MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, May 22, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Bill Atherton, Presiding Officer Bragdon, Rex Burkholder, Carl Hosticka, and Rod Monroe

Members Absent:  Councilor Susan McLain, Burkholder

1.  Introduction by Mike Burton of Michel Ouellet and his group, Vivre en Ville, from Quebec City, Canada

Chair Rod Park called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. and invited Executive Officer Mike Burton to introduce his guests, the Vivre en Ville and CRUTEC, from Quebec, Canada. The Vivre en Ville is a nongovernmental group, and CRUTEC is a regional committee of transit users. From Portland, the group is going to San Francisco and then Las Vegas, and will be looking at transportation and land use practices. Mr. Burton introduced them: Ann Bourget, the president and director of Vivre en Ville, Jerome Vaillancourt, Nicolas Lavoie, Michel Ouellet, Pascal Laliberte’ and Caroline Brodeur. Mr. Burton then introduced the Metro councilors to the Quebec visitors and what explained their role.

Responding to a question from Ms. Bourget, Chair Park explained how the councilors are elected by district, and he gave a brief geographic outline of his district. He explained, however, that each councilor tried to consider the region’s issues instead of just their own district’s. Councilor Monroe added that the Metro Council is a unique government in that it is the only elected regional government within the United States. The population of the region, he said, is close to 1.4 million, approximately half the state of Oregon, and encompasses 30 miles across (50 kilometers) and 30 miles down. He further explained the district divisions and terms, as well as the Presiding Officer position. Councilor Hosticka said even though each Metro district is based upon the number of dwelling units, the residents spend most of their lives in the region, and the view is that the people live where they spend their time, so all the Metro councilors work for the region.

2.  Consideration of the Minutes of the May 8, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

3.  Related Committee Updates

•  Natural Resources

Councilor Hosticka reported that the Natural Resources Committee public hearing on May 9^th was to discuss criteria for determining significant natural resources. Approximately 15 people testified before the committee, most urging the committee to look at scientific and ecological functions. The next step would be to develop criteria for significance and then model that. That will be reported back to the Natural Resources Committee on June 9th, and then will go through the usual reviews, and hopefully before the full Council in July. He invited anyone who was interested in that issue to talk to him or to attend the next Natural Resources Committee meeting.

Councilor Bragdon added to Councilor Hosticka’s report that he also has received mail on the significant natural resources criteria and he wanted to emphasize that the methodical nature Metro is taking is very important to stress. Good policymaking involves asking the right questions and asking them in the right way, and doing it step by step. He said posing the question of using a scientific way as opposed to political way was the right question to ask and it seems to be more complicated but in long run is the right way.

•  JPACT

Councilor Monroe reported that on May 24^th, the Bi-State Committee, a subcommittee of JPACT, would be holding a meeting at the Port of Vancouver. As an aside to the Canadian guests, Councilor Monroe explained that this a bi-state region, and that the government of Metro only encompasses the Oregon side, but that there is a great deal of cooperation in both transportation and land use planning with the state of Washington jurisdictions immediately to the north of the Columbia River, who are also part of this urban region. This Bi-State Committee is made up of elected officials from both sides of the river and meets every other month. The agenda for the May 24^th meeting included plans for the I-5 Corridor Study, and a discussion of the plans for light rail stations along the new Interstate MAX line.

4.  Urban Growth Boundary Code Review

Michael Morrissey addressed the three items that have came up for discussion over the last year, specifically the locational and major amendments as well as the jurisdiction boundary which, because of the criterion for it, involves the movement of the UGB. Mr. Morrissey said that Councilor McLain did meet with Mr. Cooper and Mr. Shaw of the Office of General Counsel, and she would be bringing recommendations back before the committee at the next meeting.

Mr. Morrissey then referred to his memo of May 2, 2001, included in the agenda material, regarding the Urban Growth Boundary Issues and Options, and spoke to each issue as outlined – jurisdictional boundary, locational adjustment and major amendment – and his explanation, analysis and options for each.

There was a brief discussion on property owners who live outside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary and yet want to vote on Metro issues. Presiding Office Bragdon asked if properties came into the jurisdictional boundary, would they then be subject to the property tax levies that preexisted their inclusion, such as the zoo, the convention center and the open spaces bonds. Mr. Larry Shaw, Office of General Counsel, said he believed they would be subject to any issuances that were adopted thereafter, but he would research it.

