MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, July 18, 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 3:07 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the July 11, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

2.  Director's Update

Andy Cotugno, Director of the Planning Department, said his staff has been reviewing and refining the Goal 5 context, vision and principles statement. The Goal 5 Technical Advisory Committee (Goal 5 TAC) has recommended a version of the vision statement, which the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC)/Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) Goal 5 Subcommittee is currently reviewing. Staff also received very detailed comments from the Riparian Corridor Coalition, the Washington County planning directors, and the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland.

Mr. Cotugno said staff is working to finish the Framework and Functional Plan writing activities in order for the Council to consider an ordinance late this year. Staff did a location efficient mortgage phase 1 study, in which a lender could award a mortgage with a higher debt ratio, based on a family's lower transportation costs. He said the concept emanated out of Chicago, and when the Chicago group did a feasibility study for Metro's phase 1, the group concluded that there were some good opportunities for the concept in metropolitan Portland. He said Metro applied for, but did not receive, Fannie Mae grant for $118,000 to do a phase 2 implementation program. Fannie Mae encouraged Metro to see if the partners who helped fund the phase 1 study would be willing to do a lower cost effort for Metro, in which Metro would do the development work. Mr. Cotugno said Metro has the skills to do the development, but not the budget. He asked the committee if it thought the idea was worth pursuing.

Chair Park said he had discussed the matter briefly with Mr. Cotugno before the meeting and unless the committee objected, he felt they should ask if local partners would be interested. Chair Park thought it helped strengthen the 2040 Growth Concept.

Presiding Officer Bragdon thought the concept originated with South Shore Bank in Chicago. South Shore Bank is affiliated with EcoTrust, which has a small office in the Portland region, Shore Bank Pacific. He suggested they might be able to help.

Mr. Cotugno noted he and Councilor Park have recently met with various members of the press to explain what sort of conclusions had been reached by Task 1 of the Periodic Review Work Program.

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

Mike Burton, Executive Officer, said the completion of Task 1 was a significant milestone. He narrated the slide presentation, “1997-2017 Land Need,” with assistance from Mr. Cotugno on the technical aspects. A printed hard copy of the slide presentation includes information presented by Executive Officer Burton and Mr. Cotugno, and is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Cotugno asked for committee direction on the timeline for public hearings and preparation of the ordinances. He noted Metro's October 31, deadline, and said the draft schedule presented was designed to meet that deadline.

Councilor Monroe asked how the various appeals on land previously voted into the urban growth boundary (UGB) could impact this process.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said if any of the pending appeals are remanded, Metro will need to consider its options at that time. He noted that both the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) the Court of Appeals are moving more quickly this time than before.

Councilor Monroe asked if there is an estimated timeline for the outcome of the appeals.

Ken Helm, Assistant Counsel, said a decision on the Bethany appeal is expected in mid-August.

Mr. Shaw said notice has just been filed and that process will take up to six months. He said it has been appealed by the property owners’ association, and cross appealed by the City of Lake Oswego. The cross appeal will raise the issue of sub-regional need.

Executive Officer Burton congratulated Mr. Cotugno, Growth Management staff, and the committee for completing Task 1 of the Periodic Review Work Program.

Councilor McLain thanked Executive Officer Burton, Mr. Cotugno, and Growth Management staff for their work. She noted that Task 1 recognizes two important facts: 1) while they do not know how much need Goal 5 regulations will create, they do know Goal 5 will result in additional land need, and 2) the pending UGB appeals could affect the timeline. She added that staff is still working on the productivity study of exception lands, and said she hopes to review it soon.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno for the status of the consultant’s productivity study on exception lands.

Mr. Cotugno said staff has received the consultant's evaluation of the different study areas. He said staff will do a first cut based on state criteria, and present the results to the committee shortly.

Chair Park said staff will review the 35,000 acres studied by the consultant, and eliminate about half from further consideration. He thanked staff for its work. Chair Park said the only change he had noticed to the timeline was a final Council vote on October 19, instead of October 26.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said he had spoken with Beth Anne Steele, Council Public Outreach Coordinator, about the timeline. He agreed that it would be better not to schedule the vote at the last minute.

4.  Presentation: Building 2040 – A Progress Report

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Department, presented a slide show on “Building 2040 - A Progress Report.” A copy of Ms. Bernards's speaking points includes information from the presentation and is included in the meeting record.

Chair Park asked about the percentage of compliance.

Ms. Bernards said not including Title 3, the jurisdictions were currently at 63% compliance. She added that a number of the remaining jurisdictions are in the middle of public hearings, and she expects that the percentage of compliance will be much higher by October. She said judging from the jurisdictions' progress, Metro should be very close to reaching its goal by December.

