MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, April 18, 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 3:06 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the April 4, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  Director of Growth Management Services Update

Chair Park said Elaine Wilkerson had resigned as Director of Growth Management Services to pursue more flexible time with her family, as her husband had been working in Salt Lake City for the past eight months. He said she would be missed. During Ms. Wilkerson's tenure, Metro completed its Title 3 work on water quality, the region was almost in full compliance with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan), Metro updated its 1997 Urban Growth Report, and was granted an extension from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). He wished her and her family well.

Councilor McLain said Ms. Wilkerson did an excellent job helping Metro through "stage two" of moving from the vision and goals documents to implementation. She wished her well and said she would personally thank her for her energy and work at Metro.

Andrew Cotugno, Director of Planning, briefly reviewed his history at Metro, at the request of Chair Park. During his time at Metro, he has worked in the transportation and solid waste departments, and a combined transportation/growth management/greenspaces department. The Growth Management Services department was separated from Transportation when Executive Officer Mike Burton took office and Metro's growth planning functions increased. He recommended that Metro delay consideration of organizational questions until the end of year and concentrate on the current work. Hopefully at the end of the year there would be time to pause and consider Metro's broader mission, goals, organization and staffing questions.

Chair Park thanked Mr. Cotugno for stepping into the breach, given Metro's October 31, 2000, deadline. He asked who he should talk to when Mr. Cotugno is not available.

Mr. Cotugno said he would send Chair Park a list of contact people. Rooney Barker would continue to serve as his administrative assistant, and could reach him when needed. He said he did not have a director's report yet. He had been spending considerable time with the staff, the Councilors, the Executive Officer, and legal counsel, receiving updates on the growth management work plan.

Councilor McLain said in the Council Transportation Planning Committee today, Mr. Cotugno had presented the schedule for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). It was important for transportation and growth staff to work together and to look for connections between land use and transportation.

3.  Rural Residential Rule Proposal

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, reviewed the information in his memo regarding minimum lot size – urban fringe, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. His proposal would give Metro the authority to establish minimum lot sizes within two miles of its existing urban growth boundary (UGB), between 10 and 20 acres for exception lands, depending on the circumstances.

Councilor Monroe asked if it was likely that LCDC would give Metro extra territorial authority within set parameters, such as 10 to 20 acres? If for example, LCDC gave Metro parameters of 5 to 20 acres, could the Metro Council vote to establish a 20 acre minimum lot size throughout the region?

Mr. Shaw said determination of minimum lot sizes would be based upon analysis of all fringe areas and likelihood of their urbanization, current parcelization patterns, and ability of local governments to serve those lands efficiently with urban serves at the density levels in the 2040 Concept Plan. Theoretically, Council could apply those three criteria and determine that a 20 acre minimum lot size was necessary for all exception lands within two miles of the UGB.

Councilor Monroe asked if any lot sizes smaller than the minimum would be excluded from the regulation through a grandfather clause? He noted that much of northern Clackamas County was already parcelized into lots smaller than 20 acres.

Mr. Shaw said yes, there was a grandfather clause. The people on the LCDC working committee argued that one size did not fit all due to earlier parcelization. The grandfather clause also meant that under the proposal, Metro's work may not increase substantially.

Bob Clay, Chief Planner, Portland Bureau of Planning, reviewed a letter sent from Gil Kelley, Portland Planning Director, to LCDC, dated March 8, 2000, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. The City of Portland was concerned about this issue and had been working with Metro staff for close to two years preparing for planning work in the Pleasant Valley area, along with its partners Gresham, Clackamas County, Happy Valley and Multnomah County. Two issues concerned the City of Portland. First, they were concerned about the long-term parcelization in Pleasant Valley and the Damascus/Boring area. Second, the Cities of Portland and Gresham had been working together to educate property owners and community leaders of the current interim rule for reserves and county zoning. Given the current proposal, they would have to change their message slightly, and they were concerned about creating confusion as to what LCDC or Metro may do. As a matter of policy, the City of Portland recommended keeping the 20 acre minimum.

Jonathan Harker, AICP, City of Gresham Planning Department, said the City of Gresham sent a similar letter to LCDC, dated March 9, 2000, which was copied to Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Shaw. As the Cities of Gresham and Portland were working jointly on the planning in Pleasant Valley, they were concerned about changing the 20 acre rule. They did support Mr. Shaw's proposal, however.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Shaw if there was any discussion about Metro's ability to regulate clustering.

