MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Ed Washington (Vice Chair), Rod Monroe

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    David Bragdon, Bill Atherton, Susan McLain

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the January 18, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  Growth Management Services Director's Update

Elaine Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services, added that the department was on schedule for meeting the Council's work plan timeline.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, reviewed his memo, Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Rural Residential Areas Rule, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Monroe said he strongly supported the city of Gresham's proposal for 20 acre minimum lot size within two miles of the Metro urban growth boundary (UGB). He would like to see Metro Council take a position in support of the 20 acre minimum. He said the current practice of creating large lots with large homes around the UGB frustrates the 2040 development that Metro anticipates.

Councilor McLain agreed with Councilor Monroe and with Mr. Shaw's comment that without urban reserves, it becomes even more important to protect the lands close to the UGB.

Chair Park asked what minimum lot size was mandated in Metro's Functional Plan provisions.

Ms. Wilkerson said Title 11 of the Functional Plan included a provision that until completion of comprehensive planning on urban reserve land brought into the UGB, no land can be partitioned into lot sizes smaller than 20 acres.

Councilor McLain said in the past, Clackamas and Washington Counties have stated their reasons in support of a 10 acre minimum for Metro-designated urban reserves. She added, however, that the representatives from both counties voted with the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) in support of the Functional Plan. She said Metro would be internally inconsistent with its past positions and documents if it did not support a 20 acre minimum at this point.

Councilor Washington asked about the potential for misunderstandings to occur between Metro and other jurisdictions if Metro supported the city of Gresham's position, but did not share it with the other jurisdictions.

Chair Park said he did not anticipate any problems because the other jurisdictions have already had an opportunity to comment through the Functional Plan.

The committee directed Mr. Shaw to testify before LCDC in favor of the 20 acre minimum lot size for rural residential land, as consistent with Metro's Functional Plan. The committee also decided to notify the jurisdictions of its position at the MPAC meeting tomorrow.

3.  Regional Forecast and Jobs/Housing Policy Discussion

Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, reviewed his memo, Regional Forecast, Jobs/Housing Forecast Program, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He also reviewed the Draft Forecast Highlights and Policy Issue Discussion: Potential Policy Tests with 2040 Growth Concept, copies of which are included in the meeting record.

Chair Park clarified that Mr. Yee's policy questions were examples of the types of questions that could be analyzed by METROscope, a policy visualization tool that reproduces the market interactions and factors that affect land use and transportation.

Mr. Yee requested policy direction on what policy tests could help the committee meet the October 2000, LCDC deadline on UGB expansion.

The committee directed Mr. Yee to proceed with the three questions listed on the Draft Policy Issue Discussion document.

Mr. Yee said he would return to the committee in a month or two with the policy outcomes and tradeoffs, at which point the committee could further refine the tests.

4.  Goal 5/4(d) Rule Update

Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, said he had asked David Moskowitz, Salmon Recovery Coordinator, to write a draft response to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by Monday, February 14, 2000. He said he did not believe public hearings on the response would be necessary, as Mr. Moskowitz was drafting the response by correlating existing Metro policies, but the Council may wish to discuss the response in committee, a Council/Executive Office Iinformal meeting, or a meeting of the full Council.

Councilor McLain said she was comfortable with Executive Officer Burton and Mr. Moskowitz's work creating an inventory of current Metro practicies. She felt determination of a strategy, however, should be a coordinated effort between the Council and the Executive Office. She asked Chair Park and Presiding Officer Bragdon how they planned to achieve a coordinated strategy by the March 6, deadline.

Chair Park recommended that a small group be formed with a representative from the Executive Office, the Council office, and the Office of General Counsel. The group would work independently and then return to the Council with a response. The committee agreed.

Presiding Officer Bragdon asked whether there was a preference for the Council to send a letter of position to NMFS, or adopt formal legislation. Formal legislation would be more emphatic, but a letter would take less time, and they were on a tight deadline.

Chair Park recommended sending a letter. He said the main objective was to send a coordinated response from both the Executive Officer and Council. He asked the working committee to do a quick review so that the Growth Management Committee could review it and determine, with the Executive Officer, how best to proceed.

Executive Officer Burton distributed copies of three documents: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its protective regulations in Section 4(d), a schedule of the Goal 5 Streamside CPR Development of Measures to Conserve, Protect and Restore (CPR) Riparian Corridors in the Metro Region Discussion Draft, and a Goal 5 Streamside CPR Plan – Schedule for review in committees. Copies of all the documents are included in the meeting record.

5.  Resolution No. 00-2896, For the Purpose of Granting Time Extensions to the Functional Plan Compliance Deadline for Clackamas County and the Cities of Fairview, Gresham, Happy Valley, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Portland, West Linn and Wilsonville

Mary Weber, Manager, Community Development, and Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, presented Resolution No. 00-2896. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Weber and Ms. Bernards and is included in the meeting record.

Chair Park asked to remove the city of Gresham from Resolution No. 00-2896, and write a new resolution for the city of Gresham separately. He said he had a potential conflict of interest, and would like to abstain from the vote on Gresham.

Mr. Shaw said the committee could adopt Resolution No. 00-2896 with instructions to staff to carry it forward in two separate resolutions, creating a separate resolution for the city of Gresham.

