MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Susan McLain, Bill Atherton

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the May 16, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  Resolution No. 00-2956, For the Purpose of Accepting the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Recommended by the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee Appointed by the Metro Council

Gerry Uba, Program Supervisor, Long-Range Planning, Planning Department, presented the resolution. A copy of the staff report includes information presented by Mr. Uba and is included in the meeting record. He said the resolution before the committee was not in its final form. The Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) planned to meet on Monday, June 12, to consider minor changes to the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. The changes would mostly affect Chapter 5, "Recommendations for Implementation." In particular, H-TAC will clarify the statement, "required to consider." H-TAC will also consider minor changes to Chapter 4 pertaining to the impact of rapid increases in rent in manufactured housing parks.

Mr. Uba said H-TAC had forwarded the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). MPAC reviewed the document at its last meeting, and will meet again on June 14 to discuss two issues: 1) the definition of "require to consider," and 2) how the affordable housing production goals were calculated. MPAC will finalize its comments on June 14, and forward its recommendation to full Council. H-TAC will finalize its comments on June 12, and forward the final version of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy to Council on June 22. He said that if the committee wished, it could delay action on the resolution until its meeting on June 20. This would still allow the Council to take final action on June 22. He noted the chairs of H-TAC's two subcommittee were at the committee meeting to testify. He said Multnomah County Commissioner Diane Linn, Chair of H-TAC, apologized that she was not able to attend the meeting, as did Vice Chair Jeff Condit.

Councilor Washington said further clarification would take place on the resolution. He asked that the two subcommittee chairs be invited to speak to the committee.

Chair Park invited the two chairs to speak to the committee.

Tasha Harmon, Chair, Housing Production Goals Subcommittee of H-TAC, said her subcommittee was composed of a diverse group of people, who spent a lot of time developing a healthy compromise document. She said the recommendation provides a strategy for regional momentum and accountability between jurisdictions while providing significant flexibility in how local jurisdictions meet the region's affordable housing needs. She said she hopes the Council will adopt the plan.

David Bell, Chair, Cost Reduction Subcommittee of H-TAC, said he was at the committee to address any questions on the proposed Regional Affordable Housing Strategy.

Chair Park asked for questions from the committee.

Councilor Washington said he had no questions at this stage. He will hold his questions until after H-TAC and MPAC have met and the final version is available. He recommended that the committee take no action today and forward the resolution to the next committee meeting. He asked Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, if it would be possible to delay committee action until June 20.

Mr. Morrissey said the next meeting of the committee is on June 20, after H-TAC and MPAC meet. There had been some notice to H-TAC members and others that the Council will take final action on June 22. He said Chair Park and the Presiding Officer could choose to fast-track the resolution from the Growth Management Committee on June 20, to full Council on June 22.

Chair Park said he would delay action on the resolution until June 20, to ensure concurrence with MPAC. He noted that at MPAC's last meeting, there were divergent viewpoints on how the calculation of affordable housing production goals may have been reached.

Andy Cotugno, Director of Planning, said Resolution No. 00-2956 accepts the broad recommendations of H-TAC on many facets of an affordable housing program. One facet of the recommendation is that the Council amend its Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) pertaining to the Metro's land use decisions. Therefore, there will be a follow up ordinance coming before the committee in a few months to amend specific components of the Functional Plan. Resolution No. 00-2956 accepts the broader vision.

Chair Park said he will speak with the Presiding Officer about fast-tracking the resolution to Council on June 22, assuming there is concurrence with H-TAC and MPAC on the amendments.

Councilor Monroe said he will be travelling back from the National Association of Regional Councils Conference on June 20, but he will be back for Council on June 22. He asked that the committee and Council move the resolution as quickly as possible, once there is agreement. Metro has been working on the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy for a long time.

Chair Park thanked Mr. Bell and Ms. Harmon for their work.

3.  Goal 5 Update

•  Timeline

•  Vision Statement

•  Goal 5 Matrix

•  Stormwater Management

Timeline

Mr. Cotugno said at the last Growth Management committee meeting, the committee forwarded a memo to MPAC regarding the timeline for the Goal 5 program. The memo asked if MPAC would prefer to keep Goal 5 linked to the October 31, deadline for action on the urban growth boundary (UGB), or decouple Goal 5 from the deadline and take extra time to allow for more comments and refinement. MPAC felt Goal 5 is a significant effort and requires additional time and attention to do it correctly. MPAC is clearly interested in participating in a focused examination of Metro's Goal 5 recommendations, because MPAC set up a subcommittee to review the recommendations and provide input on any refinements. MPAC recommended a self-imposed deadline of the end of the year for completion of its recommendation to Council on Goal 5, with formal hearings and the adoption process to begin after the first of the year. Mr. Cotugno asked for direction from the committee.

