MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, February 2, 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 JANUARY 19, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2748, FOR THE PURPOSE OF URGING REPEAL OF ORS 197.296 AND 1997 OREGON LAWS CHAPTER 763.

Councilor Atherton introduced Resolution No. 99-2748, which requests the abolition of certain state statutory requirements (resulting from House Bill 2709 and House Bill 2493) related to Metro’s management of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Councilor Atherton and is included as part of the meeting record. He said he may agree with Councilor Park to amend the resolution to allow up to a 20-year planning horizon, rather than abolish it.

Chair McLain said it was her understanding that the suggested amendment would give communities an opportunity to decide if changing “shall” to “may” would be helpful to their planning.

Councilor Atherton agreed that an optional 20-year land supply could work well for communities that want to grow and maintain a 20-year supply, in addition to Metro and the region. He suggested that Metro could mediate any disputes between communities and protect the shared resources.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing on Resolution No. 99-2748.

Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association, said he was involved with the drafting of Oregon House Bill (HB) 2709 as a lobbyist for the Realtors Association. He said he anticipates minimal support for repeal of HB 2709 in Salem, but there may be interest in amending it slightly. He said the Home Builders Association believed it was essential to the continuing viability of the state land use system to formalize the 20-year planning horizon, as done in HB 2709, and it would strongly oppose any kind of outright appeal.

Councilor Bragdon asked Mr. Ross to what level of detail he believed the state should be involved in setting the actual means of reaching of those goals.

Mr. Ross said he believed with goals backed up by a limited set of administrative rules and state statutes, local governments have the flexibility to determine their zoning codes and urban growth boundaries. He said Councilor Bragdon’s question is the key to the debate since the passage of Oregon Senate Bill (SB) 100.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Ross which parts of HB 2709 the organization was willing to look at amending. Mr. Ross said he has no specifics in mind.

Councilor Monroe said it is Metro’s goal to make more efficient use of land within the UGB so that it would not need to be expanded into quality farm and forest land. He asked Mr. Ross if he believes the 20-year rule (HB 2709) increases or decreases the ability to meet that goal and why.

Mr. Ross said he thinks HB 2709 allows Metro the flexibility to creatively approach the 20-year land supply, as demonstrated by the UGB decisions made in December 1998.

Councilor Atherton said that in 1997 the building industry association sponsored additional amendments to this concept. He asked for an explanation of why they had pursued that amendment.

Mr. Ross said there had been concern that the goals would be merely aspirational and the Home Builders Association felt the goals needed to be tied to reality.

Councilor Atherton said Mr. Ross’s statements assume that there are no cycles in the growth system and it continues onward and upward.

Mr. Ross said for that period of time for looking at the growth boundary it seemed reasonable to look back 5 years. He said it is always possible to review the boundary at any time to look at changing conditions and whether forecasts need adjustment.

Councilor Atherton said therefore the boundary could contract as well as expand.

Mr. Ross said he did not think that there was anything in the law that would prevent that from happening.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, said 1000 Friends of Oregon also helped draft HB 2709, although they did not agree with much of the results. She urged the committee to be thoughtful in its approach to this type of legislation, and said there are currently a number of bills and draft legislative concepts in Salem with a similar goal. She said 1000 Friends of Oregon would support returning to the way it was before HB 2709, when the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and local cities worked together to determine the most appropriate land supply for the long-term. She said 1000 Friends of Oregon also did not support the ability given by HB 2709 to expand the UGB based on the past 5 years of development patterns. She said they would prefer to amend the law to say jurisdictions cannot expand their UGBs unless they have already taken steps to use their existing land supplies efficiently. She said 1000 Friends of Oregon agrees with the direction and sentiment of Resolution No. 99-2748 and would enjoy being part of a larger discussion.

Councilor Park said there has been talk about each city wanting local control. He asked if local control is not actually a myth under current law.

Ms. McCurdy said in her opinion, DLCD has tried to balance appropriate and inappropriate local control. 1000 Friends of Oregon believes local control has to be within a state framework so that issues like farmland and jobs/housing fair share are considered.