Chair Park asked that the committee discussion remain focused on the potential resolution. He said Councilor Atherton's question would be relevant if and when Metro received this authority.

Councilor McLain said she would prefer LCDC to keep the minimum at 20 acres, and asked if that option was still on the table.

Mr. Shaw said the risk was that the urban fringe issue would not be addressed at all in the rural residential rule, because that was the preference of the rest of the counties and everyone else in the working group. If this proposal, or one similar to it, did not get through the working group, there was the danger of starting over again.

Councilor McLain said this issue was important to Metro's ability to manage the UGB. She could not support any proposal that would lower the minimum lot size to less than 10 acres. She asked Mr. Shaw what Metro could do to assert its opinion on the importance of minimum lot size in the urban fringe.

Chair Park said there was a legal and political ramification. Mr. Shaw had communicated that due to the political dynamic, this proposal was Metro's best option at getting the flexibility to control its own destiny around the region. LCDC Commissioner Gussie McRobert had created this opportunity for Metro, and he felt the Council should take advantage of it.

Councilor McLain agreed.

Kim Vandehey, 17207 SW Siler Ridge Lane, Aloha, said in his area only two parties had lots larger than 20 acres. Over the past ten years, Metro had explained in great detail that large areas next to the UGB need to saved for future development. He and his neighbors agreed, however the problem was that they missed getting into the UGB during the last legislative expansion, even though all the services were available. With a 20 acre minimum lot size, no one could do anything with his or her property. If Metro left it the way it was, they could all parcelize down to 5 acres.

Councilor McLain said Mr. Vandehey was speaking about exception land immediately outside the UGB. According to Mr. Vandehey, he could currently subdivide down to five acres in that area. She said that was not consistent with state law, and asked Mr. Shaw for clarification.

Mr. Shaw said when state's 20 acre minimum lot size went into effect in 1997, the existing five acre lots that had already been created were protected through a grandfather clause. The proposal in front of the committee would consider whether and how much to continue the current 1997 LCDC rule. At the present time, Mr. Vandehey and his neighbors could not subdivide down to 5 acres because of the LCDC rule in effect since 1997.

Councilor Monroe said he hoped Metro would be given fringe authority, within parameters, to set minimums to protect the land from sprawl development while Metro was making decisions about annexing and expanding its UGB. Without that authority, it would be almost impossible for Metro to do appropriate urban planning and bring in areas that could be urbanized according to 2040 Growth Concept standards.

Chair Park said he was in favor of having that regulation available to Metro. In looking over the exception area studies currently underway, he had noticed that the parcelization pattern in some counties would make efficient development patterns extremely difficult.

Councilor McLain recognized Mr. Vandehey's work with Metro on this issue for more than five years. Mr. Vandehey was concerned because he felt the Council's decision was not appropriate for his area. The Council had to look at that area again, which she felt was good, because the original decision passed by only one vote, and this time the vote might be different. Even though she supported the 20 acre minimum, it was important to recognize Mr. Vandehey as an example of an exception. The rule did not always fit every area, but if Metro had the opportunity to set its own minimums, it could grant occasional exceptions when warranted. She said she would support the proposal at full Council.

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

4.  Goal 5 Local Option Discussion

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, reviewed the Local Goal 5 Analysis Matrix, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. The matrix summarized the current status of all the local jurisdictions in compliance with state Goal 5, either action taken under the old, original Goal 5, or those jurisdictions that had been in periodic review and completed Goal 5 under the new rule adopted in 1996. At the last Growth Management Committee meeting, legal counsel was asked if Metro had the authority to allow a local jurisdiction to comply with the state's existing Goal 5, rather than the Goal 5 regulations in Metro's Functional Plan. The answer was yes, and legal counsel was currently researching how it would look and what its effects would be.

Chair Park clarified that Metro's Goal 5 regulations were being structured so that they would also comply with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) 4(d) rule, due out in June.

Mr. Cooper said yes, one of the current goals of Metro's Goal 5 program development was to attempt to provide any safe harbors that the NMFS 4(d) rule may allow. Since the final 4(d) rule was still unknown, it was hard to say what those safe harbors could be or what they would look like.

Councilor McLain said she was concerned that allowing jurisdictions to comply with the state Goal 5 instead of Metro's Goal 5 could result in a lower standard, which would undermine the watershed planning approach.