Councilor Monroe said he felt the locational adjustment process has been abused and misused, and he would support a strict narrowing of criteria under which locational adjustments would be considered.

Regarding major amendments, Councilor Hosticka said his understanding was that the counties had to comment on them, and asked where that came from. Mr. Shaw replied that the historical process that has evolved (and it was true, he added, that there hadn’t been much activity in the last several years), when there wasn’t much activity in the legislative side these UGB amendments would come in. Even though it as was a regional decision on the UGB, both practically because they’re service providers and politically so there are no surprises, the Metro Council has always asked what the local service provider thought of each issue. The local jurisdictions had the ability to include their recommendation or no comment in their response. Councilor Hosticka said he would like to see that language in the ordinance, and would like to see it modified so that a county could say they decline to comment so they don’t feel obliged to do so. Mr. Shaw said there is a process in the Code that they do have the choice of not commenting, as a political comment. As a service provider, they or their staff have to identify whether or not there is capacity. He said he would provide those provisions.

Mr. Morrissey summarized that the issue was under what circumstances that are not part of the legislative process would the council feel it appropriate to 1) allow or permit or clarify the circumstance under which individual property owners can apply, and 2) what are the criteria the council would approve for such an application. In some cases, Mr. Morrissey said, that has not been clear for the applicants, and in some cases to past incarnations of the council.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Shaw to verify his understanding of the council’s latitude as to the size and scope of locational adjustments. Mr. Shaw said it was clear that the council could set policy on it, but that under Goal 14, a specific process that creates an extraordinary circumstance where no proof of need is required for something so small in the context of a 240,000-acre UGB. The latitude the council has got the most acceptance from the state agency on has been to make them smaller. We went to 100 acres maximum per year to avoid the possibility that someone would try to do a series of 20-acre amendments and violate the spirit of the exceptional provision, so the council’s latitude would be mostly in the direction of smaller and more constrained.

Councilor Bragdon said Metro strives, on the land use side, to be transparent, rational and fair. Some of these regulations that have accumulated over the years are less than that and he thought this could be an opportunity to clarify some of them. On the jurisdictional boundary he said he was comfortable with the change made two years ago that the main criteria was intent to move the UGB, and regarding people having a stake in things Metro does, there are other ways to handle those. He agrees 100% with Councilor Monroe’s statement regarding locational adjustments in that it should be a fairly straightforward technical adjustment. It would literally be an adjustment so tightening the use definition would be welcome.

Trying to put this process on a timeline for the legislative process coming up in 2002, Presiding Officer Bragdon continued, was to try again to make it clear to the public how this all works and not allow the 20-year horizon we’re working on be undermined.

Chair Park said the state process requires Metro to review this every five years. One thing Mr. Morrissey provided as an option, he said, is that the applicant of a major amendment can be a private individual rather than a public entity. This would be a way to tighten up the criteria by requiring some type of sponsor to keep an individual from using it for a specific purpose.

On locational adjustments, Chair Park agreed that the best way that there needs to be agreement that it needs to be tightened up, but he still believes this is a good tool. He said the jurisdictional boundary would continue to be discussed when Councilor McLain returned.

Mr. Morrissey reminded the committee that there was still the issue of what kind of options to leave for people aside from the legislative process, which was almost impossible to describe to citizens in five minutes over the phone, and that whatever the committee allows will be used to the extent they allow, whenever possible. Chair Park said it would be incumbent upon the council to establish a bright line. Presiding Officer Bragdon said this reinforced to him why it needs to be tightened up and why it needs to be clear and fair, which it is not right now. He agreed that it is hard to explain, but it should not be.

5.  Regional Business Alliance for Transportation (RBAT)

This agenda item was postponed until the June 8^th committee meeting.

6.  Functional Plan Compliance Update

Mary Weber, Manager of the Community Development Division, Planning Department, gave the committee a brief overview of the status of local jurisdiction compliance with the Functional Plan, as outlined in the distributed memo dated May 18, 2001, from Mike Hoglund to Councilor Park, and included in the meeting record. Ms. Weber talked about those jurisdictions whose timelines have lapsed and are out of compliance as well as those who were on hold due to various reasons or due to Measure 7.

Brenda Bernard, Senior Regional Planner, Community Development Division, Planning Department, responding to a question from Chair Park, said that compliance by the jurisdictions was now at eighty percent. Chair Park asked if it would be productive to push a little, and Ms. Weber replied that staff would coordinate with DLCD on performance and bring any time extension requests back to this committee.

