MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, April 4, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    David Bragdon, Susan McLain, Bill Atherton

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 3:11 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the March 21, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  Resolution No. 00-2917A, For the Purpose of Appointing Thomas Donaca, Washington County, Christine Cook, Multnomah County, and Robert Traverso, Clackamas County, to the Metro Boundary Appeals Commission

Nancy Goss Duran, Executive Analyst, presented Resolution No. 00-2917A. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Goss Duran and is included in the meeting record. She noted that the resolution was time sensitive, as a case was coming forward.

Councilor Monroe said his concerns from the last meeting had been allayed after speaking with Dan Cooper, General Counsel, and he would support the resolution.

Councilor Washington noted the impressive credentials of Mr. Donaca, who attended Irvington Grade School and Grant High School, as did Councilor Washington.

Presiding Officer Bragdon he also spoke with Mr. Cooper and wanted some of his comments included in the record. He asked Mr. Cooper to confirm that the Boundary Appeals Commission would not hear citizen appeals or interest group appeals regarding urban growth boundary (UGB) movements.

Mr. Cooper said that was correct. This Boundary Appeals Commission only had jurisdiction over contested cases on annexations or formations of governments. For a contested case to exist, a local government must appeal a decision by another local government. Citizens or interest groups contesting an annexation or formation of a governmental body would appeal to either the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or Circuit Court. A local government would have to go through the Boundary Appeals Commission before it could go to LUBA.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said a concern had been expressed that one of the nominees was involved with appellants of a UGB decision, and he wanted to clarify that it was not material to this job.

Councilor Washington will carry Resolution No. 00-2917A to the full Metro Council.

3.  Resolution No. 00-2922, For the Purpose of Appointing Michael Carlson and Hilary Abraham to the Water Resources Policy Advisory

Elaine Wilkerson, Director of Growth Management Services, presented the resolution. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor McLain said the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) was happy to have these two new members. She noted that Mr. Carlson would represent the Clackamas River Basin Council, which had not been represented at WRPAC for a number of meetings.

Paul Ketcham, Principal Regional Planner, said he knew Mr. Carlson both professionally and personally, and he was a very fit nominee for WRPAC.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 00-2899 to the full Metro Council.

4.  Streamside CPR (Goal 5) Work Schedule

Citing the legal advice of Mr. Cooper, Chair Park recused himself from agenda item 4 and asked Presiding Officer Bragdon to temporarily chair the meeting.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said this item was a follow-up to the discussion at the last Growth Management Committee meeting, with regard to advice on Goal 5 which Metro Council received from local jurisdictions. Staff outlined some of those concerns and questions at the last meeting, and recommended slowing down the Goal 5 process. He said today, staff would present the committee with a revised time table that reflected the committee's instructions to slow down the process.

Mr. Ketcham reviewed the Draft Streamside CPR Work Schedule, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He clarified that the dashed lines on the chart indicated the duration of that issue being addressed. He noted that staff hoped to avoid any significant public outreach in August.

Councilor McLain asked if dates had been set for consideration of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) by the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC).

Ms. Wilkerson said she would work with the Council/MPAC Coordinating Committee to establish appropriate dates. Specific dates had not yet been scheduled for any of the committees, except for the month of April.

Councilor McLain asked when MPAC would begin consideration of the draft Functional Plan language. She felt it was unrealistic to assume that MPAC would be finished in time for an October UGB decision if it did not begin reviewing the Functional Plan until September.

Ms. Wilkerson said more detail was included in the UGB Periodic Review Work Plan, which she would present during the next agenda item. She expected MPAC to give its recommendation in July, which would allow the Council to hold public hearings in August and September. There would also be UGB public hearings in September, and staff was looking at the best way to balance the hearings. She acknowledged that September would be a difficult time, but they were working hard to make the October deadline.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, noted that Ms. Wilkerson had referred to the UGB Periodic Review Work Plan, which included Goal 5 Riparian work. He noted that the UGB Periodic Review Work Plan and Streamside CPR Work Schedule were not entirely consistent. The Streamside CPR Work Schedule indicated that the Council hearing, review and decision would take place in August and September, while the UGB Periodic Review Work Plan anticipated direction from the Growth Management Committee in May.

Ms. Wilkerson said the direction from Growth Management Committee in May referred to anticipated committee direction to staff prior to drafting Functional Plan language. She offered to add dates to the Streamside CPR Work Schedule.

