MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, July 20, 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 JULY 6, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 99-812, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE 95-625A IN URBAN RESERVE AREA 65 IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

Chair McLain announced there would be a public hearing concerning Ordinance No. 99-812 after the staff presentation, and again at the committee’s meeting on August 3. She said the committee would not take action on Ordinance No. 99-812 today.

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, presented Ordinance No. 99-812. A staff report to the ordinance includes information presented by Ms. Neill and is included in the meeting record. Also included in the meeting record is the November 24, 1998, Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Staff Report for Urban Reserve Area 65 (Beaverton Area, north of Highway 26).

Councilor McLain opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 99-812.

Donald Guthrie, Ryland Homes, 10070 Southwest Murdock, Tigard, briefed the committee on Ryland Homes’ concept plan for urban reserve area 65 and its urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment package. Mr. Guthrie read from written testimony, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Randy McCourt. DKS Associates, 921 Southwest Washington Street, Suite 612, Portland, reviewed the transportation aspects of the projects. Mr. McCourt said the project offered great opportunities, particularly for non-motorized modes of transportation. He said in terms of motor vehicle transportation, there were a series of improvements already underway that would increase the capacity of the roads. He added that according to the regional forecast, this was one of few areas in the region predicted to be under capacity in the future.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the City of Beaverton had expressed interest in annexing the area.

Mr. Guthrie said yes, the City of Beaverton had taken the lead, with Washington County, on the project.

Councilor Bragdon asked about the creek running through the property.

Mr. Guthrie said the waterway was a downstream drainage from a regulated farm pond that sat above the site, and some distance away to the west.

Councilor Bragdon asked about the treatment of the waterway running through the site.

Mr. Guthrie said at Metro’s recommendations, they provided a setback requirement for the stream area consistent with Title 3.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the densities Mr. Guthrie expected to achieve were based on net developable acreage. Mr. Guthrie said yes.

Councilor Atherton asked about the concept plan for the entire urban reserve site 65, which Mr. Guthrie referenced in his testimony. A copy of the concept plan is included in the 1998 Urban Reserve Boundary Amendment (URBA) Decision Record (record number CORR98/899).

Mr. Guthrie said the concept plan for the entire area was an attempt to do a more generalized concept plan for the region. However, as Ryland Homes did not own nor control the adjacent properties, it was difficult to determine what the balance of site 65 would look like.

Councilor Atherton asked if the concept plan was detailed enough for the Council to examine the impact on air quality, water quality, and transportation.

Mr. Guthrie said Ryland Homes took the first step to do a complete concept plan, and Metro staff, Washington County, and the City of Beaverton recommended that Ryland Homes focus on the portion of site 65 that it owned.

Ms. Neill said the applicant originally submitted a detailed plan for the 109 to 116 acres, and Metro staff asked the applicant to amend the plan and submit a conceptual plan about how the rest of the site could be developed. She said it mainly pertained to major transportation connections and some of the development patterns. She believed that the Metro Council was satisfied with the level of detail the applicant provided at that time. If the site was expanded in the future, the applicant would complete a detailed plan for the remainder of the site.

Councilor Atherton asked if submitting plans for small amounts of land was not contrary to Metro’s commitment to master plan entire urban reserves and build complete communities.

Chair McLain said there had been two levels of review. She said as per Metro Code, the Council asked that site 65 be conceptually planned, and the applicant submitted a complete concept plan. Secondly, as the Council came forward for an urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment, Metro asked the applicant for more detail, specifically on the site the applicant wished to have brought into the UGB. She said the applicant followed Metro Code and submitted a substantial transportation, as well as other corridor, analysis for the piece of property over which it had control. She added that Councilor Atherton’s desire to master plan entire urban reserves would require the Council to wait until one entity owned all the land in an urban reserve, which raised political and property right issues.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Guthrie about the source of water for the site.

John Godsey, Consulting Engineering Services, 15256 Northwest Greenbrier Parkway Beaverton, consultant to Ryland Homes, responded to Councilor Park’s question. He said there was an existing sixteen-inch waterline in Springville Road that was owned by the Tualatin Valley Water District. He said part of the circulation system of the water district included some very large lines adjacent to the area, and the Tualatin Valley Water District indicated earlier that it could serve the parcel.