Councilor Monroe asked Ms. McCurdy if she believes that a city should be allowed to decide whether or not to expand its UGB.

Ms. McCurdy said a city should not be allowed to unilaterally make that choice.

Councilor Atherton said Mr. Ross suggested that the governor’s office supports the current program. He asked Ms. McCurdy if she understood that to be true.

Ms. McCurdy said she cannot represent the governor’s office current position on HB 2709, but the governor’s office had a clear leadership role in the drafting of HB 2709.

Councilor Atherton asked Ms. McCurdy to defend her position that local communities should not be allowed to determine when they are built-out and should not grow further.

Ms. McCurdy said the region made a commitment to act as a region in every facet of land use and transportation planning, and the decision that a community is built-out should be made regionally.

Councilor Atherton said Resolution No. 99-2748 is not inconsistent with Ms. McCurdy’s position because the region could decide as a whole to make that choice without the state dictating how it will be done.

Ms. McCurdy said if HB 2709 was repealed, Metro would still be in discussion with DLCD to determine an appropriate long-term land supply for the metro region, however, the definition of “long-term” would be determined independently for each city or region.

Councilor Atherton said he wanted to ask Ms. McCurdy about carrying capacity.

Chair McLain asked Councilor Atherton to talk with Ms. McCurdy at a later time, so that committee discussion could focus on Resolution No. 99-2748.

Councilor Bragdon said he is inclined to support Resolution No. 99-2748, but has a tactical question. He asked if Ms. McCurdy would recommend working with the larger group formed by the governor’s office to address the 20-year land use supply requirement.

Ms. McCurdy said the larger group formed by the governor was brought together two sessions ago, and was composed of cities, counties, special service districts, farmers, and other interested parties. She said there are currently bills in Salem that address HB 2709 in a variety of respects. In her personal opinion, she would not recommend Metro to take the lead on amending HB 2709.

Councilor Bragdon agreed and recommended that Metro consider forming alliances with other groups, such as Farm Bureau and the State Board of Agriculture.

Chair McLain closed the public hearing. She asked legal counsel to answer how the 20-year land supply, or any other planning horizon, related to the documents Metro had already passed concerning planning opportunities.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said the option in HB 2709 of accommodating growth through more efficient land use was a direct result of Metro’s work. Past Metro code reflected the 20-year land supply as a goal; currently the code reflects the state statute.

Chair McLain said with the suggestions made by Councilor Atherton to change the word “shall” to “may,” it is possible that Metro documents and code are in alignment because it offers Metro the opportunity, if it feels it is productive to still use a 20-year land supply, but it gives options.

Councilor Bragdon said he supports the concept of Resolution No. 99-2748, but he wanted to comment on the tone and tactics used. First, he said it is dangerous for Metro to attack the state or the current land use system, because many of the goals of SB 100 are strongly supported in the region. Second, he believed it would be more effective to pursue this goal as part of a broader alliance. He clarified that his support of Resolution No. 99-2748 does not mean he supports the idea of each locality in the metro region creating its own UGB.

Councilor Monroe said the drafting of HB 2709 in 1995 involved a major coalition of people, and like all major legislation, was made through a number of compromises. He agreed with Ms. McCurdy that what may benefit large urban areas may not be good for small towns and cities in Oregon. His primary concern is the success and continued existence of Metro: he believes in the concept of elected regional government. He recommended that the Council monitor the proposed revisions, weigh in when appropriate, continue to try to work with the legislature, shore up Metro’s public image, and try to impact the legislature positively on those issues which have a dramatic impact on Metro’s ability to accept additional growth (e.g. transportation and growth planning funding). He said he fears that if the Council sends a resolution to the legislature telling it to repeal HB 2709, the reaction will not be positive and will negatively impact the Council’s ability to influence the legislature on the issues most critical to the region, and may even negatively impact Metro’s continued existence as an agency.

