MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, January 19, 1999

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), David Bragdon (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Rod Monroe, Bill Atherton

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:35 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 1998, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  REVIEW OF 1999 GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PRIORITIES

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, distributed a set of three documents, copies of which are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain reviewed the memo from Mr. Morrissey outlining Growth Management Committee priorities for 1999. She said the purpose of today’s meeting is to have Councilors review the list and note any concerns. She reviewed the main items on the memo: urban growth boundary (UGB) management, Framework Plan and Functional Plan(s), steelhead listing/Goal 5, and funding. She reviewed the lists of priorities submitted by the City of Hillsboro, and by Jim Zehren, member of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). She opened the meeting for comments and questions.

Councilor Bragdon said MPAC will also submit a list of priorities. He said the committee’s priority list should include the status of master planning in the urban reserve areas and evaluating the private versus public nature of master planning. He said another important issue is performance measures, which includes both scientific data and policy decisions. He said the third item of importance to him is creating an institutional link between transportation policy and growth management.

Chair McLain asked staff and Councilors to respond to Councilor Bragdon’s comments. She said it is imperative for the Growth Management Committee, MPAC, the Council, and Growth Management staff to determine how to address the items Councilor Bragdon mentioned. She said MPAC has mentioned private versus public funding of urban reserve master planning as a priority for this year, and a commitment has been made to bring in case studies, including Hillsboro.

Elaine Wilkerson, Director of Growth Management Services, said staff will take excerpts from the urban reserve plans submitted by Hillsboro and make them available for review by MPAC and the Council. She said MPAC will then discuss the timing of Hillsboro’s presentation. She said the issue of public versus private master plan funding could be clarified during the upcoming amendments to the Metro Code.

Chair McLain said some of the Code amendments will be housekeeping measures, while others will involve policy decisions. Ms. Wilkerson agreed.

Chair McLain requested that staff add the discussion of master plan funding to the list of priorities, and to include the topic in the review session to be scheduled for an upcoming meeting.

Councilor Atherton asked Chair McLain her intentions regarding the review of urban reserve plans, and to explain why Metro is involved.

Chair McLain said it is the Council’s responsibility to review urban reserve plans based on criteria in the Metro Code to determine whether an area is ready to urbanize.

Councilor Atherton said regional planning is not the same as city planning, and he is concerned that the Council is overextending itself and getting involved in city planning. He said he understands that Metro has a list of criteria, and in his opinion, if an area does not meet the criteria, it cannot be urbanized.

Chair McLain said Councilor Atherton’s question is not simple, and involves law suits, the Metro Code, and the UGB process. She said he is discussing definitions of an urban reserve plan versus a comprehensive city plan. She said those are defensible, definable items, and the Council worked with MPAC to define an urban reserve plan. She said if Councilor Atherton wished, the committee could discuss the definition and how he might like to amend it.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said last summer the Council considered the specific wording of the criteria for urban reserve plans. At that time, he and Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, looked at the Code language and identified some areas in which the language was not clear. After review, the Council elected to keep the original wording as adopted in March 1997. As he understood at MPAC, one of the purposes for reviewing the urban reserve plans approved by the Council might be to see how clear the criteria were and what the Council had to do in order to look at the actual plans, to see if the Council might want to refine its criteria.

Chair McLain said that conversation will be coming up through the conversations at MPAC, and it can also be included in the committee’s conversation.

Councilor Atherton said the Council does need to have these talks occasionally. For example, he asked, is the Council going to have a criteria that when it expands urban settlement, it assures absolutely that there will be multi-modal access and a transit link to the urban core activity center.

Chair McLain said to answer Councilor Bragdon and Councilor Atherton’s concerns, Metro has a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update on the link between transportation and land use planning, which is more than philosophical. Metro also has design types and an urban reserve transportation update in which she thinks some of that conversation has taken place and more conversation will continue. She said there are two places to refine the conversation: in amendments to the Regional Framework Plan, and in the update decision on the RTP.

Councilor Park asked Ms. Wilkerson about funding for master planning, and said the question was not about the funding source, private versus public, but whether the elements, such as public input, are the same. He asked if the discussion of possible Code amendments would address this issue.

Ms. Wilkerson said the concern appears to be whether the initiative behind the urban reserve is from the local jurisdiction that will eventually provide services, or if it is initiated by private interests who are consulting with local governments. She said several sections of the Metro Code address this concern, but the intention is not absolutely clear. She said it is a policy issue that the Council can discuss in some detail, probably with input from MPAC. She recommended adding the issue to the list of Code changes to review, along with discussing the level of urban reserve plan detail expected by the Code.