Keith Fishback, 14605 Northwest Springville Road, Portland, asked the committee to move forward with site 65 quickly. He cited two examples of problems finding adequate water sources. He said he was a farmer and nurseryman in site 65, and farming on a commercial level was no longer viable due to increasing urban pressures.

Councilor Park asked if there were other sources of water available to his operation.

Mr. Fishback said no, there was one live stream in the area, but its downstream water rights were already allocated. He said his colleague, whom he cited in his second example, was outside the domestic water service area, and not allowed to tap into that water source.

Councilor McLain closed the public hearing. She said the public hearing would continue at the next Growth Management Committee meeting on August 3, 1999.

6.  TITLE 3 SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE RECOMMENDATIONS, SUBMITTED BY WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTORS

Councilor McLain said the deadline for jurisdictional compliance with Title 3 was December 1999, and one segment of the region in Washington County had written a document, Metro Title 3 Substantial Compliance Recommendations. She said action may be necessary from the Metro Growth Management Committee and the Council if the Washington County Planning Directors requested amendments to Title 3. She asked staff to summarize the comments it made in response to the Washington County Planning Directors’ substantial compliance proposal.

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, gave the committee an overview of the Washington County Planning Directors’ Title 3 Substantial Compliance Recommendations. A copy of the report is included in the meeting record. She said the cities of Washington County had been working with Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) to prepare a joint approach to Title 3 compliance. The Planning Directors set up an implementation committee which developed a proposed approach for achieving compliance. They started with four options: 1) to maintain the current conditions, 2) to widen the buffer to fifty feet, 3) to increase the buffer width to Title 3 standards but allow for encroachment into the buffers on steep slopes, with some mitigation, and 4) to adopt Metro’s model ordinance.

Ms. Bernards said Metro staff worked with the implementation committee and recommended the fourth option. Staff also noted areas in which Metro staff did not agree that the third option would be in substantial compliance with Title 3. She said the third option was modified slightly, and the cities and counties presented option three to Metro as their approach for compliance. As far as flood management, erosion, sediment control, and protection for intermittent streams and flow less than twenty-five percent, staff believed that the proposed approach would be in substantial compliance with Title 3. She said there were a few proposals in the flood management section which would generally be in compliance. The difficulty was in the steep sloped areas where the planning directors proposed up to a fifty percent encroachment into the vegetated corridor. Metro staff did not believe that fifty percent encroachment could be considered substantial compliance. Secondly, staff was concerned that the planning directors’ approach skipped Title 3’s alternative analysis requirements and moved directly into mitigation. A letter from Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, to Tom Brian, Washington County Chair, includes information presented by Ms. Bernards and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor McLain asked legal counsel to clarify whether it was a violation of Title 3 to use a credit table and go directly to mitigation, without first demonstrating that were no other practical alternatives possible.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said Chair McLain was correct. He said substantial compliance was a minor variation approach, and was intended to be site specific. He said the Corridor Width Credit Table approach to mitigation did not meet the goals of Title 3.

Councilor McLain noted that Washington County did not have a large number of steep slopes, and it would not be too difficult to demonstrate the lack of practical alternatives on a site specific basis before moving to mitigation. She invited representatives from United Sewerage Agency to testify.

John Jackson, Planning Division Manager, Unified Sewerage Agency, 155 North First Street, Suite 270, Hillsboro, said the issue was not a wholesale fifty percent reduction on steep slopes. The recommendation was to allow work on streams in marginal condition, depending on the situation. Mr. Jackson noted that there were steep slopes in Washington County along the stream banks, that delineated the flood plains. He said the main issue was undesired vegetation, and it was not sufficient to stay away from streams when the real need was for stream restoration. He said the implementing committee’s work was intended to find ways to recapture Title 3’s goals in degraded stream areas.

Lori Faha, Planning Division, Unified Sewerage Agency, said the implementing committee focused on complying with Title 3’s functions and values for water quality resource areas. The implementing committee was confident it had already provided an alternatives analysis on an area-wide basis. She said the implementing committee contended that property more than fifty feet from a water feature, which was already in a degraded condition, only met one of Title 3’s functions and values for water quality resource areas. By allowing opportunities for enhancement, these areas would meet at least four of the six functions and values. She said the implementing committee believed its approach met the intent of Title 3 and allowed flexibility at the permit counter.