Councilor McLain said the majority of the Council would want to be involved, and the timing of the hearings would be crucial. She said hearing dates needed to be set soon for times when the majority of the Council could attend.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said he would work with Ms. Wilkerson to schedule the hearings. He added that MPAC was concerned about the timetable, and he recommended including the Draft UGB Periodic Review Work Plan in the next MPAC agenda packet.

Councilor McLain recommended using the Draft UGB Periodic Review Work Plan rather than the Streamside CPR Work Schedule because it included more detail and was more useful.

Mr. Ketcham offered to add strategic times of Growth Management Committee, Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and MPAC review to the Draft UGB Periodic Review Work Plan. He said staff had assumed that there would be a continued review by MTAC and MPAC from April to June. In order to develop the Functional Plan, staff would have to receive direction from the Growth Management Committee, MTAC and MPAC, which was implied in the chart.

Presiding Officer Bragdon asked Mr. Ketcham to add the dates and make the work plan explicit.

Councilor Washington said August was a difficult time to hold public hearings, because many people were on vacation.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said the time Councilors spent in February speaking to city councils had been very valuable. He asked if Ms. Wilkerson anticipated doing that again.

Ms. Wilkerson said they did want to undertake 27 council meetings again, but in some cases, the city councils had asked for someone to return. She recommended sending a letter from Presiding Officer Bragdon and Executive Officer Mike Burton outlining the process and offering to send a speaker out if they wanted. There would not be enough time this fall to be as assertive as in February.

Councilor McLain said it was also important to contact other groups, such as watershed councils and Community Planning Organizations (CPOs).

Ms. Wilkerson said in February, staff was more assertive about speaking to organizations that were not necessarily supportive of Goal 5. She said the stakeholders needed to be encouraged to ask Metro to come out and discuss the item. She was only recommending that the general information letter be sent to local governments.

Presiding Officer Bragdon opened a public hearing on the Streamside CPR (Goal 5) Work Schedule at 3:40 p.m.

Gail Achterman, attorney with Stoel Rives, spoke as a representative of the Portland Riparian Committee, a broad-based coalition of land owner and business groups that were previously active in the Metro process. She reviewed her concerns about the revised work schedule. A letter submitted into the record by Ms. Achterman includes information she presented, and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor McLain thanked Ms. Achterman for her testimony, and assured her that Metro had been working on all of the concerns she had raised for close to three years, and the work plan was meant to complete that work by October.

Ms. Achterman thanked Councilor McLain for her assurances, and agreed that many people who were deeply involved in the process thought these issues had been addressed and resolved. She did not believe that some of the stakeholders, including businesses and land owners, had heard how the issues had been addressed, however, and they still had questions that needed to be answered through the work plan process.

Executive Officer Burton commented that he was a member of the Willamette Restoration Initiative (WRI), and the intent of WRI was not to work with the federal government to develop a recovery plan for listed stocks in the Willamette Basin. It was an issue that WRI was addressing, but when WRI staff attempted to draft comments to the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) on the draft 4(d) Rule, there was no consensus, and no attempt was made to address the question. There was certainly an interest in Metro working with these groups, and Metro would continue to do that. He noted the statement on page two of Ms. Achterman's letter, "Our coalition believes that Metro should not impose additional land use regulations under Goal 5 unless it can demonstrate what, if anything is wrong with the existing plans." He said this was a key question, and while some quarters of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) had said that each jurisdiction had an acknowledged Goal 5 element in its comprehensive plan, the question was how many of the comprehensive plans had been through periodic review since the new Goal 5 was adopted in 1996. Under Metro's Charter, local governments' comprehensive plans clearly had to comply with Metro's Framework Plan and Functional Plan.

5.  Director's Status Report and Review of Revised Growth Management Work Plan for 2000

Ms. Wilkerson reviewed the UGB Growth Management Timeline March Status Report and revised Draft UGB Periodic Review Work Plan, copies of which are included in the meeting record. She noted the changes made in the latest version of the work plan.

Chair Park said he would delay committee action on the work plan until after Mr. Cooper's presentation on the draft periodic review resolution.

6.  Draft Resolution on Periodic Review

Mr. Cooper distributed Draft 3 of Resolution No. 00-____, For the Purpose of Requesting Periodic Review of the Regional Urban Growth Boundary, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. Exhibit A (Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Periodic Review Work Program 2000, Citizen Involvement Element) and Exhibit B (Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Periodic Review Work Program 2000, Work Program Outline – Process Steps) to the resolution are attached.

