee schedule.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2758A to the full Metro Council.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2767, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPOINTING KATHY CLAIR TO THE WATER RESOURCES POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Turpel presented Resolution No. 99-2767. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Mr. Turpel and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain said Ms. Clair attended the last two Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) meetings and contributed valuable comments. She urged the committee to support Resolution No. 99-2767.

Councilor Park said Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District is one of the more active and progressive Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and he supported Ms. Clair’s nomination.

Councilor Park will carry Resolution No. 99-2767 to the full Metro Council.

5.  HAZARD MITIGATION POLICY AND PLANNING GUIDE

Michael McGuire, Data Resource Center, presented the draft Hazard Mitigation Policy and Planning Guide. A packet of slides and a memo from Mr. McGuire to Chair McLain include information presented by Mr. McGuire and are included in the meeting record. A copy of the draft Regional Hazard Mitigation Policy and Planning Guide is included in the March 2, 1999, Growth Management Committee meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon said building codes was not listed as a prevention measure. He asked Mr. McGuire if he had any sense of uniformity or disparity among building codes in the region, and the costs associated with preventative seismic measures.

Mr. McGuire said the Hazard Mitigation Policy and Planning Guide does not address benefit/cost analysis of preventative measures. He said the planning guide identifies building codes as a key component, but is not site specific.

Councilor Bragdon asked if there is an objective way for Metro to list risks versus costs of different seismic standards.

Mr. McGuire said Metro would need additional expertise as it currently has no engineering component.

Councilor Bragdon asked if Metro’s Natural Hazard Program addresses the 911 system, backups in an emergency, and communication among agencies.

Mr. McGuire said Metro is a member of the Regional Emergency Management Group, which has addressed the issue of communications and 911 centers during disasters.

6.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT

• CAPTURE RATE
• PARKS, OPENSPACE, CHURCHES

Chair McLain announced that the Growth Management Committee would hold an additional meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, following the Council/Executive Officer Informal Meeting. The purpose of the additional meeting will be to review the Urban Growth Report factors of capture rate and parks, openspace, and churches, and to review the Urban Reserve UGB Code amendments.

Chair McLain said she has asked Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, to write a short memo after each Growth Management Committee meeting summarizing committee instructions to staff on the Urban Growth Report.

Dennis Yee, Data Resource Center, presented the capture rate. A staff report to consideration of the capture rate in the Urban Growth Report includes information presented by Mr. Yee and is included in the meeting record.

The committee discussed the correlation of age demographics, dwelling unit types, and the capture rate. Mr. Turpel noted the difficulty of using demographic trends, which describe the past, to predict the future, because different generations have different values.

Mr. Yee said household age and income are expected to rise in the future, while household size is expected to decrease. He predicted an increase in second homes, due to the strong economy, but said it would primarily affect Central Oregon and the Oregon Coast.

Councilor Bragdon stressed the importance of making it clear that the Metro Council cannot set the capture rate, it can only adopt policies which it hopes will achieve certain capture rates. He said it is also important to stress the negative impacts of a low capture rate on sprawl, transportation infrastructure, and the economic health and established neighborhoods. He said the report lists as a policy option encouraging the development of jobs outside the region. He said it is important not to overstate governments’ ability to influence the location of jobs.

Councilor Park said there is currently a 12 percent differential between the housing capture rate and the employment capture rate. He asked at what point the difference becomes too great.

Mr. Turpel said one of the primary considerations is how large the differential can become and still be supported by the transportation infrastructure.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Yee to prepare a map showing the location of job changes.

Councilor Park said the problem may be a shortage of residential zoned land.

Chair McLain said the current capture rate seems to be a solid figure and not too aspirational. She said the committee needs to discuss whether the Council should try to achieve a higher rate, and the capture rate’s relation to other factors. She said the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) will review the capture rate next.

Councilor Park said he finds the differential between the housing and jobs capture rates alarming. He said the Council needs to look at ways to try to raise the housing capture rate.

7.  URBAN RESERVE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) CODE AMENDMENTS

Chair McLain moved agenda item 7 to the next committee meeting on March 23, 1999.

8.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Atherton said his suggestion pertained to the UGB Code amendments. He proposed providing an additional process in the code, which would send a letter to each jurisdiction asking for a response, by resolution, to three questions: does the community wish to grow, and if so, where and by how much. He said this should be done before the Council starts its next round of UGB expansions.

Chair McLain invited Councilor Atherton to bring any proposals to the next Growth Management Committee meeting.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:30 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\03169gmm.doc

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

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