Councilor Bragdon asked Ms. Faha to explain why her approach would be superior to Title 3’s approach in encouraging the elimination of invasive species in degraded areas.

Ms. Faha said Title 3 did not require any restoration, instead it defined a buffer corridor of a certain width. She said many of the riparian corridors in Washington County were not in prime condition, and the implementing committee’s proposal would require enhancement of the first 25 feet of any degraded corridor.

Councilor Bragdon asked if that requirement currently existed.

Ms. Faha said yes, it existed in Washington County in Unified Sewerage Agency’s existing code. In addition, she said the committee’s proposal would provide incentives for either further enhancement of degraded areas in the corridor, or other green development practices on the site adjacent to the corridor, such as filtering, erosion control, and temperature reduction.

Councilor Bragdon asked staff to address Ms. Faha’s argument that Washington County’s approach encouraged more restoration than Title 3’s approach.

Rosemary Furfey, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, said the issue of restoration was raised during Metro’s development of the regional performance standards. At that time, it was decided that a requirement for restoration was not politically possible, given that Metro was already doubling riparian corridor widths from 25 feet to 50 feet or more in steep slope areas. The performance standards recognized the importance of restoration and encouraged it, but it was not currently required.

Chair McLain added that in terms of restoration and repair along utility lines, for example, there was significant scientific evidence regarding how much restoration could be done without causing more damage.

Ms. Furfey said there were provisions for allowing encroachment of utility and other urban services. Metro recognized that these riparian areas were within the urban growth boundary, and urban services could be added, as long as the areas were later restored. She recognized the important work that USA staff had done in recognizing the importance of the variety of upland mitigation measures. In the deliberation of Title 3, stormwater management and other provisions were always recognized as important next steps. She said the issue was how much encroachment to allow while still recognizing the important value of managing stormwater in upland areas and its detrimental impact to riparian corridors.

Mr. Jackson said Ms. Furfey was correct, there was no one solution with regard stormwater management. He said buffers wider than 25 feet were necessary for adequate shade. He said the challenge was determining how wide Metro could require the buffers to be without losing the nexus. He said USA recognized the limitations of Title 3, and was willing to entertain further discussion of how to meet more goals and functions than possible through implementation of Title 3 as originally designed.

Councilor McLain said she, Ms. Furfey, and Mr. Jackson all listened to the white paper, and heard the scientific evidence that even 200 foot buffers may not be sufficient in certain areas. She asked Mr. Johnson or Ms. Faha, and Ms. Furfey, for scientific backing for the Washington County Planning Directors’ recommendation to move directly to mitigation tables, or that it was possible to give up 100 feet in any given area and mitigate it somewhere else with the same effect.

Ms. Faha responded that there was stronger scientific evidence for the implementing committee’s proposal than for Title 3’s proposal. Looking at the white paper and its scientific support for 200 foot buffers for steep areas, out of five or six papers listed, only two actually addressed steep slopes. One of the papers which did address steep slopes said that in the most extreme conditions, the buffer should be 200 feet. The other paper said that for 80 percent slopes the buffers should be 50 feet. While USA strongly supported 50 feet buffers, it did not agree there was strong scientific evidence for a 200 foot buffer. She said the University of Washington was conducting an ongoing study of urban areas and their impacts on stream health. That study recommended a four-prong approach to water quality and stream health in urban areas: 1) address flash flooding from small storms, 2) have vegetated corridors that for 60% of the watershed are 100 feet wide, 3) address erosion control issues, and 4) address stormwater and water quality treatment.

Ms. Furfey said Metro staff had also reviewed the University of Washington study. She added that Derek Booth, one of the study’s co-authors, peer reviewed Title 3 and was very supportive of Metro’s recommendations in Title 3. She agreed with Ms. Faha in regard to the four-pronged approach, and recognized the need to address stormwater management as a next step. The study did not look at steep slope areas with regard to the work that had been done in the lowland streams in the Puget Sound region, but it also emphasized the need for at least 100 feet of protected vegetated corridor. In reviewing the white paper, the issue of the limited number of scientific papers available supporting the wider corridors up to 200 feet was acknowledged. In looking at the literature, Metro staff recognized that there was not much literature in steep slope areas in urban settings. However, the lack of scientific papers did not necessary mean that no action should be taken. Metro staff also looked at programs around the country, including the Puget Sound region, and elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. The white paper’s recommendation for buffers up to 200 feet resulted from a combination of the available literature, analysis of other programs, and the best professional judgment of the Metro staff.

