MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, July 11, 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 3:03 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the June 20, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

Councilor Monroe abstained from the vote, as he was absent from the June 20, 2000, Growth Management Committee meeting.

2.  Director's Update

4.  Department Work Plan and Timeline

Andy Cotugno, Director of the Planning Department, combined agenda items 2 and 4. He said the top issue for the department is concluding phase one of the periodic review, addressing the 1997-2017 urban growth boundary (UGB) need analysis. He saved further comment until the next agenda item. He noted that Metro's consultant has completed the initial phase of the alternatives analysis, which is a component of the UGB need analysis. Staff is now reviewing the study and developing direction for its use. Whether or not Metro considers expanding the UGB now, it will clearly consider it in the future. The alternatives analysis is an important benchmark in the sifting process to keep looking at the areas that make sense for expansion, and have a strong basis for dropping the areas that do not make sense.

Mr. Cotugno said staff has done a lot of technical work on Goal 5, fish and wildlife habitat. Staff is improving the mapping detail, using Metro's aerial photography and contour mapping. The draft vision statement for Goal 5 is currently under review. Lou Ogden, Chair of the MTAC/MPAC/Goal 5 TAC Subcommittee, cancelled the subcommittee's meeting on Wednesday, July 12, because a group of jurisdictions in Washington County is going through a detailed review of the vision, and asked for a couple of weeks to submit comments, and then reengage the subcommittee. Staff has received comments on the vision from other groups, including the Riparian Coalition, which will be added to the process. Staff's next focus will be preparing the proposals for the two other options under Goal 5: 1) the Riparian District Plan, and 2) the Local Discretionary Review Option.

Mr. Cotugno said on the affordable housing front, the work of the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) has been completed. Council accepted H-TAC's recommendation, and staff is now translating that recommendation into proposed language for the Regional Framework Plan and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). The committee should expect to receive the ordinance for consideration in September.

Mr. Cotugno said the committee previously reviewed a draft of phase three of the Regional Industrial Lands Study work program. Phase 3 of the work program has now been finalized, and the group is executing agreements among all the participants. Metro will be a signatory to the agreement. The main audience for the Regional Industrial Lands Study is the Metro Council and the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), as the study affects how the region grows and how it accommodates industrial land needs. Mr. Cotugno has asked the group to attend the August 9, MPAC meeting, to seek review and comment on the work program. He has not scheduled another review with the Growth Management Committee, because the committee reviewed the work program last month. If the committee would like another review, however, one could be scheduled.

Mr. Cotugno said in the area of compliance, staff is presenting to MPAC tomorrow a comprehensive picture of local compliance with the Functional Plan. He recommended that the item be scheduled for next week's Growth Management Committee meeting. He said staff has made an inventory of the standing of different jurisdictions: those that have complied, substantially complied, requested or received extensions, or requested exceptions. Staff has also listed the needed amendments to the 2040 Growth Concept map. He said the work is coming along well, and many jurisdictions are in the final stages of adopting regulations. He said the goal is to present the big picture of compliance prior to Council and MPAC consideration of individual action items, such as map amendments and exception requests.

Mr. Cotugno said the Data Resource Center goes through an annual cycle of taking an aerial photo flight, mapping vacant lands, estimating population, and then estimating employment. Staff is almost through that cycle for 1999; the employment estimation is the only item still outstanding, and it is almost finished. Staff is now beginning the 2000 aerial photo flight, which will begin a new cycle.

Chair Park asked if the aerial photos are done by standard aircraft or satellite surveillance.

Mr. Cotugno said the photos are done by aircraft. Metro has a consortium purchase; many parties come together and buy one coverage flight. He said he was not sure of the exact numbers, but for about $40,000, Metro received about $150,000 worth of aerial flights.

Councilor Monroe noted that he also serves on the David Douglas School Board. He said Metro's aerial photos and mapping have been very helpful to the school district in looking for land for school sites. He said the cost to purchase the maps from Metro was well worth it.

Councilor McLain said Mr. Cotugno had mentioned that staff will review the jurisdictions' compliance and give a status request at MPAC. She noted that Metro has received requests for map reviews, such as Hillsboro's request to make changes to the Title 4 map. She said the Council knew these types of requests would be made at this point in the process. She said it is important to review with MPAC the process for map changes, and for distinguishing differences among the requests that are made. She said it is important to establish the process and criteria first, otherwise the process will be colored by individual requests. She said she looks forward to working with the committee chair and others on this issue.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno how Councilor McLain's comments fit in with their discussions on developing a process for addressing compliance and requests for exceptions.

Mr. Cotugno said it is part of the comprehensive review. Staff wants to address compliance as a complete picture in order to achieve consistency in how the interpretations and decisions are made.

Chair Park said they are ready to begin developing the process.

3.  Conclusion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Periodic Review Work Program, Task 1

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the Metro Urban Growth Boundary Periodic Review Work Program 2000: Task 1 Timeline Adoption Schedule (07/11/00 Draft), a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He said it would be possible to shorten the timeline slightly by eliminating hearings, but it could not be lengthened without missing the
October 31, deadline.

Chair Park said the committee would want to review the schedule and consider shortening it, in order to facilitate the work load.

Mr. Cotugno said the outline is meant as a starting point, and the details are flexible.

Presiding Officer Bragdon asked Mr. Cotugno to arrange one-on-one meetings with interested Councilors who do not attend the Growth Management Committee meetings.

