MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, October 5, 1999

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Rod Monroe

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

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the September 14 and 21, 1999, Growth Management Committee Meetings

2.  Resolution 99-2835 For the Purpose of Expressing Council Intent to Amend the Region 2040 Growth Concept Map to Designate the City of Milwaukie as a Town Center

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, presented Resolution No. 99-2835. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Bernards and is included in the meeting record.

Carolyn Tomei, Mayor, City of Milwaukie, testified in favor of Resolution No. 99-2835. Her written comments are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain thanked Mayor Tomei for her testimony and noted that Metro has amended the 2040 Growth Concept map in the past to reflect local communities needs, so that they can meet their 2040 targets with the type of development they want.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2835 to the full Metro Council.

3.  Urban Growth Report Related

 Peer Review

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, presented the Peer Review Report of the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update, included in the meeting record. The summary page of the peer review includes information presented by Ms. Neill.

Chair McLain asked if anything was mentioned at the meeting that was not on the to-do list regarding the calling out of infill in the update. Ms Neill said no, and that they will address the application of the constant rate over the time period.

Chair McLain asked if the panel member from Seattle, who said the 20-year land supply was too long a time frame for developers, understood that Metro has a 5-year review? Ms. Neill responded that she believed that he did understand that. Chair McLain stated that it is crucial for others to understand that Metro does go back not just every 20 years, but at least every 5 years.

On the sensitive lands issue, Chair McLain asked if it was the peer group’s feeling that Metro should reflect on what it knows now versus what it knew in 1997, when it first set up the analysis? Ms. Neill responded yes, and also that Metro should look at the way that it assigns capacity to those lands. There might be constrained lands that are flood plains that do not have some of the other constraints and they might be treated differently than some other constrained lands.

Chair McLain asked about the review list: following each section there is a numbered list of issues – are they prioritized or just general non-weighted issues? Ms. Neill responded that they are just general issues. She then clarified the Seattle developer’s major point with the 5-year land supply issue, which was what is available within the immediate 5-years, what can a developer go out and immediately develop because there are services available or they are on the market. In other words, she said, his is totally a market perspective.

Councilor Park asked about the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) representative’s review: did he look at the tie between transportation cost and housing cost - the total package of living and working, not just house cost? He said one might be able to find a cheaper house in the country, but then drive 100-miles a day to work, versus a higher cost to live next to light rail, where total cost is actually less because of cheap transportation.

Ms Neill believed that the point that the HUD representative was trying to make pertained more to the actual cost of housing that is available in the area and monitoring the effects of a tight urban growth boundary (UGB) and limited land supply in some people’s minds.

Councilor Park asked if there is a correlation between the amount of affordable housing that Metro can provide and the price? Ms. Neill believed the HUD representative was aware of the work that Metro has done with Metro’s Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC).

Councilor Park said that when Portland is compared to other areas the comparison is often based on the price of housing, the cost of land and what people earn, and not on the total package. He asked about a pilot program in Florida that looked at the ability of a consumer to buy more house if only one car was needed.

Mark Turpel, Manager, Growth Management Services, responded that Gerry Uba, Growth Management Services, is working on LEM (Location Efficient Mortgage). Chicago and Seattle have just introduced this sort of program where, if you have a location convenient to public transit, you may be able to eliminate one car and therefore afford more house. He said the first phase of the feasibility analysis was completed last week and is being examined with the potential that Fannie Mae and other funders might use it to provide more funding.

Councilor Park asked if a similar project was being done in the Portland region at this time. Mr. Turpel said no. Councilor Park then asked if, given Metro’s mandate, and it addressed the Seattle developer’s concerns, would it be crossing over into providing infrastructure, which is local government’s role. He questioned whether Metro should be going there.

Ms. Neill said there may be a way to look at or qualify Metro’s vacant lands as to how the lands might respond to market pressure – it might be an interesting question that Metro should explore further.

Councilor Park wondered what the detriments are to providing that 5-year window and what tools are or are not available to Oregonians in terms of making that happen. He was also curious in regards to what Ms. Neill characterized as the mixed message – just what parts of it were “mixed”?

Ms. Neill replied that it was “mixed” in the sense that Metro has been evaluating historical development rates and using that to project the capacity that would be assigned to those lands. Are they necessarily what Metro wants, as few of the region’s jurisdictions have implemented Title 3? Does it accurately reflect what would be the Council’s goals for these lands? She believed that when more local governments have implemented Title 3, staff will have a better idea of what that rate should be.