Councilor Park said while HB 2709 contains good and bad parts, he believes it gives a road map as to which areas should come into the UGB first. He said he will not support Resolution No. 99-2748 at this time because he believes it would be premature and counterproductive.

Councilor Atherton said he very much disagrees that Resolution No. 99-2748 is premature. He said during his four years as a Lake Oswego City Councilor, he encountered broad support for changing HB 2709 across the state. He said his resolution is about carrying capacity, as detailed in Goal 14, and about respecting a community’s decision to stop growing.

Chair McLain said she prefers to favor rather than oppose something, and to build rather than abolish something. She said it is essential to know what would replace a state statute if it was repealed, and she does not support voting on Resolution No. 99-2748 at this time. She would like the committee to review SB 87 and other legislature addressing the issue. She said it would be more helpful for the Council to support specific legislation than to make a general statement.

Chair McLain said she hoped the committee could remove Resolution No. 99-2748 from the table at the next committee meeting.

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

Chair McLain introduced Resolution No. 99-2753. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Chair McLain, and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked about public notification of Resolution No. 99-2753.

Chair McLain said Resolution No. 99-2753 does not have the weight of an action other than agreeing to try to keep the listed goals. The notification process would be a local process, and if any of the local jurisdictions were going to change the status of a person’s property, it would have to appropriately notify the public for that particular process.

Councilor Park said out of courtesy, affected property owners need to be notified.

Chair McLain agreed, but said at this stage there is nothing to notify, except that the parties have agreed to agree to look at issues together in the hope of separation of community and/or coordination of factors.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, agreed with Chair McLain. He said Councilor Park’s question should be investigated to verify that if a land use decision was made by Clackamas County to create an openspace or a rural reserve designation on the zoning map, the County gave public notice of that action, as required by its own comprehensive plan. If there is a future change in the zoning, notice must be given to affected property owners, and that notice would happen separately from the adoption of the IGA because it is a separate action. He said the Council could decide to give specific notice to the people in the area before adopting Resolution No. 99-2753.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Turpel if any consideration was given to require the counties to amend their comprehensive plans to be consistent with the green corridor concept.

Mr. Mark Turpel, Growth Management, said there were fairly extensive discussions about a number of different issues, but specifically the idea of amending Clackamas County’s comprehensive plan to reflect a rural reserve was not a part of the discussions, to his recollection.

Elaine Wilkerson, Growth Management Services Director, read the final sentence of Section V (Land Use and Development within Green Corridor Boundaries) of the agreements, which states that within 5 years the county shall amend its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinance to comply with the agreement. She said the agreement is essentially to not change anything without cooperative discussion.

Chair McLain said the discussion of notification was one of the reasons Section V was added, and the 5 year timeline is intended to allow the cities to work through their local processes with their citizens.

Councilor Atherton confirmed that the IGA does not require down-zoning. Chair McLain and Ms. Wilkerson agreed.

Councilor Atherton asked about the current zoning in these areas.

Mr. Turpel said there is a broad mix of zoning of rural, exception, and resource lands. The intent of the IGA is not to down-zone, but to prevent further up-zoning without notifying all the parties and talking about the changes. Secondarily, to the extent that existing uses might be further expanded, or that new uses could be established consistent with existing zoning, those uses should be visually screened from the highway.

Councilor Park said he is comfortable with Resolution No. 99-2753 assuming the decision is broadcast and citizens know they have 5 years to work with their local districts.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2753 to the full Council.

4.  REVIEW OF STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL LAND USE REQUIREMENTS

Chair McLain invited Liz Callison forward to speak.

Liz Callison, West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District, 6039 Southwest Knightsbridge Drive, Portland, said she would like to bring up several items concerning the relationship of the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) to the Metro Council by way of the Growth Management Committee. First, she asked about the possible conflict created by Chair McLain’s appointment as chair to both the Growth Management Committee and to WRPAC, which advises the Growth Management Committee.

Chair McLain said her appointment is not unusual; currently Councilor Jon Kvistad chairs both the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) and the Council Transportation Planning Committee. She said Councilors frequently chair advisory committees to provide a direct link to the full Council and Council committees.