Chair Park asked for a recommendation from the committee to forward to Council to accept MPAC's timeline to continue the Goal 5 work as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and to accept MPAC's self-imposed deadline of the end of the year.

Councilor McLain congratulated Chair Park and Mr. Cotugno on an excellent job. She noted that the reason for the delay on Goal 5 is to make sure that the work is completed, not to avoid the work. She has heard from a number of citizens who are waiting for Metro to act on Goal 5. It is important to recognize that while the deadline has moved back four to six months, the goals and the policy documents that guide the Council have not changed. She thanked Mr. Cotugno and Paul Ketcham, Principal Regional Planner, for doing an extraordinary job.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno how MPAC's direction affects Metro's resolution for an extension. What will Metro need to do in order to follow through MPAC's desire to take more time on Goal 5?

Mr. Cotugno noted that the Council has adopted a three-phase periodic review work program. The first phase is to keep the October 31, deadline to wrap up the work on the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update and make any resulting UGB amendments. When Metro requested the extension, the biggest uncertainty regarding the possible need to expand the UGB was the adoption of a Goal 5 program and how much land it would protect. If the Council does not adopt Goal 5 protection prior to October 31, 2000, the UGB decision will be based on existing Title 3 protection. Whatever need number is determined, based on Title 3 protections, will conclude Metro's October 31, action on the UGB. It will then, in turn, link the Goal 5 regulations to the Council's next UGB action. As the work program is currently adopted, Metro has laid out Phases 1, 2, and 3, but has not clarified in which phase Goal 5 will fit. He recommended clarifying at the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) work session on Friday, June 9, that with this action, Metro expects that Goal 5 will fit into either Phase 2 or 3, not Phase 1.

Councilor McLain asked what data staff will use to determine Title 3 protections.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said there were two legal questions to answer. First, how much land is regulated by Title 3? Staff made an estimate in the Functional Plan requirements, which has since been updated. Staff will use the most recent, updated information. Second, how does staff's earlier estimate of how much land will be affected by Title 3 compare with the amount of land actually protected by Title 3? Once that new information is known, the new estimate will be used in determining the need number for UGB expansion.

Chair Park said Councilor Monroe had left to attend another meeting. He said they will talk with LCDC this Friday about where Goal 5 fits into Metro's periodic review work program. He asked Mr. Cotugno if the Council can move items around in the work plan, because it is not as binding as the resolution for the extension.

Mr. Cotugno said that is correct. The work plan currently in front of LCDC is flexible about when Metro acts on the Goal 5 component, and therefore on whether Goal 5 regulations will result in UGB actions in Phase 1, 2 or 3. He said if the Council adopts MPAC's recommendation on the timeline, he would recommend using that as the basis to indicate to LCDC that Metro expects Goal 5 to be done during Phase 2, but that it will be placed into the work program when it is adopted.

Chair Park said now is not the appropriate time, but when Metro gets to that particular piece, he hopes it will be added back into the work program as soon as possible.

Chair Park will carry the timeline to the full Metro Council for discussion.

Vision Statement

Mr. Cotugno introduced the Goal 5 vision statement and program matrix. He reviewed a memo from Mark Turpel, Long-Range Planning Manager, to Chair Park, dated May 31, 2000, regarding Goal 5 Riparian program - vision statement and program matrix, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Ketcham reviewed the vision statement and introduction to the Goal 5 Streamside CPR (Conserve, Protect and Restore) Program Outline, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Cotugno added that the "Overall Goal" section of the document covers three coexisting goals: 1) protection, 2) restoration, and 3) development of 2040 Centers. "Principles" covers a large range of needed activities, including regulation, education, and stewardship. Section 7, Urban form, of "Principles," tries to make a more specific connection to Metro's goal to create a compact urban form in order to protect natural areas outside the UGB.

Councilor Washington said the vision statement read well until the sentence beginning, "Ribbons of green." He recommended changing the statement to make it easier for the public to understand.

Chair Park said he understood the poetry of the vision statement, but he asked Mr. Ketcham to draft different final sentences for the committee to review.

Councilor McLain said she thinks the language in the last sentence of the vision statement, about "ribbons of green" and "mosaic" is picturesque. She said it is lovely to have both biological and visionary words in the document.