As there were no more questions, Chair McLain stated that this was not an action item, but just for review. She encouraged the committee members to contact Ms. Neill or Mr. Turpel with any further questions.

4.  Legislative Urban Growth Boundary Review - Clarification of Process for Requesting a Time Extension from LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Commission). Follow-up to September 23 Options Review

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, presented his memo, Extension of UGB Review and Finishing UGB Amendments, dated September 24, 1999. The memo is included in the meeting record. Chair McLain summarized the document and Mr. Shaw’s explanation as essentially saying that Metro wants to be sure that anyone requesting an extension understands that Metro does not take an extension lightly, and that the requestor should demonstrate what they have completed to date. If an extension is requested, that it is a limited request, a limited extension for a very specific body of work. Mr. Shaw agreed saying that the extension should be tied to an estimated completion date.

Councilor Park asked how many of Metro’s local partners have asked for extensions, and was the latest extension (furthest out) October 2000? Chair McLain responded that October 2000 is the farthest out that she has seen. She said that she believes there have been 18-20 requests, all on Title 3.

Councilor Park asked if those requests are an additional reason for good faith in terms of LCDC. Mr. Shaw responded that this extension was narrower than that; it is not related to the UGB process because in calculations for the UGR (Urban Growth Report) it is assumed that over the 20-year period these extensions going on now will have played themselves out. Therefore their extensions would not hold Metro up and cause its extension.

Councilor Park asked if Metro could not determine the variable as to how much will actually be protected - was that not one of the reasons Metro might ask for an extension? Mr. Shaw responded no, that local governments would regulate the amount of land when they complete it, that up to now Metro has regulated in Title 3 maps. Any slight amendments or exceptions would not be deemed significant.

Councilor Park then asked if the difference in Metro’s placeholder would have an effect. Mr. Shaw said yes, the placeholder would have an effect because while there is work in process for Goal 5-type additional regulations, the Council does not yet know exactly what they will be. He said the Council does not have a map of those regulated areas, or an estimate of the impact of those areas when completed, as it does for Title 3, which has been adopted.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Shaw to explain how this works and how these extensions relate to the appeals on board now. Mr. Shaw responded that on the back of the memo he discussed appeals for context purposes. There are basically 3 decision points in the statute, 2 of which are completed. Metro is asking for an extension on the third appeal point. Under option #1, if the Council did not use the placeholder and went ahead and completed the process now, then it would be at the appeal point for that statute. The Council’s position would be that this was its final determination of the amount of need; and it moved the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) enough to cover that. He said that because someone always disagrees with Metro at some area, that would likely be an appeal time.

Mr. Shaw said an extension would not be a likely appeal because it would be hard to win and would delay the time for appeal for any UGB amendments until the extension was finished and this process completed. The rest of the memo is just a summary of decisions made and the appeal status. He noted that there was even an appeal of the 32,000 number that has not been actively prosecuted. There are the appeals the committee is familiar with on a portion of the 3500 acres that the Council put in the UGB in 1998, and the Title 3 appeals for which he hopes to have a decision November from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Also, when the Council adopts the Goal 5 base regulations, they are subject to appeal. In addition this week the City of Oregon City is likely to be the first of the jurisdictions to implement the adopted portions of Title 3, and are expecting appeal.

Chair McLain thanked Mr. Shaw and said that if there were no further questions on Item 4, this information was simply to give the committee more background on the 5-options on the UGR and the extensions.

5.    Sub-regional Jobs/Housing Balance Analysis

Chair McLain stated that Item 5 also relates to UGR action; some of the other options don’t seem to bring into question sub-regional analysis, whether on job/housing balance or other issues. It seemed important to the committee and the chair to discuss what is the criteria for analysis, how would we flesh that out, what has already been done and how does it relate to the larger body of work; the composite need analysis. She asked Mr. Shaw to give background information. Mr. Shaw presented his memo, Sub-regional Jobs/Housing Balance Analysis, dated September 29, 1999. The memo includes information presented by Mr. Shaw and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain asked about C, D, E, etc., all are other areas that could be used for sub-regional analysis or criteria to look at these sub-regional areas and determine if there is a need that is being demonstrated. Mr. Shaw affirmed that and said that when the council uses these areas it can determine what is the favorable ratio, how much of an imbalance is okay or not and might need to be addressed. For example, he said, a favorable balance that staff developed as a logical approach during the Urban Reserve period is not binding on the council.