Councilor Park said his other question about timeline concerns the Goal 5 work, which is estimated to last from October 1998 to March 2000. He asked if March 2000 is the deadline for when the Goal 5 work will be enacted, or when it will be ready for adoption.

Chair McLain said the Council will have an opportunity to discuss how long the period for compliance should be.

Ms. Wilkerson added that one should not think of the Goal 5 work as being completed by a certain date; it may come in pieces because Metro received a $55,000 grant from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to fast-track the riparian corridors.

Chair McLain said there has also been discussion about early implementation.

Councilor Park said his question was whether, at the end of March 2000, the Council will know what lands are considered buildable and not buildable inside the UGB.

Ms. Wilkerson said she thinks so.

Councilor Monroe said he had a couple of comments based on Councilor Atherton’s remarks. He said Councilor Atherton is correct that specific local plans for urban growth are not the job of the Metro Council. The Council’s job is multi-faceted. First, it is within state guidelines and law for Metro to set guidelines for local plans, and then when the local plans are forthcoming, to review them to determine whether they meet Metro’s criteria and state law. Metro is also responsible to try to come up with funding to assist local communities in doing their planning, and to try to procure that funding through either local sources, which are minimal, or from the state legislature. He said that effort is ongoing. In regard to Councilor Atherton’s comments on transportation, the Council has a responsibility to make sure that plans fit Metro’s criteria; but the Council also has to go to the state legislature and the federal government about necessary funding because there is no urban reserve anywhere in the region that is not seriously deficient in meeting transportation needs. Any place the Council expands the UGB must have an infusion of transportation dollars for all kinds of modes and for the region’s mixed-transportation needs. It is Metro’s responsibility to assist the local communities in a substantial way toward procuring the necessary transportation funds. He said it is a big job and requires both a regional view and the ability to work cooperatively with Metro’s local partners.

Chair McLain thanked Councilors Monroe, Park, Atherton and Bragdon for attending the last MPAC meeting.

Councilor Atherton commented on the priority list. He said he concurs with the comments about master planning and transportation, but two other issues have arisen in committee discussion about state law and urbanization. He said the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has guidelines about how to apply state land use planning goals. He said Goal 14, Urbanization, clearly states that all of the goals should be applied, but one may not exceed the carrying capacity of the air, land, and water resources of the region, area, or state. He submitted that Goal 14 is one of the key elements the Council needs to have in its growth management program, and it needs to be clearly spelled out in the Regional Framework Plan just what process the state and Metro mean with the term “carrying capacity.” He said a number of groups said in their early consideration of this requirement, that they were looking at it as a biological model, as outlined in the vision statement. He said they considered carrying capacity to be a number, and they wrestled with it because it is not a number, it is a process. He said the process needs to be outlined and explicitly declared so that people will know. He said it is like the disclosure statement one receives from a corporation before buying stock. He said he has a number of specific proposals to discuss.

Chair McLain said she will try to have the Growth Management Committee assist Councilor Atherton in two ways. First, the committee can meet with LCDC in a public forum about LCDC’s state rules and the integration of planning documents. The committee agreed to invite LCDC to a meeting in February or March. Second, Chair McLain said the conversation about carrying capacity and full disclosure can be included in the committee’s work on the UGB Management and the Urban Growth Report.

Councilor Atherton agreed, and said it relates to Councilor Monroe’s comments about transportation and that none of the urban growth boundary amendments have adequate transportation. He said in his opinion, if carrying capacity is exceeded, urbanization should not occur, and currently carrying capacity is already exceeded.

Councilor Monroe said carrying capacity is not a finite number; it can change. While the Council cannot, in its approval of local plans, do anything that exceeds rational carrying capacity of basic facilities, he said there are certain strategies that can be undertaken that can allow for that carrying capacity to change substantially to allow for additional growth.

Chair McLain said she will work with Mr. Morrissey on the comments made at the meeting and by MPAC members. She said at the next committee meeting, she will distribute a final draft of Mr. Morrissey’s memo. Chair McLain said in the past, it has been beneficial for the committee to develop and vote to approve a timeline for the year. She recommended approving a work plan at the next meeting.

Councilor Park asked if the schedule proposed by Chair McLain will be given to MPAC for its review and comment. He said MPAC’s time schedule is sometimes different from the Council’s schedule, and in the past MPAC has felt rushed in some instances.

Chair McLain said she will review the timeline with the chair of MPAC through the Council/MPAC Coordinating Committee. She has asked Ms. Wilkerson to bring items first to the Growth Management Committee, then if necessary to MPAC, and then it will return to the Growth Management Committee.