Councilor McLain said she agreed with the four-prong approach, and Title 3 was a first step.

Mr. Jackson added that when looking at a research paper, it was important to remember the end goal. He said Title 3 was a water quality goal relative to slope stability. He noted that a 25 percent slope was not especially steep; it could be mowed with a riding lawn mower.

Councilor McLain asked if the implementing committee planned to take its recommendations to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) soon.

Mr. Jackson said no, not that he was aware of.

Councilor McLain said she still had questions and concerns, and she would like to discuss the issue further. She said she would place the item on a later Growth Management Committee agenda, if there was no rush.

Mr. Jackson said it was up to the Planning Directors to determine the timeline for the recommendations, as they had to meet the Title 3 compliance deadline.

Councilor McLain said Metro would talk with the Planning Directors about their time frame.

Ms. Faha added that changing the codes of each jurisdiction was a lengthy process, and a delay in amending USA’s code could mean that they probably would not meet the Title 3 compliance deadline of December 1999.

Councilor McLain said Metro had given extensions in the past, especially if a group was working diligently. She said she wanted to make sure the process proceeded in a timely manner for USA and the Washington County Planning Directors. She said she would speak with Growth Management Services staff about their concerns and with legal counsel about Metro’s timeline, then call USA and the Washington County Planning Directors, and schedule the item on a future committee agenda.

Councilor Park asked if the stream degradation from farm and forest practices, to which Ms. Faha referred, occurred prior to the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 1010.

Mr. Jackson said yes, he had aerial photographs from the 1930s which showed the removal of trees down to the stream banks.

Councilor Park asked for a visual explanation of 25 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent slopes, as they related to stream restoration corridors and the effect on water quality.

Ms. Faha said a 25 percent slope was four feet horizontal, one foot vertical. She said it was not a very steep slope, and in the landscaping industry, it was considered safe to mow a 25 percent slope with a riding lawnmower. A fifty percent slope would be two feet horizontal, one foot vertical, which was fairly steep. A 100 percent slope would be a 1:1 ratio, or a 45 degree angle.

Councilor Park asked if there was any data showing how much water quality would be improved if a riparian area was fully restored.

Mr. Jackson said a prescriptive number was always subjective in terms of the goal. He said there were many factors to consider when answering Councilor Park’s question. In an urban area, on flat ground, there was research showing that six feet was sufficient to get rid of any nutrients applied to nearby lawns. He said there had been a lot of discussion related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) about the average site tree height, which provided not only shade, but a large, woody debris recruitment; which was not a component of Title 3 at this time. He said Washington County’s 25 foot buffers were successful because each site was considered individually. He said he was concerned that due to the prescriptive nature of Title 3, while vegetated cover would be assured, if the vegetated cover was blackberries, the stream would suffer.

Councilor Park said that Ms. Faha stated concern about getting into a lot of variances, but it sounded like the proposed process was a complete variance because there was no set distance, and encroachment could occur on a site-by-site basis.

Mr. Jackson said they were using the term variance in a legal sense, which required a formal application followed by a public hearing and decision making process. Thus far, USA had been able to use its standards to allow discussion and variation to occur at the front counter, between the plan reviewer and the applicant. He said requiring applicants to provide alternatives analysis would probably overload the system with variance applications. The implementing committee tried to provide the required alternatives analysis from a regional perspective.

Councilor McLain said at a later date she would like to discuss her concerns about the tables and the tradeoff the implementing committee was making. She said another issue was the expertise of the employees at the front counter and what they can negotiate.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with Chair McLain that the debate on the substance and the science would be ongoing. He asked about the timeline for compliance with Title 3, and why it was taking longer in Washington County than in some of the other jurisdictions.

Ms. Bernards said it depended on the jurisdiction. Metro was not requiring USA to comply with Title 3, it was requiring each jurisdiction to comply. She noted that some of the jurisdictions in Washington County requested extensions, while others did not, and it depended primarily on the jurisdiction’s internal process for amending its comprehensive plan and zoning code. The implementing committee began meeting in January to develop the Metro Title 3 Substantial Compliance Recommendations. After the recommendations were complete, each jurisdiction, and USA, would have to amend its own code to comply.

