MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, August 8, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    David Bragdon, Bill Atherton

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

2.  Periodic Review Work Program Update

Andrew Cotugno, Planning Director, said that on July 28, 2000, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) approved Metro’s urban growth boundary (UGB) periodic review work program, with five conditions. Notes from the July 28, LCDC meeting, with an explanation of the five conditions, is included in the meeting the record. He noted that the City of Portland and 1000 Friends of Oregon each decided not to appeal Metro's work program, based on LCDC's conditions. Mr. Cotugno said the next step will be to complete Task 1, meeting the 2017 regional land supply need. Public hearings will be held in September or October to discuss possible legislative amendments to the UGB. Task 2 of the work program will begin in September, and will essentially involve refining the details of the current work program. One important question for the committee to consider will be the definition of subregional analysis.

Chair Park invited Kim Vandehey to testify on the Alternatives Analysis. He noted, however, that the Alternatives Analysis would not be available for review until the middle of September.

Kim Vandehey, 17207 SW Siler Ridge Lane, Aloha, expressed frustration that the deadline for the Alternatives Analysis keeps being moved to a later date. Last spring he was told to wait, because the analysis would be published in June. Now it would not be available until mid-September. With a UGB decision due in October, he felt like a deer in the headlights, about to be run over. He said if extra time is allowed for each step of the process, there will be no time for the public to review and comment on the Alternatives Analysis.

Chair Park said the current Land Needs Report shows that Metro will not need to move the UGB this year. The Alternatives Analysis will be published in September, and the next movement of the UGB is planned for 2002. He asked Mr. Vandehey if one-and-a-half years is adequate time to review the Alternatives Analysis?

Mr. Vandehey noted the ongoing law suits on the Bethany and Stafford sites. If those appeals are successful, he asked, will the council have to expand the UGB?

Chair Park said no, if the council's decision on Bethany or Stafford is remanded, the resulting land need will be counted toward Metro's next need number in 2002. He asked Dan Cooper, Legal Counsel, if he was correct.

Mr. Cooper said the council will get to make that choice.

Councilor Washington asked Mr. Vandehey if the committee had addressed his concern. He said he did not want anyone to feel like a deer in the headlights.

Mr. Vandehey said one-and-a-half years is adequate to review the Alternatives Analysis. He said he was still bothered that Metro's deadlines always shift. He noted that he has a regular job, and a part-time job, and it is difficult to continually attend meetings at Metro. He said he understood that the decision to move the UGB was delayed until 2002, but he still thought the Alternatives Analysis would have been available for discussion by now.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to make sure that Mr. Vandehey receives a copy of the Alternatives Analysis as soon as it is available.

Mr. Cotugno said the original periodic review schedule was done with the assumption that the council would move the UGB by the end of October. Once it became apparent that the Goal 5 regulations would not be completed by this fall, there was no longer a need to move the UGB in October. With that pressure gone, staff could spend more time reviewing the Alternatives Analysis .

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the July 18, 2000, Growth Management Committee Meeting

3.  Goal 14 Administrative Rule Update

Mr. Cotugno said on July 29, LCDC held a public hearing on the Goal 14 Administrative Rule. He testified for Metro at the hearing, asking for clarity on a few policy issues. Many people from around the state testified that LCDC needed to take more time revising the rule. As a result, LCDC added two or three more steps to the process. First, a work session with LCDC and a core group of interested parties has been scheduled for August 24, 2000. Mr. Cooper will attend the work session as Metro's representative. A new draft rule is expected by mid-September, with hearings in September or October, and adoption by LCDC in October or November.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro's concerns with the Goal 14 Administrative Rule remain the same. Metro wants to maintain the ability to amend the UGB based on subregional need, if necessary. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has told Metro to use urban reserves, but in order to do so, the urban reserve rules need to be amended so that they work. He added that LCDC has not yet clarified how Metro should move through the priority of lands.

Mr. Cooper noted that the proposed Goal 14 Administrative Rule raised a number of concerns that do not affect Metro. If the August 24, work session lasts six hours, Metro will be lucky if two of those hours focus on its particular concerns. He said it is a very complex arena, and LCDC is dealing with many issues.