Mr. Ketcham said the vision statement will be reviewed by the Goal 5 Technical Advisory Committee on June 16, the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC)/MPAC Goal 5 Subcommittee on June 14, and MTAC is scheduled to make its recommendation on the vision statement on June 7. He estimated that the vision statement will go to MPAC in early July. He added that the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) meets on June 12. By early July, the vision statement should be essentially finalized.

Chair Park said he will schedule the item for committee review in early July.

Goal 5 Matrix

Mr. Ketcham reviewed the program matrix, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

The committee asked staff to develop pictures to represent the different levels of protection in the program matrix.

Mr. Ketcham said they were working on visual aids, which should be ready in time for the Goal 5 Technical Advisory Committee meeting on June 16.

Councilor McLain asked for a picture with an overlay showing how Regional Safe Harbor will fit into current Title 3 regulations.

Chair Park recommended using Title 3 as the starting point, rather than the core zone, because people already have a mental picture of Title 3 regulations.

The committee discussed the proposed Riparian Management Areas for steep slopes. Chair Park said he will need to see the pictures and maps of how the regulations would apply before he can feel comfortable with staff's proposal.

Stormwater Management

Ken Helm, Assistant Counsel, reviewed his memo to Mr. Turpel regarding Example Stormwater Performance Standards, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Chair Park asked Councilor McLain if WRPAC is planning to consider stormwater management in the future. He asked if WRPAC plans to advise the Growth Management Committee and Council on stormwater management following June 19, when the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is scheduled to publish its final 4(d) rule.

Councilor McLain said yes. She added that Mr. Helm wrote his memo in response to work by the Growth Management Committee and WRPAC. As Chair Park noted, even though Goal 5, Title 3, and stormwater management are separate works, they are integrated. It is necessary, therefore, to start one piece of work before concluding another piece in order to make sure the two pieces can be integrated. She said she will return to the Growth Management Committee with WRPAC's recommendation.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to monitor the stormwater management issue until NMFS publishes its 4(d) rule.

Mr. Cotugno said there is some money in the budget to address stormwater management, but staff needs to finish its work on Goal 5 before investing much time on stormwater management, other than a possible stop-gap measure as outlined in Mr. Helm's memo.

Councilor McLain agreed. She added that many people have offered assistance and staff time on the issue of stormwater management, including United Sewerage Agency.

4.  Update on Metro's Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Periodic Review Work Program

•  Status of timeline

•  Alternatives Analysis Criteria for Selection of Exception Lands

Status of Timeline

Mary Weber, Manager, Community Development, reviewed the UGB Periodic Review Work Program – Summary Schedule for Task 1 (Phase 1), a copy of which is included in the meeting record. She reviewed all the item in June, and said everything is on schedule.

Councilor Washington asked how many property owners will be sent a notice about the community forums in July.

Ms. Weber said staff's study area covers over 30,000 acres, and includes about 8,000 property owners. In addition, staff will also contact the Community Planning Organizations (CPOs) in those areas so that notices can be placed in their newsletters.

Councilor Washington expressed concern that many people who receive the notices may not realize its importance, and will come to Metro at the last minute and say they never received any information. He asked if staff can add something to the notice to make it catch people's attention and stand out as important to read.

Ms. Weber said staff will try to think of a creative way to catch people's attention.

Councilor McLain agreed with Councilor Washington's suggestion. She noted that the Goal 5 postcards were successfully delivered to almost every affected property owner, but many people did not remember receiving them. She added that while the postcards read "important" and "property owners" the font was not very bold. She recommended stamping the word "URGENT" on the letters or finding another way to bring people's attention to them.

Alternatives Analysis Criteria for Selection of Exception Lands

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, Planning Department, said by June 23, she should be ready to present the Council with an alternatives site analysis, including an Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis and an agricultural assessment of the lands around the study areas. From the reports, staff hopes to attain an assessment of the areas' productivity for dwelling units and acres of employment lands, the public facilities serviceability, and the impacts on environmental and agricultural resources. The first step of the analysis will be to meld the three documents and weed out any areas that do not warrant further study. In considering the different parcels, staff will be careful to balance all of the factors, taking State Land Use Planning Goals 2 and 14 into consideration. The next step will be to prioritize the remaining parcels based on Metro's existing policies. Staff hopes to reach the second step by late July, early August.

Chair Park asked how the potential decision to not hold public hearings in July could affect staff's work load.

Ms. Neill said if the decision is made to not hold hearings in July, based on the Urban Growth Report updated need number, staff's work can be folded into a later phase of the work program.