Mr. Cooper said staff was working with LCDC staff to add more detail to Exhibit B. In order to stay on schedule, the Council needed to take action on the draft resolution on April 13, 2000. He recommended that the committee forward Draft 3 of the resolution to the Council, knowing that staff would return on April 13, with a more detailed citizen involvement element and work program outline (Exhibits A and B). He reviewed the work program outline and citizen involvement program. He said the next meeting between Metro and LCDC staff would be on April 5, 2000.

Mary Weber, Manager, Community Development, Growth Management Services, added that Phase 1 of the Work Program would be completed by the October 31, 2000, deadline. Phase 2 was a longer process that would take Metro into a forecast update and a more rigorous analysis as it related to sub-regional need. Phase 2 would move Metro into its code-required periodic review for 2002.

Mr. Cooper said the schedule would be a policy matter for the Council to determine, and the draft schedule was an honest assessment from staff of their resources.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cooper to review the schedule of LCDC acknowledgment of Metro's request for periodic review.

Mr. Cooper said first, LCDC would adjust its schedule and the director would officially put Metro in periodic review. Then Metro would have to give notice at least 21 days before the Council adopted a work program, after giving the public an opportunity to comment. Then the Council would formally adopt the work program and transmit it to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). DLCD then had a dual pathway: director approval of the work plan, subject to appeal to the Commission, or director referral of the matter directly to the Commission for adoption. As Mr. Cooper understood the current recommendation anticipated from the director, he simply would go through the notice periods and formally put it in front of the Commission for its direct approval, thereby shortening the time period, in case there was an appeal of his decision to approve it to the Commission. This timeline would get Metro an approval someplace in the middle of the outlined schedule, around July 27. Dick Benner, Director of DLCD, had advised Metro to proceed with its work program until told otherwise, rather than wait for LCDC approval of the plan before starting.

Chair Park asked if this approach kept all of Metro's options open, so that the Council could withdraw its request for periodic review, should it so choose?

Mr. Cooper said yes, subject to LCDC approval once the process has started. He added that it was not easy to get out of periodic review, but it was possible. A delay caused by LCDC was a firm basis for Metro to request further extensions, if necessary. Staff was working very hard with DLCD staff to ensure that DLCD felt confident in its ability to approve the work plan in time for Metro Council to act before October. It was important to understand that under this pathway, the Commission approval of the Council's submission of UGB amendments at the end of the process was not likely to happen before October 31, 2000. LCDC felt the Metro Council would satisfy the requirements of the extension if it submitted UGB amendments to LCDC for its approval in periodic review before October 31.

Councilor McLain asked about the timing of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Work Program. Metro and DLCD staff was assuming that the Metro Council would not do any UGB amendments that were not regional need assessed. She asked if staff would be working on any element of Phase 2 before the October deadline.

Ms. Weber said there was currently ongoing work on the jobs research, and that work would continue. There was an element in Phase 1, the refinement or selection criteria, in which the Council would review all exception lands and exclusive farm use (EFU) lands completely surrounded by exception lands. As there was likely to be more available exception lands than needed for the UGB expansion, staff recommended that Council develop criteria to apply to the exception lands. Sub-regional need could be addressed in this way. She said during Phase 2, the Council could look at addressing sub-regional need through non-exception lands, if necessary.

Councilor McLain asked if the state had agreed on the process for alternative analysis outlined in the work program. She noted that there had been differences of opinion in the past.

Ms. Weber said staff had been talking extensively with Mr. Benner and Jim Sitzman, DLCD. The work program proposal followed the Goal 14 rule and Goal 2 requirements exactly. The rule said that Metro could look at EFU land completely surrounded by exception lands, and staff was seeking clarification of that. She said this process was different than the previous process.

Councilor McLain asked if the draft resolution would be going forward today, in its present form, with the understanding that it could be amended later.

Mr. Cooper said if the committee forwarded the resolution to Council today, staff would definitely recommend changes and refinement. The resolution would go directly to the full Council on April 13, at which time it could be further amended.

Councilor McLain said the draft resolution would be the most important item on which the Council would vote concerning this year's process of UGB amendments.

Mr. Cooper added that this was just a draft proposed work plan that would be part of Metro's request to LCDC for periodic review. It was not the final version that the Council would be sending to LCDC for formal approval; that could only happen afterwards. The work plan could be amended at any time between April 13, and at least 21 days after periodic review started. The public had not yet had the opportunity to testify on the work pland, and the Council could amend it further after hearing testimony.