Chair McLain asked why Mr. Shaw referenced OAR 660? Mr. Shaw responded that Elaine Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services, requested its inclusion. Its point is that when dealing with the urban reserve rule, the jobs/housing balance analysis should not be done on such a small area that it would skew the policy. It is a minimum requirement for urban reserves, but not for the UGB.

Chair McLain stated that she expected no action on the memo; rather it is information for the committee as the UGR is reviewed.

Councilor Bragdon asked if needs treated under the category of sub-regional needs would be eligible to proceed even while an extension was applied to the question of larger regional needs? Mr. Shaw said yes, his interpretation is that if Metro’s extension is limited to the placeholder, it has a range of need, but not the precise numbers. That would be consistent with Goal 14 Factor 1, as long as the Council proceeded in scale with Factor 2. In effect, the Council would be anticipating some need, not knowing how much, and would start processing amendments so that when it had the exact number it would be done.

Mr. Shaw added that he received criticism from a respected land use lawyer that a more aggressive interpretation of the case law is possible: even if the sub-regional analysis amendments were large and resulted in adding more than a 20-year supply as identified by UGR, that’s okay. While Mr. Shaw didn’t disagree with this interpretation, as the case law is not well developed in this area, he called it a more aggressive interpretation.

Councilor Park asked what range was statistically reliable.

Mr. Shaw replied that this is a fact-based conclusion, not a statistical law, and there is no one answer. It depended on an analysis of the circumstances of an area to determine whether there is an imbalance significant enough for the council to address.

Councilor Park asked if he correctly understood that the interpretation is also policy driven, as to what Metro or the local jurisdictions want to create in particular communities, as to how the sub-regional areas are linked. Mr. Shaw said yes, exactly.

6.  Title 3 Extension Issues

Mary Weber, Manager, Growth Management Services, presented a memo from Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services dated September 29, 1999, titled “Status Report on Compliance with the Requirements of Title 3 Deadlines.” A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain asked the committee to refer to a memo from Ms. Wilkerson dated October 4, 1999 titled “Status of Washington County Requests for Time Extension to Functional Plan Deadlines.” This document includes copies of the following letters: letter dated June 17, 1999, to Ms. Brenda Bernards from Brent Curtis, Washington County Planning Manager, RE: Title 3; letter dated August 25, 1999 to Presiding Officer Rod Monroe from Tom Brian, Chair, Washington County Commission, RE: Request for Time Extension for compliance with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and letter dated September 14, 1999 to Commissioner Brian, RE: Request for Time Extension for compliance with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan from Executive Officer Mike Burton.) This memo was presented by Ms. Weber and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain said she thought that Washington County had asked for additional time for non-Title 3 work, and she had expected the extension requests to be before the committee already, and not still pending. Chair McLain asked Brent Curtis, Planning Director, Washington County, what he thought the status was of the non-Title 3 extension requests.

Mr. Curtis distributed a letter from himself to Ms. Bernards regarding Title 3, dated June 17, 1999. He spoke about Ms. Bernards’ letter and his response (included above in the record).

Chair McLain stated that neither the committee nor the council has turned down any requests for extension. It is important to have a standard for extensions and everyone should be aware that we do review the functional plan; it is our responsibility to look at compliance issues and we take that job seriously. No one has said we will not give an extension, it is a timing issue only. The Washington County request is more complicated because the county board is also the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) board and the USA board, which would have to carry out some of this work, is not a land use entity. It does not have authority to make land use decisions. This is the reason that this particular request requires additional discussion. The committee needs to understand how this jurisdiction works with USA. She also went on record to say that USA has done a great job in some areas that other jurisdictions have not even started, such as storm water management.

Chair McLain asked staff to bring Washington County’s request for an extension to July 2000 for its work on minimum density, parking requirements, and connectivity standards to the committee immediately.

Ms. Weber responded that staff is waiting for a response from the County to Executive Officer Mike Burton’s letter, dated September 14, 1999.

Chair McLain said she would try to get on the agenda of Washington County and get these questions back on the record. She asked Mr. Curtis for the status of the county’s response.

Mr. Curtis said that he had prepared an analysis and response to the questions that were posed in Mr. Burton’s letter, as well as the questions Executive Officer Burton posed in oral testimony to the committee on September 14. He said the board is still evaluating that response, and will send it when the evaluation is done.

Chair McLain said she would call Commissioner Brian and find out exactly where that response is.

A copy of a letter from Brenda Bernards dated June 30, 1999 to Brent Curtis, Planning Manager Department of Land Use & Transportation Washington County is attached for the record.

Chair McLain stated that she supports a time extension for Washington County’s work on water quality and flood plain work, for the necessary small ingredients that need completion.