Councilor Atherton said to continue the committee’s discussion on the carrying capacity, funding, and Chair McLain’s outline, he suggested that a critical element is who will pay for the funding. He said if people will not pay for the infrastructure, then it does not happen. He said the Council needs to clarify this in the Regional Framework Plan.

3.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT: METHODS AND NEED CALCULATION

Chair McLain asked Mark Turpel, Senior Program Supervisor, and Ms. Wilkerson to speak on the Urban Growth Report. She referred the committee to the background material included in the agenda packet. She said the committee would not act on anything today; it would be an informational item only. She said if the committee agrees that the considerations on pages 3-4 of the material are valuable, then the committee can ask Growth Management staff to put together a summary of the elements and choices.

Mr. Turpel reviewed the background material in the agenda packet: Summary for Growth Management Committee UGB Capacity/Need Methods, Assumptions and Timing.

Chair McLain said the variables frequently conflict with each another, and it is important to study both variables, and to look at how they affect each other.

Mr. Turpel agreed. He said while staff can provide the Council with numbers and facts, there are policy decisions to be made about where, within a range, the public interest is best represented. He said staff is interested in knowing as soon as possible the issues and concerns Councilors may have about any of the variables so that staff can provide more information. He said Councilor Bragdon and Councilor Park mentioned the assumed setbacks along riparian areas as an example. Staff assumed 200 feet, but Title 3 only protects between 15 to 50 feet, which amounts to a difference of about 3500 acres of buildable land.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Turpel when he anticipates having numbers to go with the variables, such as the current underbuild rate.

Mr. Turpel said staff could give the committee a list of the numbers used to date, along with a list of assumptions and a demonstration of how different assumptions affect the final number. One of the critical factors is the vacant land inventory, and he expects to have the most recent data computed by May 1999.

Chair McLain said it is important to her that as the committee looks at some of the considerations, that the Council and Growth Management Committee are committed to a comprehensive review of Urban Growth Report. In order to do a comprehensive review in the time available, the committee needs to decide its priorities so staff can concentrate on those areas.

Councilor Park said he was trying to determine when the Council will have numbers that it can use to work through the process, because if the variables continue to change, the Council will not be able to reach a decision before its deadline.

Chair McLain said Councilor Monroe, staff, and she have agreed to get the work done in a timely manner so that the process can begin by May or June, so there is plenty of time for the Council and MPAC to speak with each other and to receive public comment.

Councilor Bragdon said he would like more emphasis on the redevelopment and infill variable. He said he realizes the stream corridor is in flux due to the steelhead listing and Goal 5, but the point is to be consistent for both purposes. If Metro is assuming a 200 foot riparian area setback, and taking that land out of the buildable land inventory, but in reality it has not been removed from development on a local level, then the Council needs to address that inconsistency.

Chair McLain agreed, and said Metro’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Committee is funding and coordinating a number of infill and redevelopment projects, and there may be some in-house data available.

Councilor Atherton asked if there are any areas that have been recently approved for UGB expansion that would be affected by the Goal 5 work.

Mr. Turpel said the buildable lands inventory has been done for the area inside the current UGB (prior to December 1998). However, Title 3 applies to all lands within Metro’s jurisdictional boundary, so there are many areas such as Damascus and Boring that are included in the Metro boundary and subject to Title 3, even though there are not included in an urban reserve or in the UGB. In the areas where there is a resolution of intent to move the UGB, subject to bringing the areas into the Metro jurisdictional boundary, those areas would presumably then be subject to Title 3 and to potential Goal 5 requirements.

Councilor Atherton asked if Metro approves more aggressive fish protection, will it affect the buildable lands inventory inside recently added lands.

Mr. Turpel said he does not know yet. If it takes about 3500 acres to protect steelhead, then the buildable lands inventory will not be significantly affected. If it takes more land, then buildable lands would be affected and staff would urge the Council to change the inventory to reflect the further regulation.

Councilor Atherton said he would like to ask Mr. Turpel further questions about the Urban Growth Report and the forecast methodology.

Chair McLain suggested that Councilor Atherton begin that conversation with Mr. Turpel privately, or wait until the end of the committee meeting to see if there is enough time remaining. She said the methodology and the growth report may come back in the fleshed out report.

Councilor Atherton expressed concerns about the number of add-ons in the forecast. He said add-ons are when the data is adjusted to make the model fit historical experience, on the theory that what happened in the past will happen in the future. He said the problem is if it is done too often, the model becomes a description of the past and is no longer forecasting.

Chair McLain said her and Councilor Atherton’s definitions of add-on may be different. She said there is a balancing factor in which the model sometimes needs to be caught up with what actually happened. The Council has requested that models reflect what is known to be fact, so there is an integration of forecasting and fact and actuals. She said this is an important conversation, but it will happen as the committee reviews the updated Urban Growth Report and talks about information is interpreted and used, knowing what the model has been and the model’s limitations.