Chair Park asked if the Goal 14 Administrative Rule proposed any performance standards, such as Metro's 2040 Growth Concept.

Mr. Cooper said no, Goal 14 was written as a rule for establishing urban growth boundaries, and was never written as criteria for what a jurisdiction should do inside an urban growth boundary. He noted that House Bill (HB) 2709 requires that jurisdictions consider measures to increase efficiency within the UGB before expanding it.

Chair Park thanked Mr. Cooper for agreeing to attend the work session on August 24.

4.  Goal 5 Vision Statement – Update and Summary of Public Comments

Mark Turpel, Manager, Long-Range Planning, summarized the history of the Goal 5 Vision Statement, and noted the public comments and staff responses, which are included in the meeting record.

Mr. Cotugno said the August 4, version of the Vision Statement reflects those changes proposed by outside agencies to which staff agreed. He asked for committee guidance on whether the Vision Statement is progressing in the right direction. He said he expects the MPAC/MTAC Goal 5 Subcommittee to finish reviewing the Vision Statement on Wednesday, August 9, and report to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). This will allow the council to review the Vision Statement in September.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said the Vision Statement is well written, and effectively explains the rationale for the program. He said he supports staff's direction.

Chair Park said he sees this work as a series of building blocks, starting with the 2040 Growth Concept and the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO). MPAC clearly stated that it does not want to abandon either the 2040 Concept or RUGGO. He asked if the committee supports a Vision Statement that embraces the goals of RUGGO. The committee said yes.

Presiding Officer Bragdon noted that MPAC has already said it does not want to repeal the 2040 Growth Concept. Therefore by definition, MPAC does not want a Vision Statement that is inconsistent with RUGGO.

5.  Metro Jurisdictional Boundary Annexation Procedure

Mr. Morrissey reviewed his draft memo on the timeline of annexation activities relative to the Metro jurisdictional boundary, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Mary Weber, Manager, Community Development, said this is an administrative issue with policy implications. She compared the current situation to a utility sink, in which the original cast iron pipes have been refitted with plastic connectors. While the pipes technically connect, items get caught in the trap. First the clogged pipes need to be freed, and then the plumbing needs to be redone. She said the policy issue is the timing. She proposed two possible solutions. The first option is for Metro to accept applications year round, with no guarantee that an area will be urbanized. She said a more attractive option is to move the UGB by ordinance, with the caveat that it will then be moved into the jurisdictional boundary. Under this option, an applicant may obtain signatures ahead of time, but Metro will not accept applications until the council intends to the move the UGB.

Chair Park noted that based on the most recent Land Needs Report, Metro is not required to move the UGB at this time.

Mr. Cooper agreed that based on the staff report, there is no need to move the UGB. He said the council must go through a public hearing process, and then decide whether to adopt staff’s report.

Chair Park directed staff to draft a recommendation on what to do with the applications that are pending, and how to address future applications.

Ms. Weber asked if Metro should not accept any new applications at this time.

Mr. Cooper said Metro is not allowed to refuse new applications. He noted that applicants could use the locational adjustment process.

Chair Park said the committee needs to also clarify when Metro does and does not accept applications.

6.  Draft Amendment to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 2 and 10, as Proposed in Ordinance No. 00-869A, the Regional Transportation Plan

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the draft amendment to Titles 2 and 10 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. A copy of the amendment includes information presented by Mr. Cotugno, and is included in the meeting record. He said the proposed amendment reflects additional requirements adopted by LCDC. The Transportation Planning Committee voted earlier that afternoon to recommend council adoption of Ordinance No. 00-869A, with the amendment to Titles 2 and 10. The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) will give its final recommendation on Thursday morning, August 10, and council will vote to adopt the ordinance that afternoon.

Ordinance No. 00-869A will be carried to full council by a member of the Transportation Planning Committee.

7.  Councilor Communications

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:31 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2000\growth\080800gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2000

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