Councilor Bragdon asked why and if Washington County waited six months after the adoption of Title 3 to begin its compliance work.

Councilor McLain said Metro staff did not wait six months to contact the Washington County jurisdictions. The jurisdictions were trying to determine if they could meet Title 3 and if they wanted to meet Title 3. She quoted a statement from today’s meeting, “There are those vegetated corridors we don’t want,” and said that was the conversation currently underway. As a Washington County resident, she said she may want those buffers, but they were trying to work through that difficult conversation.

Councilor Bragdon said this was highlighted in an article in the Daily Journal of Commerce, in which an attorney urged contractors to move with haste to avoid Title 3. Speaking for himself, he would not support an extension if the goal was to avoid the law. He would support an extension, however, if the goal was to allow parties to continue to talk and find the right scientific conclusion.

Councilor Park said through his work in agriculture, he was interested in using best management practices. He said Washington County Planning Directors’ proposal appeared to be similar, in that it would not disallow something scientifically viable. He said he had not heard yet, however, the scientific proof that the Planning Directors’ proposals were viable.

Mr. Jackson said most of the proposals already had scientific backing demonstrating their effectiveness for different water quality perspectives.

Veronica Smith, Policy Planner, City of Beaverton, said she had been working on the report for the City of Beaverton, jointly with USA. In response to Councilor Bragdon’s questions about process, she noted that USA was a service provider for ten jurisdictions, based on an agreement with all the jurisdictions. In order for USA to adopt standards, its board must go through its own process. Once USA adopts those standards, all ten jurisdictions must be in compliance and enforce whatever standards USA adopted. That process, and developing the program, must be reviewed by each jurisdiction. At this time, the City Council for the City of Beaverton will look at the proposal on August 2, 1999, and submit a letter to USA. She said the process took time, in which each jurisdiction would have the opportunity to review the proposals before USA adopted any standards.

Ms. Smith responded to the committee’s comments about implementing the mitigation table. From her perspective, she felt it should be more of a board development review process than at the front counter, to ensure an element of review and discussion about the definition of a degraded corridor. She recommended that the implementing committee work on that element of the plan further, solidify it in writing, and bring it forward for discussion.

Councilor McLain thanked all the parties for their comments.

Mr. Jackson invited the committee and Metro staff for a tour of degraded stream banks and blackberry patches in Washington County.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2820, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REAFFIRMING POLICIES TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS AND THE IMPACT OF THESE POLICIES ON THE NEED TO EXPAND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

Chair McLain said Resolution No. 99-2820 was the result of direction from the Growth Management Committee at its last meeting. She said the resolution was a combination of ideas from Councilor Bragdon and Resolution No. 97-2562B, the “Green Resolution,” which was passed in December 1997. The goal of Resolution No. 99-2820 was to clarify why the Metro Council put the placeholder for the sensitive lands in the Urban Growth Report, and to reaffirm to the public that Metro was serious about protection of openspace, green space, and sensitive lands.

Councilor Bragdon said his intention was two-fold. First, Metro spoke extensively about the numbers in the Urban Growth Report, and his first goal was to state that the placeholder was exactly that: the regulations were in flux, the science was currently being conducted, and Metro was still waiting for answers to many questions. Secondly, just because state law required Metro to declare some land as buildable, or because local zoning made it buildable, did not necessarily mean that it should be buildable, in Metro’s view, or that ultimately, once the Goal 5 work was completed, it would be buildable. He said there had been misunderstanding, and as Metro moved towards protection of environmentally sensitive lands, it was important to express Metro’s intent to do it as quickly as possible. He said the need for Resolution No. 99-2820 was reinforced in the newspaper article he cited earlier, in which an attorney advocated that contractors move into areas that may be protected by Title 3, effective January 2000, and develop them as quickly as possible in order to avoid Title 3 regulations.

Chair McLain asked Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, to review the Metro’s policies which Resolution No. 99-2820 would reaffirm.