Councilor McLain thanked Ms. Bernards for her presentation and said the flowchart was very helpful. She said the only item missing from the presentation was the criteria for granting exceptions. She said the Council needs to talk about the process for granting exceptions, and about performance measures, before it begins to process any requests.

Presiding Officer Bragdon agreed with Councilor McLain that it is important for the Council to continually look at its progress in meeting its goals. He would like to discuss the fiscal component of the 2040 Growth Concept. He noted that some groups, such as the Westside Economic Alliance, have said they cannot afford to do 2040, which implies that they can afford one of the alternatives. Ms. Bernards's presentation demonstrated that the alternatives are more expensive than 2040, and that point needs to be made. He said Ms. Bernards's presentation should reflect that expansion of the UGB is a last resort, and many of the elements of 2040 are meant to minimize UGB expansion. He complimented Ms. Bernards on her presentation.

Chair Park noted that in terms of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 4(d) rule, Metro may want to promote the 2040 Growth Concept as a mitigation factor against take. Due to the different growth patterns resulting from 2040, the region is expected to expand by 20,000 acres in the next 50 years, rather than by 120,000 acres. Leaving a greater amount of land in farm or forest protects significant amounts of fish and wildlife habitat from erosion, additional stream crossings, impervious surfaces, and other urban factors.

Councilor Atherton asked Ms. Bernards about the process and timeline for amending the 2040 Growth Concept map.

Ms. Bernards said she is currently working on the staff report for an ordinance to amend the map.

Chair Park said Ms. Bernards report demonstrates that the 2040 Growth Concept is working.

5.  Review of Metro's Testimony to Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on Goal 14 Administrative Rule

Mr. Shaw reviewed Draft #3 of a letter to Steve Pfeiffer, Chair of LCDC, from Rod Park, concerning Revised Goal 14 and Goal 14 Rule. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record. He noted that LCDC is moving quickly on this issue. The Commission has scheduled a hearing on July 27, and another hearing in September, with adoption planned for September 28. He said the letter emphasizes why the process needs more time. He noted that this issue is highly controversial, probably due to its history.

Councilor McLain said she understands the concerns of 1000 Friends of Oregon about the 20 year supply of land. However, she also understood one fundamental difference. She asked Mr. Shaw to confirm that the Council has stated that it will only consider subregional need within the regional need assessment.

Mr. Shaw said from the point of view of 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), it is one thing to do a subregional analysis that concludes that UGB amendments are necessary in a particular sub-region, and that it adds into the overall 20 year land supply. Metro is requesting something different. The UGB, under Metro's approach, could go over a 20 year supply of urbanizable land. Part of the rule, which is often forgotten, is that action must be taken before urbanizable land may be converted to urban land (land zoned and available for urban uses). Metro would not do the conversion from urbanizable to urban land, it would only identify which 20 years worth of land is available for conversion. Conversion would continue to be done by cities and counties. Until that land is available for urban uses, it is inside the UGB in rural zoning.

Mr. Shaw said 1000 Friends of Oregon and DLCD staff's response is that, if Metro wants to have something that plans for a larger supply of land than 20 years, then Metro should use urban reserves. The problem with that suggestion is that urban reserves are different than the UGB, because with the UGB, a commitment has been made on where the region will grow. Urban reserves are merely the first priority of where the region will grow. In addition, with urban reserves, urban services are strictly prohibited from being extended into the reserve until the land has been moved into the UGB. In order to create a Damascus town center, consistent with the 2040 Growth Concept, Metro must demonstrate enough serious commitment to that land to allow for long-term planning. However, there is only enough need to move the UGB a little bit closer to Damascus. Metro's proposal is intended to add the land to the UGB, in order to demonstrate commitment, but only allow 20 years of the land to really be available for urban uses.

Councilor McLain said it is essential to link the common sense of Mr. Shaw's response to LCDC's requirement that Metro demonstrate that land added to the UGB is superior to any other land that could have been added. She said LCDC has never clarified how Metro should apply the state's criteria.

Mr. Shaw said Councilor McLain's concern is addressed in the third item, which asks for clarity on how Metro should walk through the steps in the priority statute. DLCD made a good start on how to walk through the steps in the first part of the statute, but they did not go very far on how to walk through the subregional locations for things like jobs/housing balance. Mr. Shaw said the letter before the committee is in draft form, and will be reviewed by the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on July 19. The letter will be sent after it is approved by Chair Park.

Councilor McLain said it is important for the letter to talk about how the pieces relate to each other.