Councilor McLain said her point was that while the Council could make amendments on April 13, and for at least 21 days, this was the criteria, in essence, of how the state would look at how Metro developed its formula for alternative analysis. She would hold her further questions until later, but the Council needed to scrutinize the resolution because this would limit the Council's options later. She said LCDC staff needed to state, in writing, its understanding of what alternative analysis meant.

Ms. Wilkerson said she understood Councilor McLain's concern, and when staff did the report on the alternatives analysis in February, there was a scope of work attached that was augmented before Metro hired the consultants. Metro staff consulted DLCD, Mr. Benner and Mr. Sitzman on the scope of work, and made revisions based on their comments. While Mr. Benner and Mr. Sitzman had not put in writing that it was the approved process, they had been consulted. She added that the work program was a summary of the very detailed scope of work for the alternatives analysis. The consultants had been hired to do their work on the basis of that scope, and their work would be the process part on alternatives analysis that staff hoped and believed would satisfy the legislative requirements.

Councilor McLain said Metro went through a five-year process with urban reserves, during which they had also hoped and believed. She said it was critical to get LCDC's opinion in writing.

Councilor Atherton asked if, in the process, there was a rule that prohibited Metro from looking at sub-regional needs, in other words where people wanted to grow, before doing the regional schema?

Mr. Cooper said the regional need was the mandate Metro had to satisfy under the 20-year land supply law. In meeting that need, once Metro had determined how well it had quantified it, the priority was exception land anywhere around the boundary. In choosing between the exception lands anywhere around the boundary, Metro could apply many different factors, including regionally-developed priorities as well as ensuring consistency with the other factors of Goal 14. Once Metro was within the category of only considering exception land, or completely surrounded EFU land, the Council had more flexibility in where it chose. So, it was possible for Councilor Atherton to propose a Council policy that, all other things being basically neutral under the state goals, made exception lands in areas where people wanted to grow a higher priority, assuming that the Council was consistent with other factors.

Councilor Washington noted that the committee had a full agenda, and he would appreciate the opportunity for staff to finish their presentations without undue interruptions.

Chair Park asked that all questions pertain to staff's completion of the work plan. Opposing arguments could be made at full Council. Chair Park said he understood that the resolution was a work in progress and that Metro was on a tight timeline. He commented that he wished Metro did have until December. Due to the timeline, public hearings would have to be scheduled during the summer, which was a concern. He added that summer hearings had not been a concern of LCDC, however, during its approval of Metro's extension request. He would refer anyone who may, in the future, say that the Metro Council should not have held summer hearings, to the minutes of the LCDC hearing of December 1999.

5.  Director's Status Report and Review of Revised Growth Management Work Plan for 2000 (Continued)

Chair Park requested a motion to adopt the revised work plan.

6.  Draft Resolution on Periodic Review (Continued)

Chair Park requested a motion to forward the draft resolution for Council adoption.

Councilor Monroe said he would move the draft resolution without recommendation for Council adoption, since it was a draft in progress, and the committee had not yet seen the final version.

Councilor Washington asked if it would be possible, assuming the motion passed, to schedule an opportunity for the Council to discuss the resolution further. He suggested scheduling a Council/Executive Officer Informal Meeting on Tuesday, April 11, 2000.

Chair Park agreed, and said he would work with Presiding Officer Bragdon to do so. He asked Mr. Cooper if the final version of the resolution would be complete, or nearly complete, by that time.

Mr. Cooper said he anticipated substantial progress by Tuesday. He said this was serious business, and more detailed information up front made for a better public product.

Councilor McLain suggested that for the informal, staff create a one-page summary of how this process differed from the past process.

Chair Park will carry the draft resolution to the full Metro Council.

5.  Director's Status Report and Review of Revised Growth Management Work Plan for 2000 (Continued)

Chair Park asked Councilor Washington to carry the revised Growth Management work plan to the full Metro Council.

Mr. Morrissey noted that the revised Growth Management work plan for 2000 was simply a piece of paper. He asked if the work plan needed to be adopted by the full Council in the form of a resolution? He noted that the prior work plan which was sent to LCDC was in the form of a resolution.

Mr. Cooper said the Council rules required that the Council act via resolution or ordinance when taking a formal action. This work plan dealt with the scheduling of Council hearings, not just the Growth Management Committee's agenda, so it was probably appropriate for the committee to consider its motion as modified to be the forwarding of a committee resolution to adopt the work plan. He said he would work with Mr. Morrissey to draft the resolution.