Chair Park said Mr. Cooper and Ken Helm, Assistant Legal Counsel, were working to answer those questions and concerns.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, noted that Metro was obliged to calculate its buildable land results based on application of Goal 5. Depending on how many jurisdictions might choose to go to the state, and maybe more importantly, when they might choose to go to the state, it could affect the difficulty of calculating the region's buildable lands supply. He recommended determining when jurisdictions would be required to make that choice, because the differential in the resulting buildable lands might be significant.

Mr. Cooper said legal counsel was continuing to explore the relationship between Goal 5 and the 4(d) rule, and hoped to have a proposal to the committee in the future.

The committee was comfortable with exploration of the continued information on the local option.

5.  Periodic Review Update

Mary Weber, Manager of Community Development, Planning Department, reviewed the April 18, 2000, Draft Proposed UGB Periodic Review Work Program 2000 Phase I Timeline, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. She noted staff's standard process for bringing forward information was to take it to the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC), Growth Management Committee, Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and then full Council. She asked for direction from the committee on how the time frame could be shortened in a way that would still allow the Council to feel comfortable with the data. She also noted that the schedule dictated a meeting in August, when the Council was normally in recess.

Chair Park recommended scheduling regular updates on periodic review at each Council/Executive Officer Informal meeting. Presiding Officer Bragdon agreed.

Councilor Monroe suggested staff also send memos by email to keep the Council informed about the periodic review process.

The committee discussed the scheduling of public hearings during the summer. Councilor Monroe suggested that the Council consider moving its two week recess from the end of August to the beginning of August to allow a meeting in late August.

Chair Park took Councilor Monroe's suggestion under advisement.

Chair Park said he would like to see how the timeline related to the Periodic Review Work Program section V, item G, and have internal discussion at that time.

Ms. Weber thanked the committee for its patience. Staff was moving fast, but she thought they could do it.

6.  Environmentally Constrained Lands Update

Mark Turpel, Manager of Long-Range Planning, Planning Department, reviewed his memo regarding Environmentally Constrained Lands – Update, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Chair Park noted staff's request for direction on the last page of Mr. Turpel's memo. He asked if the four areas proposed for study (downtown Beaverton, downtown Tualatin, downtown Oregon City and the Portland harbor) were the only ones affected by the 1996 flood? Were there other cities, such as Forest Grove, that were similarly affected?

Mr. Turpel said as far as the 1996 flood, Tualatin, Oregon City and the Portland harbor were substantially affected, but he was not sure downtown Beaverton was as heavily hit by the flood. He suggested that staff could look at any 2040 regional centers or town centers within the Goal 5 riparian areas, and then the committee could decide whether those were applicable or not.

Chair Park said he would be more comfortable with that approach.

Councilor Washington asked if the Superfund listing of most of the Portland harbor affected the environmentally constrained lands update.

Mr. Turpel said it was a related issue: Metro was trying to establish better fish and wildlife habitat, and the clean up of the Superfund site certainly would help. As far as calculating a capacity number, he thought it would not be directly related, because staff treated the contaminated sites as buildable lands, with the assumption that over time they would be cleaned up.

Councilor Washington asked if it would be possible to illustrate the different setback amounts and intermittent streams to help the public visualize the policy considerations.

Sharon Kelly, Transportation Planning Supervisor, said there were probably some examples that staff could use through plan drawings or illustrations to help visualize the concepts, and she would work on it.

Chair Park asked if Metro Map on Metro's home page could now identify individual pieces of property that might be affected by Goal 5. He said he tried to use it recently and it had not worked.

Ms. Kelly said she had the same problem with Metro Map. The computer help desk person said she had an old version of the internet browser that could not read the map.

Chair Park said if Metro could get that information out, the public would have a direct link from the public library or their homes to find out if they might be affected by Goal 5.

Mr. Turpel said staff could also incorporate Councilor Washington's suggestion by including graphics along with the specific maps.

Chair Park suggested that staff also add an indicator to the Metro Map site so that the computer user could know if the program was transmitting data or frozen.

Councilor Washington thanked Mr. Turpel, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Cotugno for offering to create visual aids.

At the direction of the committee, Mr. Turpel said staff would return with calculations based on three scenarios: 1) 200 foot setbacks on all streams, 2) 200 foot setbacks on perennial streams with 50 foot setbacks on intermittent streams, and 3) 200 foot setbacks with 50 foot setbacks in 2040 town centers.

7.  Councilor Communications

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\041800gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2000

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