Councilor McLain said the last time staff did an alternatives analysis, point values were assigned to each parcel. She noted the problems that this created, and asked if staff plans to do narration or point values in this alternatives analysis.

Ms. Neill agreed that assigning points and a ranking did not work well, based on the subsequent lawsuits and staff's conversations with LCDC. Instead, staff will try to give the Council a subset of exception lands with a narrative highlighting any issues such as slopes and farm impacts. Staff will rank public facilities in terms of difficult to serve, easy to serve, and moderately easy to serve. The consultant will also establish a weighted scoring, but she has asked for it to be included in the report's appendix.

Councilor McLain agreed with staff's approach. She expressed concern that Metro needs clarity from LCDC on the hierarchy of Goals 14 and 2, so that staff's effort is not wasted.

Ms. Neill said staff has been working with Jim Sitzman, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and has made a effort to receive clarity on how to make its interpretations.

Chair Park asked staff to schedule alternatives analysis criteria for the Council/Executive Office Informal meeting next week.

5.  Rural Residential Rule (Urban Fringe Regulation)

Mr. Shaw said DLCD staff originally recommended an LCDC rule of a 20 acre minimum lot size within two miles of the entire UGB. In the last draft, DLCD modified its recommendation to add that, in addition to that general rule, Metro may establish minimum area requirements smaller than 20 acres for some of the lands, based on an analysis of the likelihood that such lands will urbanize, of their current parcel and lot sizes, and of capacity of local governments to serve such lands efficiently with urban services at the densities set forth in Metro's 2040 Growth Concept. In no case shall the minimum area requirements set by Metro for such lands be smaller than 10 acres. He said the City of Portland plans to attend the LCDC hearing on Thursday, June 8, to testify in support of DLCD staff's current recommendation.

Mr. Shaw reviewed his memo to Chair Park regarding Rural Residential Rule – Urban Fringe Protection, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. The memo recommends that LCDC amend the rule to regulate the two miles outside Metro's jurisdictional boundary, rather than two miles outside the UGB.

Chair Park asked if the committee needs to take any action, given that MPAC and the Council passed a resolution supporting the 20 acre minimum lot size within one mile of the UGB. Because there is no Council meeting before LCDC's hearing on Thursday, it is difficult for Metro to take formal action.

Mr. Shaw said the DLCD staff report notes Metro's resolution, and it appears that their new recommendation is in response to Metro's resolution. However, the issue of LCDC directing Metro's actions within Metro's jurisdictional boundary is still outstanding.

Councilor McLain said she agreed with Mr. Shaw's assessment. She recommended not saying anything beyond what the Council has already said, and letting the City of Portland testify in favor of the new recommendation. She noted that Mr. Shaw mentioned that this could be considered new information and the Council could act on it later.

Chair Park said he was advised to submit Metro's comments on June 8. He said he is trying to figure out a way to phrase a comment so that it is within Metro's previous statement, but reacts to the new information, and recognizes Metro's inability to respond quickly. He asked if the committee felt it would be appropriate to comment to LCDC in support of the recommendation.

Mr. Shaw suggested that the Growth Management Committee could respond by saying that, except for the part about two miles, the staff recommendation seems to increase Metro’s options, which the committee appreciates. However, since the Council passed a resolution supporting a 20 acre minimum within one mile of the UGB, it would be inconsistent for the committee to support a proposal for a 20 acre minimum within two miles of the UGB, plus the option.

Chair Park asked the committee if it was comfortable directing Mr. Shaw to write a letter supporting DLCD's proposal while staying consistent with Metro's adopted resolution. He noted that MPAC was noncommittal about the issue, and told Metro to work it out with LCDC.

Councilor Washington asked for Mr. Cotugno's opinion.

Mr. Cotugno said he liked the proposal on the table, and believed it was a minor variation from the resolution adopted by Council. The Council's resolution urged LCDC to limit parcelization on exception lands to 20 acres within a mile outside of Metro's UGB. If LCDC regulates within a mile outside of Metro's jurisdictional boundary instead, that is an acceptable degree of control, and leaves Metro the latitude to determine how to regulate the land between the UGB and the jurisdictional boundary. He agreed with sending LCDC a message in support of the recommendation.

Chair Park directed Mr. Shaw to write a letter to LCDC consistent with the Metro resolution adopted by the Council, and reflect the flexibility recommended by DLCD staff.

6.  Councilor Communications

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\0060600gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2000

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