Presiding Officer Bragdon commented that the Gresham tour May 3^rd prompted him to think Gresham was probably closer to compliance than shows on paper. He added that the list provided with the memo was very helpful, and he asked staff if they could relay what the Planning Directors’ responses were to the survey. Ms. Weber said Sherry Oeser, Regional Planning Manager, had pulled all that information together and Ms. Weber would make sure the councilors receive a copy of that summary. The jurisdictions that had to do the most work regarding the Titles, she said, found it a burden. It was a surprise to Metro, however, that Title 3 wasn’t that hard to do. The Minimum Density was a greater than anticipated issue and the jurisdictions received heat from the citizens on this. Another thing that came out of the planning process was the disconnect between public finance level of service in these new densities, although she added that the councilors have probably already heard that from the citizens. Urban design was another issue that stood out. The citizens perceived that minimum density was going to change their lives.

Chair Park said, regarding any density, that bad design is bad design. Gresham and Central Point were good, attractive examples but they could have been terrible. Presiding Officer Bragdon said some jurisdictions use urban design standards and perhaps MTAC and MPAC could share notes on those. He then applauded Ms. Weber in getting beyond the yes and no part of the survey, and actually getting out (and Mr. Cotugno as well) and talking to the planning directors. That is not just compliance with the Functional Plan but it elevates it to the fulfillment of the aspirations that we and the people have expressed.

Chair Park asked if there had been any comments from the planning directors on if and how the Functional Plan has helped guide more than just their own city but an area or a subarea. Ms. Weber replied that she thought where the community already had a vision, then the Functional Plan had been helpful. She said she thought it was the people who wanted to make things happen, and that it helped to have a community plan, and she added that Ms. Bernard was extremely helpful to those jurisdictions that asked for help. Presiding Officer Bragdon said the process, not the plan itself, and what they had to go through to think about it is one of the strengths about it that has been relayed. In understanding of how our actions affect our neighbors, this has been successful.

Councilor Atherton asked about Lake Oswego’s compliance, saying that they’ve already accomplished the build-out, and Ms. Weber said they have very little vacant land. She thought issues that remain with

them were being on the edge, annexation of future areas, etc. Councilor Atherton said he thought the expansion of the UGB and urban settlement at 10 dwelling units per acre would be catastrophic to Lake Oswego as well as to West Linn and Oregon City.

Ms. Weber closed her briefing, saying that the next time staff brings this to the committee, they’ll have a report on time extensions and will request direction on them.

7.  Periodic Review, Subregional Analysis

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, said he had two items they’d like to discuss with the committee – subregional analysis and performance measures – both of which were on the MPAC agenda the following evening and set out in the May 16, 2001, memo in the agenda packet.

Mr. Cotugno asked the committee to consider setting a framework of how the subregional issue might be examined, and he suggested two tools to employ that would fit into the work program, 1) performance measures, and 2) MetroScope case studies. After committee discussion, Chair Park said the committee would give this more consideration before giving direction as there were policy and legal subtleties to be looked at.

7a.  Performance Measures

Mike Hoglund, Director of Regional Planning, Planning Department, told the committee that at their last meeting they had updated the 2040 fundamentals, and the memo he distributed (dated May 21, 2001, and included as a part of this record) listed those. A new Fundamental, No. 5, was proposed and explained in this memo and shown in the attachment, and he said this would be taken to MPAC the next day. Mr. Uba was working on the indicators for this Fundamental and would bring those back before this body, he added. Uba is working on indicators for this fundamental measure 5 & we will bring that back to you.

There was a discussion on the sense of identity, and Mr. Hoglund asked how this committee wanted this revision to go before MPAC, if at all. Chair Park said that since this committee did not yet know the final form of the MPAC recommendation, there should be no comment from this body until then.

Mr. Hoglund asked to add that he didn’t think his memo did justice to the enthusiasm shown at MTAC regarding this, that they felt this was a key fundamental that was missing and that this was their first discussion of it. Mr. Cotugno said that the new fundamental could be wordsmithed to recognize a variety of ways that a sense of identity might be appropriate for any particular area, including natural features, greenbelts, etc.

8.  Councilor Communications

None.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 3:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 22, 2001

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

Testimony cards

None.