Ms. Weber asked for direction from the chair and committee as to whether extensions should be offered to the cities as well, since it is a coalition or just to the county?

Chair McLain said she understood that some of those cities have not requested an extension.

Ms. Weber replied that since the last discussion at the council meeting, several additional cities in Washington County requested time extensions.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Curtis if Washington County must stop discussing land use issues in October.

Mr. Curtis answered that the County can not adopt any more land use ordinances after the end of October.

Chair McLain said this is not a land use ordinance, so there should be no problem. Mr. Curtis agreed.

Chair McLain asked staff to batch the extension requests into a resolution, to come before the committee in November.

Ms. Weber said that they would do so, as well as keep the committee up to date as things progressed and the remaining issue about structure is clarified.

Chair McLain asked to see the letter clearing up the letter Mr. Curtis referenced as soon as possible and before it is sent.

Ms. Weber asked how the committee would like staff to respond to the cities (Gladstone, Milwaukie and Gresham) whose extension requests were tabled until October 18?

Chair McLain directed that a letter be written explaining why they were tabled and should be cosigned by the presiding officer and Metro’s Executive Officer, since it was a motion passed by council.

Councilor Bragdon said he personally supported moving ahead with the extension requests for Gladstone, Milwaukie, and Gresham, with the understanding that requests come before Metro at different times, and therefore move forward at different times. He said it is not a matter of punishment if some requests do not move forward at the same time.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Curtis if, when he mentioned board, was he talking about the USA board or the Washington County board?

Mr. Curtis said he works for Washington County, so when he speaks, he only speaks for Washington County staff and carries the board’s message. He said that he can discuss the type of work Washington County and USA do together, but he is not an official spokesman for USA. He said this topic on Title 3 deals with the authority that falls under USA and its board, and it also deals with some issues over which the Washington County board has governance. Both boards happen to consist of the same individuals, but are two separate entities.

Councilor Park said he understood; he was just trying to clarify Mr. Curtis’ position. He then asked if the cities gave USA the responsibility to handle the Title 3 issue for them?

Mr. Curtis said no, the cities have not given up anything. He said it so happens that items that come under cities and land use jurisdiction may also deal with water quality issues that USA has. Mr. Curtis further stated that there are existing intergovernmental agreements (IGA). Cities carry out provisions of IGA that USA has adopted (e.g. design and construction standards). It is an agreement, a contractual relationship, not an abrogation, but a way to carry out joint responsibilities. The existing agreements may be sufficient, or new agreements may be needed. He said that they do not really know yet because they are looking at this issue, and there are also some legitimate questions about what is a USA issue and what is a land use issue that is not USA. Washington County has worked with Metro staff every step of the way on these questions. The intent is to resolve those questions to the benefit of the resource.

Councilor Park explained that the committee must make sure extensions are granted to the right entity. That is why he is trying to determine where the legal responsibility lies between USA, the cities and the County. When asked to give an extension the committee wants to be sure it is to the right entity, the one legally entitled to it, and Mr. Curtis’ response seemed to indicate that it might still be up in the air.

Mr. Curtis said that no, Metro’s Functional Plan authority requires local government with comprehensive planning authority to amend their plans. He said that only cities and counties have asked for time extensions; USA does not need to comply as it is not required to.

Chair McLain said that this was one of the two ingredients that the committee is still working on because it is not a simple matter. She said Metro has received extension requests from the county and from some of the cities. She asked staff to prepare the necessary information for review of the extensions for committee review in November. She thanked Mr. Curtis for coming.

7.  Legal Notice Requirements for Urban Growth Boundary Consideration

Beth Anne Steele, Council Public Outreach Coordinator, presented her memo, Legal Notification for Possible UGB Amendments, dated September 30, 1999. The memo includes information presented by Ms. Steele and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain said that the Council was legally in a situation where October 1, 1999, was its deadline. She said the Council has not made any decisions, and it has not even answered the need assessment and updated that. She said the Council did have the Metro Code in place; and it will deal with the update and then turn to requests that have been made by local jurisdictions on this issue.

Ms. Steele said that the goal of the memo was to provide the committee with maximum flexibility, whether all, part, or none is chosen, the option to do so is open.

Chair McLain thanked Ms. Steele for her presentation.

8.  Councilor Communications

There was none. Councilor Park submitted an article entitled Sprawl, by Charles Lockwood from September 1999 in Hemispheres magazine and is included as part of the public record.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:33 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\10059gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1999

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