Mr. Cotugno agreed.

Presiding Officer Bragdon and Councilor McLain offered to join Mr. Cotugno.

Councilor McLain said it is very important to publish the schedule and public hearing dates as soon as possible. She asked if the committee could make any changes to the schedule today. She said she was comfortable with the schedule as proposed by staff.

Chair Park asked Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, if the July 28th date for sending the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) a 45 day notice of the first hearing is based on September 7th date for the first reading of the ordinance.

Mr. Shaw said yes.

Mr. Cotugno added that the 45 day notice to DLCD may be a subject notice, it does not need to be the exact form of the ordinance. In the past, however, Metro has sent DLCD a copy of the ordinance in its current form, and then any changes are covered in the notice of adoption.

Mary Weber, Manager of Community Development, said the timeline could be shortened by one week if the first public hearing is held on September 7, when the ordinance is first read at Council. She said quite a bit of time has been build into the schedule for legal staff to do findings, which could also be shortened.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said as the scheduler of the Council's agendas, he agreed with Councilor McLain that the Council needs as much time as possible in September for public involvement. He said one of the hearings would be in Hillsboro, possibly the evening of September 21. He said his preference would be to accept the staff's proposed schedule and begin advertising and planning the hearings.

Mr. Cotugno suggested that the committee conclude today that this is the basic direction it desires to take, and then walk through the schedule at its meeting next Tuesday.

Chair Park said Presiding Officer Bragdon would make the final decision on the schedule, and the committee would move it forward at its next meeting.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to review the report from the DLCD.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the memo, dated July 7, 2000, from Jim Hinman, Urban Coordinator, DLCD, to interested parties regarding LCDC review of Metro's Periodic Review Work Program. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record, in addition to a memo from Mr. Shaw regarding DLCD staff report on UGB Periodic Review Work Program. He said DLCD Director Richard Benner recommends that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) approve Metro's work program as submitted.

Chair Park asked how many objections were raised by the City of Hillsboro, City of Portland, and 1000 Friend of Oregon?

Mr. Cotugno said 13 objections were raised. None were sustained by DLCD staff.

5.  Metro Comments on Goal 14 Administrative Rule

Mr. Cotugno said a draft Goal 14 administrative rule is currently circulating. There will be a hearing on the draft at the LCDC meeting on September 27 and 28. Metro staff has reviewed the rule, and there are a variety of positive items in the rule. A section about patterns of urbanization is brand new to Goal 14, and in his opinion, is fundamentally moving in the right direction. However, some of the issues which Metro raised earlier are not being addressed very specifically in the rule. He asked for guidance on whether the Council would like to make a statement about some of the policy issues, in particular, the issue of subregional need. While current law allows Metro to use subregional need as the basis for examining the UGB, the proposed rule would remove that ability. This is a concern, as subregional need is a fundamental piece of Metro's UGB periodic review work program. In acknowledging that issue at the last MPAC meeting, MPAC asked for staff to prepare a draft letter for MPAC to submit to LCDC. MPAC will consider the letter at its meeting tomorrow. In effect, the proposed letter from MPAC states that while they are not sure if they want to do any amendments on the basis of subregional need, they want the latitude to be able to make that decision, and this rule should not take that latitude away. MPAC was very energetic about not losing that ability, while not stating yet whether or not they want to exercise it later.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro also raised concerns about the twenty-year land supply need. Some parties have suggested that 20 years is an absolute cap, others that it is an absolute minimum, and others that it is only a target and small differences are unimportant. Metro provided language to LCDC for consideration that would embrace the importance of a 20-year land supply as a cap, but note that the UGB is not the only tool to manage that cap. Having a larger UGB, with other tools to manage that cap, is also feasible. The other tools include zoning restrictions that do not allow for urbanization of part of that territory, except if based upon a 20-year land supply need, and/or infrastructure timing. Mr. Cotugno suggested that it is time for the Council to start advocating for the option it prefers. MPAC will also consider this issue at its meeting tomorrow.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro has also raised a third issue, concerning the requirement for master plans for these territories. In the past, Metro found that no one wants to commit the time and resources to produce a master plan unless there is assurance that the land will be added to the UGB. The draft Goal 14 rule, as currently written, would codify the approach which Metro abandoned. Metro has found that it works best to change the UGB, then create a master plan, and make the master plan a prerequisite for urban zoning.

Chair Park said another important issue is how Metro should move through the priorities.

Mr. Cotugno agreed, and said while there are priority categories of land, there is not good guidance on how to make a decision from one to the next.

Chair Park noted that Metro's responses have been at the request of the LCDC chair, to respond to some of the questions Metro raised within its work plan. He said Metro is unique from the rest of the state: the dynamic changes as a result of Metro's jurisdictional boundary. He asked if the committee would be comfortable sending proposed language to LCDC, as requested by the chair of LCDC. MPAC will also send language to LCDC separately.

The committee agreed.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to draft a letter for the committee to review at its next meeting. He asked Mr. Cotugno to also include the one-mile question, and how it may help or hurt Metro's efforts to create whole communities.

Councilor McLain said Chair Park brought up one of the most important issues: prioritizing. Metro has worked with LCDC on prioritizing for years and has never received a clear answer. She said she hopes that the letter recognizes that Metro is looking for clarity in this area.

Chair Park agreed.

6.  Councilor Communications

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 3:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\071100gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 11, 2000

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