The committee agreed.

7.  Calculation of Future Accessory Dwelling Units

Sharon Kelly, Transportation Planning Supervisor, reviewed her memo on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The copy of the memo in the agenda packet is missing a page; a corrected copy is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Monroe asked if there was any way of estimating the number of accessory dwelling units that were built when they were still illegal. He said in his experience, the number of ADUs appeared to be far higher than 1 per 1,000 single-family homes.

Ms. Kelly said the only way to get information that was even close to accurate would be to do survey data in specific neighborhoods. The jurisdictions did not track ADUs, and even the ones that did each tracked it differently. Some ADUs were completely invisible without entering the house.

Councilor Atherton noted his 30 years experience in property management, and said the numbers were far higher than estimated in the Urban Growth Report. He asked if the state had any rules or guidance on this subject.

Mark Turpel, Manager, Long-Range Planning, Growth Management Services, said the state had its housing goal, which called for jurisdictions to provide a choice and variety of housing types. He added that there was also an issue of vacancy. ADUs may be created for a family member, such as a college student, for a period of time, then they may go into disuse.

Councilor Atherton asked why the vacancy rate would affect the calculation or the state regulation.

Mr. Turpel said a vacancy rate was implicit in Metro's overall equation of capacity.

Chair Park said the accessory dwelling unit was unique because while technically, all the jurisdictions complied with Metro's Functional Plan and allowed ADUs, Metro had no enforcement mechanism or way to get an accurate count. Until that was addressed, calculation of ADUs was speculation. He noted staff's recommendation to not change to the Urban Growth Report update estimate of ADUs at this time. In the future, the Council may want to suggest legislation. If the state was going to require Metro to count ADUs, then the state needed to provide a tool to allow the counting to occur.

Councilor Atherton asked if there was any historical data?

Ms. Kelly said as far as she was aware, there was no reliable data available, historic or current.

Councilor Atherton said there was historical data during and immediately after World War II, that could be used to provide the state with hard numbers.

Chair Park said that data might be a little dated by now. He asked for a motion to move the memo to MPAC for deliberation. He said Councilor Atherton's suggestions could be raised at MPAC.

Councilor Atherton said in some places in the country, building codes required the opportunity for two plenums, in order to provide an easy, legal way to add accessory dwelling units. He defined plenum as two electrical services, two gas services, a single water service, so that an accessory dwelling unit could be easily accommodated and charged utilities. He asked Mr. Turpel if he had researched any information on how those requirements affected accessory dwelling units.

Mr. Turpel said no, he was not aware of any information.

Ms. Kelly said she did not come across any information pertaining to plenums in her research.

8.  Jobs Research/Industrial Lands Supply (tentative)

Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, gave a brief review of his memo on vacant industrial land supply by size and location/distribution, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Presiding Officer Bragdon asked if Mr. Yee knew how much of industrial land was being consumed for industrial purposes, as opposed to retail or commercial purposes?

Mr. Yee said in his way of thinking, it was irrelevant because once the industrial land was consumed, it was gone, regardless of the use.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said the data was relevant when trying to judge demand.

Mr. Yee said to some extent, a job was a job, and taken as a whole, industrial land was consumed, whether it was for industrial or non-industrial purposes. Given the shift in the economy from heavy industrial to high-tech, which did not require heavy industrial land, the traditional notion of industrial land may not be all that protected.

Councilor Atherton said Clark County was not included in the study, and he asked if the state had set any rules preventing Metro from including the extensive industrial lands in Clark County.

Chair Park asked if that information was included in the calculation of capture rate.

Mr. Yee said he wanted to move away from the concept of jobs/housing balance because it was very difficult for technical staff to justify. He recommended looking at the region economically, and looking at all aspects of the land market, both supply and demand, in conjunction with the transportation modeling and community design concepts that could be captured within that framework.

Chair Park recommended that Mr. Yee speak with Mr. Cooper about the concept of "tax-based housing," in terms of the ability to support the residential area in an area that did not pay its fair share, based on property taxes.

Councilor McLain asked if Mr. Yee did any inventory of the transportation facilities surrounding the buildable industrial lands, or any inventory of the money assigned by Metro or the state to Tier A or Tier B corridors.

Mr. Yee said there was no analysis relative to money, but in order to receive Tier A designation, the land had to be near a transportation corridor.

Chair Park asked Mr. Yee to continue his presentation at a later meeting.

9.  Councilor Communications

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5:19 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\040400gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 4, 2000

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