Councilor Atherton told Mr. Turpel he would like to look at the model and make some computer runs to look at UGB expansion in the next 5, 10, and 15 years. He said this information could be useful for people who have assumed that the UGB is fairly static.

Mr. Turpel said this area is a frontier between the economists and the planners. Planners need one number in order to figure out the demand. Economists, on the other hand, give a forecast with a range, e.g. low, medium, and high. He said Metro planning staff selected the medium range number to run the model. He offered to show Councilor Atherton the implications of models that have already been run to show the differences among the high, low, and medium numbers.

Councilor Park said there are a number of references made to the setbacks along riparian areas. He said the report indicates that the setbacks are measured from the middle of the stream, whereas in Senate Bill (SB) 1010, the setbacks are measured from the edge of the bank.

Ms. Wilkerson said Metro staff does not have a mapline of the top of bank, so they do measure from the centerline of the watercourse, except for in the case of very large rivers such as the Willamette River. The actual Title 3 regulations, however, measure from the top of bank. She said they did a sensitivity analysis of the impact of measuring from the centerline versus the top of bank, and determined that the difference was not significant enough to stop the process.

Councilor Park asked Ms. Wilkerson to emphasize in the report how the measurements are done, in order to lessen any confusion.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Turpel to give Councilor Park a copy of the diagram prepared around the time of Title 3’s adoption.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2753, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING THE METRO EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO SIGN NEIGHBORING CITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITIES OF SANDY AND CANBY, CLACKAMAS COUNTY AND OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chair McLain said she hopes the committee will be prepared to vote on Resolution No. 99-2753 at its next committee meeting. She summarized the background information, which can be found in the draft staff report in the agenda packet.

Mr. Turpel said the negotiations were prompted by the concerns of neighboring cities about growing together with the region. He distributed a handout which includes a quick graphic explaining green corridors, and maps of areas in which the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) would apply. A copy of the handout is included in the meeting record. Mr. Turpel reviewed the handout and the draft staff report.

Chair McLain said she is excited about the IGAs and said an agreement with North Plains is her next goal.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Shaw if the IGA triggers the notification section recently passed in terms of changing land use, because certain uses will no longer be allowed in those areas.

Mr. Shaw said the new legislation would not affect the IGAs, because an IGA is an agreement to cooperate and discuss issues. Any new regulations would occur through an ordinance, and the ordinance itself would be subject to the new notification regulation.

Councilor Atherton said the IGA is a great example of regional planning and why Metro exists. He said it is a first step and can be developed further.

Councilor Bragdon said it is not clear what the county is bound to do through the IGA, particularly in regards to the depth of the green corridors. He asked if the corridors protect rural uses, or if they merely create a Potemkin village to shield the eyes from offending urbanization.

Mr. Turpel said in negotiations they struggled with ways to either discourage or encourage certain kinds of uses consistent with rural zoning.

Councilor Bragdon said he is happy with the IGA, but it is important for the county and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to manage access.

Mr. Morrissey asked if the committee could request that staff monitor this agreement in a periodic way to ensure the green corridor does not become like Van Duzer Corridor, with trees near the road and clear-cutting behind.

Chair McLain said she believes the Council has a responsibility to consider the land uses before and after the IGA, to determine if it wants to continue entering into these agreements in the future. She agreed with Mr. Morrissey that staff should come back to the committee after six months to a year to discuss the effects of the IGA on actual land use.

Mr. Turpel recommended that the committee also invite representatives from the neighboring cities to give their perspectives.

Chair McLain agreed.

Councilor Atherton said he wanted to talk about the role of the counties in land use and providing urban services. He said counties should not be involved in building cities, and Metro has the responsibility and authority to oversee this.

Chair McLain thanked Councilor Atherton for his comments and said she anticipates talking more about the changing roles of the levels of government.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

5.  EXECUTIVE SESSION, HELD PURSUANT TO ORS 192.660(1)(h), TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF A PUBLIC BODY WITH REGARD TO CURRENT LITIGATION OR LITIGATION LIKELY TO BE FILED

Chair McLain opened an Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(h) at 3:05 P.M.

Present:  Chair McLain, Councilor Bragdon, Councilor Park, Councilor Atherton, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Morrissey, Ms. Wilkerson, Mike Burton, Executive Officer, Joseph Gibbons, Senior Auditor, Pat Mannhalter, Administrative Legal Assistant, Suzanne Myers, Council Assistant, Greg Nokes, Oregonian reporter

Chair McLain closed the Executive Session at 3:27 P.M.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:28 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\01199gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 1999

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