Chair Park said the Council has identified certain things in its work plan, and made requests within the work plan for clarification. The chair of LCDC requested language clarification from Metro, which Metro proposed. In the opinion of Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cooper, DLCD staff's comments on Metro's proposal did not accurately reflect Metro's request. The language Metro is proposing is in response to DLCD staff's request for clarification. He said it is important to realize that Metro is not advocating for all these changes, it is asking for clarification within its work plan. If LCDC, in its policy making, decides that it does not agree with Metro's interpretation of state law, then Metro will still have received clarification on how to prioritize lands for UGB expansion. He said he hopes the Council will have the opportunity to review the letter on July 20, before LCDC meets on July 27.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said it is very important to correct as quickly as possible the misconception that Metro favors a wide open UGB. As Councilor McLain said, the description of the conditions is very important.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno how Metro can be assured that looking at lands one mile outside the UGB is the correct distance.

Mr. Cotugno said a mile is arbitrary, and may be absolutely wrong in some places. In this case, LCDC is trying to help by not requiring Metro to look at exception lands next to the coast range before moving to the next priority category.

The committee agreed to move the letter to Council for comment on Thursday, July 20.

6.  Endangered Species Act: Discussion of Metro Response to National Marine Fisheries Service 4(d) Rule

Mr. Helm said staff and the Office of General Counsel reviewed the final 4(d) rule from NMFS to determine which of the municipal, residential, commercial and industrial limits could be met by Metro’s existing and adopted water quality and flood management regulations. The final 4(d) rule was published in The Federal Register on July 10, 2000, and will go into effect in 60 days. Mr. Helm reviewed a memo to Chair Park regarding obtaining NMFS's 4(d) limit for Title 3 regulations. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Helm said if the committee agrees to the recommendations made in the memo, the next step will be to gather the policy documentation and supporting scientific data, and to provide NMFS staff with an information package that includes a narrative, illustrations, and aerial photographs. The information will then be used to explain to NMFS staff Metro's policies, including the 2040 Growth Concept and why it, as a land use planning device, is already conserving the region's salmonid populations by decreasing the size of the urban area.

The committee directed staff to move ahead.

Mr. Cotugno asked for clarification of priorities. He said currently, he is trying to keep staff focused on other priorities, and he would consider this issue a second-tier priority, unless otherwise directed by the committee. Staff is currently focused on continuing to develop the Goal 5 program by December, which is a fairly short timeline. He said he is reluctant to commit extensive staff time or effort to gathering information for NMFS.

Chair Park said the question is, what is the payoff if the 2040 Growth Concept is accepted by NMFS as a mitigation factor? There would be a major payoff on many fronts. He said it would be good to have preliminary discussions with the appropriate people at NMFS to see if it would even be considered. He said Metro needs to do a risk/benefit analysis. He said he realized it may take some effort from staff and elected officials to get the 2040 Growth Concept adopted, however it might be worth it. He asked staff to do an analysis so that the committee can consider its odds and make a calculated call. He said the Title 3 work appeared to be an easier "win," but the Council should consider whether it would prefer a limited win with Title 3, or a big win with the entire 2040 Growth Concept, which would make it easier to win with the elements of the concept. He said the Council should also examine whether there will be any political pressure against NMFS adopting the 2040 Growth Concept as a mitigation factor.

Councilor Washington said he supported trying for the big win.

Chair Park recommended first doing a risk analysis.

7.  Councilor Communications

Chair Park said Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, is clarifying the process for jurisdictional boundary amendments, which the Growth Management Committee will review at its next meeting. Then the Council will be able to tell its local partners where they are in the process.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno if it would be possible for the committee to review the most recent Goal 5 work before the Council recess in August.

Mr. Cotugno said in his opinion, time limits should be set on the comment period for the Goal 5 Vision Statement. The Vision Statement has been available for review for about six weeks, and staff has received comments from the Home Builders Association, the Port of Portland, and the Riparian Coalition. Washington County is also expected to submit comments. He said he does not know of any more comments. Assuming MPAC reviews the Vision Statement on August 9, staff hopes to recommend any refinements to the Vision Statement to the Growth Management Committee in mid-August.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to try and schedule the item for the committee's August 9, meeting, assuming MPAC has made its recommendation by then. If not, Chair Park said he may schedule an extra committee meeting for August 15. If the committee cannot act on the Vision Statement in August, he will schedule the item for the first meeting in September, because the debate needs to end.

Councilor Washington noted that he will be on vacation on August 15. He asked Mr. Cotugno if the people who commented on the Vision Statement had anything new to add. He said if they do not have anything new to add, then the Council should move ahead because the Council has heard their comments many times.

Chair Park said the plan is to note the policy choices in the groups' recommendations, and then vote on each policy issue.

Mr. Morrissey asked if staff is waiting until the Vision Statement is approved before beginning work on the safe harbor and local option approaches, or if the work will be simultaneous.

Mr. Cotugno said he is not concerned about the amount of time spent on the Vision Statement, because the work in not a linear process. Staff is currently working on the district plan, the local option, and the other elements of
Goal 5.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\071800gmm.doc

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

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