Ms. Callison said she believes better products would be produced if more people were involved. She asked about the status of Title 3, which is under litigation. She did not recall hearing an update in WRPAC.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Shaw to give a short update.

Mr. Shaw said the record has been filed and the brief is due soon. General Counsel estimates that their brief will be due in the middle of March. They were waiting for an official order from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) to close the record and establish the schedule.

Ms. Callison asked Mr. Shaw to keep WRPAC apprised of how much staff resource is going to the defense of Title 3. She asked how WRPAC’s current work on Goal 5 will be integrated into a legal case on Title 3.

Chair McLain said she will bring Ms. Callison’s questions to the next WRPAC meeting and will schedule an update for the next Growth Management Committee agenda.

Ms. Callison said she would send her questions to Chair McLain by e-mail. She asked about Metro’s computation of its UGB assuming 200 foot riparian buffers, when in reality, Title 3 regulates about half that amount of land. She also asked about the state’s definition of unbuildable lands as 5 units per acre, whereas the Regional Framework Plan does not distinguish between high and low density on environmentally zoned lands.

Chair McLain said Ms. Callison’s questions will be addressed during the upcoming agenda item. She recommended that Ms. Callison review Mr. Turpel’s handout, Metro Council Urban Growth Boundary Need Determination Outline.

Ms. Callison said she is a member of the West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District, which covers the entire west side of Multnomah County. She asked for representation on WRPAC and said the West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District is the only soil and water district without WRPAC representation.

Chair McLain said Ms. Callison has previously raised this point in WRPAC, and the majority of WRPAC members have chosen to not revisit the committee bylaws and membership. She said the West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District is represented on WRPAC through the other special service district representative.

Ms. Callison disagreed and said the West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District is a legal, jurisdictional area. She said it is a special district and is not represented by another special district. She said the issue has not come before WRPAC.

Chair McLain said Ms. Callison is welcome to propose an amendment to the bylaws in WRPAC.

Ms. Callison said the last set of bylaw amendments went directly to the Council from Chair McLain, and did not go through WRPAC.

Chair McLain asked Ms. Callison to return to WRPAC and restate her opinions. She said the bylaw changes were voted on by WRPAC and sent to the Metro Council through the appropriate process.

Ms. Callison said the Council approves WRPAC’s bylaws, so it is ultimately a Council decision.

Chair McLain suggested that Ms. Callison meet with her and Mr. Morrissey to review WRPAC’s bylaws to determine the amendments Ms. Callison would like to propose. Ms. Callison agreed.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Shaw to review the state, regional, and local land use requirements.

Mr. Shaw said the purpose of his review was to elicit questions and identify items which the committee may wish to discuss in more detail. Two documents related to the review include information presented by Mr. Shaw, and are included as part of the meeting record.

Chair McLain called for questions. There were none. Chair McLain said as the committee addresses items concerning state, regional, and local land use requirements, she will ask staff to provide an historical perspective.

5.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT: CONTINUING REVIEW

Mr. Turpel reviewed the Metro Council Urban Growth Boundary Need Determination Outline, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon asked where the new growth occurs that is not captured within the Metro UGB.

Mr. Turpel said growth that is not captured in the UGB occurs anywhere not inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary, such as in Clark County, Sandy, Canby, and rural areas. He added that the capture rates cited in the document are based on the Metro jurisdictional boundary, not the UGB.

Chair McLain said the Council has discussed the forecast in the past. She said as long as the Council knows the statistical abstract it can use those numbers in an equitable way. She said it is important to understand the capture rate and the limitations of the data.

Councilor Atherton asked about the area outside the Metro jurisdictional boundary. He asked how staff calculates the effect of people moving into those areas and commuting to jobs in the Metro UGB.

Mr. Turpel said the jobs/housing imbalance be seen by comparing the residential and employment capture rates. He said ideally, the capture rates should be more similar in order to reduce the negative impacts on transportation systems.