Councilor Washington will carry Resolution No. 99-2896 to the full Metro Council.

6.  Resolution No. 00-2897, For the Purpose of Granting a Time Extension to the Cities of Lake Oswego, Rivergrove and West Linn for Compliance with Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

Ms. Weber and Ms. Bernards presented Resolution No. 00-2897. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Weber and Ms. Bernards and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Monroe will carry Resolution No. 99-2897 to the full Metro Council.

7.  Resolution No. 00-2895, For the Purpose of Authorizing Issuance of a Request for Proposals for Personal Services Agreement(s) for Land Use Planning, Transportation and Environmental Analysis of Urbanizable Lands on the Eastern Edge of the Regional Urban Growth Boundary

Ray Valone, Senior Regional Planner, presented Resolution No. 00-2895. A staff report to the resolution, and a memo from Mr. Valone to the Growth Management Committee regarding TCSP Grant Allocation, include information presented by Mr. Valone and are included in the meeting record. A revised copy of the Request for Proposals and Attachments A, B, and C, which includes non-substantive staff amendments, is included in the meeting record. Mr. Valone noted a mistake in his memo: the City of Gresham allocation was $150,000, not $190,000, as stated in the memo.

Chair Park will carry Resolution No. 99-2895 to the full Metro Council.

8.  Possible Amendment of Growth Management Committee Work Plan

•  Ordinance No. 00-841, For the Purpose of Establishing a Metro Fiscal Policy Relating to Cost Impacts of Growth

•  Ordinance No. 00-846, For the Purpose of Establishing a Metro Fiscal Policy, including Periodic Elections, Relating to Cost Impacts of Growth

•  Ordinance No. 00-845, For the Purpose of Amending the Future Vision and the Regional Framework Plan to Fulfill the Charter Requirement to Describe a Process for "Carrying Capacity" in the Region

Chair Park said Councilor Atherton had asked the committee to consider his three ordinances. Approval of the ordinances would require the committee to amend its work plan for 2000, which was designed to enable the committee to meet its October 2000, LCDC deadline for a UGB expansion.

Councilor Atherton said it was important to move forward with his ordinances because Metro was a legislative body, and his ordinances were issues of legislative nature. He believed they were not important for a work plan, but they were important for the agency and the region, they followed the charter of Metro, and they were very much on the minds of citizens. He said the three ordinances provided a body of work which merited Council consideration. Staff reports to Ordinances Nos. 00-841, 00-846, and 00-845 include information presented by Councilor Atherton and are included in the meeting record. He said he preferred Ordinance No. 00-846, which would place the question of payment for growth before the voters, over Ordinance No. 00-841, which would require a vote of only the Metro Council. He said he would appreciate committee review of the ordinances. In terms of the committee's work plan, he felt his ordinances should be the first order of business, in order to clarify Metro's position.

Chair Park asked legal counsel about the practical effect of any or all of Councilor Atherton's ordinances on Metro's responsibility to meet its extension deadline.

Mr. Shaw said in terms of Ordinance No. 00-841, the extension deadline, which was imposed by the state, would not be affected by a vote of the public on a local issue. Metro could request an additional time extension from the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to allow time for a public vote.

Councilor Monroe said he was pleased with the current work plan, and did not believe that it needed to be amended.

Councilor Washington concurred.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Shaw how passage of his ordinances would require an extension of the October 2000, deadline. In light of the earlier discussions with Mr. Yee regarding the Urban Growth Report, if a community voted to be growth-neutral, Metro could run the model and find out what the impacts would be on the Urban Growth Report. He said his ordinances could only affect the Urban Growth Report and the supposed need for additional housing.

Mr. Shaw said it was his understanding that at least one of the ordinance proposed by Councilor Atherton required a vote of the people. His earlier comments referred only to the time required to put a measure on a ballot and have a vote, and the change in policies that might result from the vote, to be incorporated on top of Metro's current work plan. Metro's current work plan has been calculated to take the agency right up to the deadline, and if the ordinances required additional work, it could come into conflict with the deadline, which would require an additional time extension request.

Councilor Atherton said if the measure was placed on the May primary ballot, and the community voted to be growth-neutral, Metro would either revise its growth forecast downward, or declare that there was no impact and proceed. He said he was confused as to how getting the public's review would change the agency's work plan.

Chair Park said the main concern was that, in order to work any of the ordinances into a format that could go out to the public, staff time would be required. It may require considerable staff time, and Metro did not have the necessary resources. He said the question was whether to devote Metro staff time, and Metro's minimal resources, in order to adopt something that would have an effect. He said at the LCDC hearing, it was very clear to him that Metro was under a very tight deadline, and that LCDC would not be receptive to an additional time extension request.

Councilor Washington said in addition to his desire to not amend the current work plan, he had no interest in putting Councilor Atherton's proposal on the ballot.

Chair Park concurred.

Councilor Monroe said there was a major monetary cost to putting a measure on the ballot; it would cost Metro around $150,000 just to put it on the ballot. In addition, a measure should not be placed on a ballot without a great deal of planning, organization and a campaign, and there was not enough time before the May primary.

The committee took no action on Ordinances Nos. 00-841, 00-846, or 00-845.

9.  Councilor Communications

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\020800gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 2000

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