Mr. Shaw said the resolution attempted to clarify Metro’s policy on buildable lands, and to differentiate Metro’s approach from the state requirement to calculate for purposes of urban growth boundary capacity. The resolution would state that there were some unknowns and that there was a placeholder. Finally, the resolution would restate that the Council was holding public hearings in the fall on the Urban Growth Report numbers, what to do about those numbers, the placeholder concept, and whether Metro should come to some kind of conclusion in 1999 to meet the statutory requirement, or to seek an extension of time under the statutory requirement.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, added that Growth Management staff said the Green Resolution was frequently requested by local jurisdictions and others. Given that Metro was “encouraging local jurisdictions to actively protect environmentally sensitive areas,” it may be beneficial to learn about any actions that local jurisdictions could actually take prior to any functional plan requirements which the Council may determine.

Chair McLain said she reviewed this resolution and found it consistent with Resolution No. 97-2562B and the 1999 Urban Growth Report.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Shaw what the actual legal effect of Resolution No. 99-2820 would be.

Mr. Shaw said Resolution No. 99-2820 was not a final land use decision, but a statement of policy. It would expand on Resolution No. 97-2562B, which gave Metro’s recommendation on how to balance conflicts between density and protection of openspace.

Councilor Park asked how many square feet of land would be protected by the passage of Resolution No. 99-2820.

Mr. Shaw said no action was taken by Metro to regulate in this resolution.

Chair McLain said the intent of the resolution was to encourage the people who had control of the comprehensive plan to do policy protection that was not part of Metro’s authority.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2812 to the full Metro Council.

4.  PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION PHASE II – FY 1999-2000  

Jennifer Budhabhatti, Associate Regional Planner, Regional Parks and Greenspaces, reviewed the goal and work plan for the Parks and Natural Areas Protection Plan Phase II. A copy of the document, Parks and Natural Areas Protection Plan Phase II – FY 1999-2000 includes information presented by Ms. Budhabhatti and is included in the meeting record.

In relation to Task 4, Councilor McLain recommended that Ms. Budhabhatti use the Greenspace Master Plan goals and vision as part of the basic criteria to determine areas with a “deficiency” in regional sites and connections.

Councilor Bragdon asked if level of service only measured human use. Ms. Bubhabhatti said yes.

Councilor Bragdon asked if there were different levels of service for parks that provided different activities, such as hiking versus soccer fields.

Heather Nelson Kent, Senior Manager, Regional Parks and Greenspaces, said the level of service requirement in the Framework Plan asked Metro, in conjunction with local jurisdictions, to identify what would be included in standards for levels of service. It then left the local governments the option of developing the actual standards which they would then apply, such as trails, accessibility, number of acres, and types of uses.

Councilor Park asked if staff had a percent of canopy comparing 1998 to 1992, for example.

Ms. Budhabhatti said yes, staff had a 1992 map of the urban forestry canopy for the City of Portland, and she asked a professor at Portland State University to compare the 1992 map to the most recent map and give her a percentage of the difference. Unfortunately, he said it may be difficult to compare the maps because of differences in the maps.

Councilor Park said based on an article about Puget Sound in U.S. News and World Report, he understood that there was the technology to compare the current and past status of the Puget Sound area, using the same type of map that Metro had.

5.  GOAL 5 RIPARIAN AREA UPDATE

Rosemary Furfey, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, updated the committee on recent work on Goal 5, Fish and Wildlife Habitat. She distributed copies of the Status Report on Metro Goal 5 Riparian Corridor “CPR” Program: Conservation, Protection and Restoration. The status report includes information presented by Ms. Furfey, and is included in the meeting record. Ms. Furfey also distributed a e-mail message from Liz Callison, which is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain thanked Ms. Furfey and Ms. Wilkerson for their hard work. She said she would schedule the presentation of the draft report for the September 7, committee meeting.

Councilor Bragdon asked Ms. Furfey to describe the involvement of local jurisdictions, and whether she was able to build on local Goal 5 work done previously.

Ms. Furfey said as part of staff’s work in January and February, Metro technical and GIS staff visited with every local jurisdiction and looked at the status of current Goal 5 work. She offered to provide Councilor Bragdon with a table summarizing the current status of Goal 5 in every jurisdiction. Metro’s goal was to fill any gaps in Goal 5 work.

Councilor Park asked if Metro planned to recognize Wood Village for being the first jurisdiction to comply with Metro’s Functional Plan.

Chair McLain suggested writing a letter of congratulations to the City of Wood Village.

7.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT

No action.

8.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:34 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\07209gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 20, 1999

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