Councilor Atherton said in other words, Salem is becoming a suburb of Portland.

Mr. Turpel said he believes the U.S. Census Bureau uses a six-county area based on the commute shed. which reflects that people do commute to the metro region from cities such as Salem and Longview, Washington.

Chair McLain asked Dennis Yee, Data Resource Center, to add any comments.

Mr. Yee said he does economic and population forecasting for the agency, and he wanted to clarify that the capture rate measures the percentage of population or jobs that is inside the current Metro UGB as compared to the rest of the four-county area. He said he would not call Salem a suburb, it is a separate city with its own planning area and city government, and is outside of Metro’s jurisdiction as a Metro planning area.

Councilor Park said Councilor Atherton raised a point about traffic coming into Portland, but the latest statistics he saw on the Salem connection was that 26,000 cars commute from Salem to Portland, but 23,000 cars commute from Portland to Salem.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Turpel to summarize the remaining points, and said the committee would consider the Urban Growth Report as its first order of business at the next meeting.

Mr. Turpel continued his review of the Metro Council Urban Growth Boundary Need Determination Outline. At Chair McLain’s request, he noted that a development rate of one dwelling unit for every five acres was assumed for constrained lands, and staff is currently analyzing the actual rates. He directed the committee’s attention to the memo from Executive Officer Burton to Chair McLain, dated January 27, 1999, regarding Draft Urban Growth Report Work Program. He also noted the Summary Table (Urban Growth Report, December 1997, page 3). Copies are included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain thanked Mr. Turpel for his presentation and said she would like to continue committee discussion of the Summary Table.

Councilor Park asked if it would be possible to move up the completion deadline for Goal 5 work about four months, from March 2000 to December 1999, so that the Council will know how many acres are needed for riparian setbacks when it votes to move the UGB.

Mr. Turpel said in addition to the Goal 5 work, there is an appeal of Title 3 that may also come into effect. He said he is not optimistic that staff could have the Goal 5 work finalized enough by December 1999 to tell the Council a number of acres.

Ms. Wilkerson said there are many components of the Goal 5 work. The first piece of work is the riparian corridor work which focuses on fish habitat; it should be completed by the end of June 1999. From that work, many of the local partners have indicated that they will attempt to get that work to catch up with their Title 3 floodplain and water quality work, and they hope to complete all the work by the deadline, which is December 1999. She said her staff will work diligently to accommodate the needs of the local jurisdictions so that they do not have to do the work twice. She said her goal is avoid holding public hearings about water quality issues and setbacks, and then come back within months and hold another set of public hearings. She anticipates either extension requests to catch some of that work up, or some jurisdictions may only bring part of the work through, such as the riparian area. She said she hopes this will enable some of the Council’s interests.

Councilor Bragdon asked to reconsider the Urban Growth Report at a future committee meeting, and place the agenda item closer to the beginning of the meeting. He said much of the Urban Growth Report refinement seems oriented to residential land, and he asked if similar refinement is planned for the forecast need of industrial land and the ratio of jobs to acreage. Secondly, he asked about benchmarks to show progress in compliance and ramp-up.

Chair McLain said the Urban Growth Report would be the main item of business at the next meeting. She said the Draft 1999 Urban Growth Report Work Program anticipates that the Growth Management Committee will review staff’s work on “Refill: jobs” April 20, 1999. She said the committee will also look at the Functional Plan at its next meeting. She said the committee will have a general overview of extensions before the first action item to grant an extension comes before the committee. She said the committee will do extensions for the compliance plans first, and is not doing exceptions at this point.

Councilor Atherton asked if the models that have been run assume that growth would be subsidized as it has been up to now. He asked if staff had ever run a model demonstrating what would happen if growth had to pay its own way.

Mr. Yee said he has not run a model to compare subsidized and un-subsidized growth, and does not know

at this point how he would quantify the growth subsidies referred to by Councilor Atherton.

Chair McLain thanked the committee for its comments and questions.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

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\02049gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 1999

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