MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, August 7, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Bill Atherton, David Bragdon, Susan McLain and Rod Monroe

Members Absent:  Rex Burkholder, Carl Hosticka

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the July 17, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

Chair Park had two corrections to the minutes: 1) p. 5, Agenda Item 4., HB 2142 Criteria – correct $4 million to read $400 million; 2) p. 6, Agenda Item 5., MTIP Review - JPACT 150% List – correct last paragraph 2040 List to read HB 2142 List.

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  Natural Resources – In Councilor Hosticka's absence, Councilor McLain said there was quite a bit of testimony on Metro's criteria and the resolution giving staff direction to map all of the region, as well as testimony from the Washington County Basin Group, and discussion with Mayor Kidd of Forest Grove on that. The committee recommended to Council that staff go forward and map the region.

•  WRPAC – Councilor McLain reported that nothing new had been done since the last Community Planning Committee meeting.

•  JPACT – Councilor Monroe said he had called the August 9^th JPACT meeting to deal with the HB 2142 question as the legislative approval timeline was short, he said, because the Legislature wants to make sure that projects that are identified to be funded under HB 2142 have had every opportunity to be underway before the next Legislature meets. This will verify appropriate and frugal use of these funds they’ve made available.

5.  Response to TPAC Memo on MTIP Allocation Process

Councilor Bragdon referred to John Houser memo’s of August 7, 2001, to JPACT (included as a permanent part of this record), which was a response that came out of the previous JPACT meeting. Having a regional perspective on the MTIP as well as involvement and concurrence in the JPACT action, he said, distinguish the Metro Council as a body that needs to be involved in this process. He then addressed the issues in the memo, and proposed that this committee endorse the memo and charge the JPACT members on this committee to convey it back to JPACT at their August 9^th meeting. He said

some of the projects on the Council List had been reevaluated as more information was received, specifically addressing Boeckman Road as an example, and he said the modal split would continue to evolve, as well.

Councilor Monroe said Mr. Houser reflected the Council discussion very well in crafting this memo, and thanked him for the excellent job, and he said he supported sending the memo forward. He said he understood from the regional partners he had spoken with that they understood that the Metro Council was not looking to supplant JPACT, and they agreed that consensus between the two bodies was important.

Chair Park said meeting the time constraints and the project schedule did not allow much time for the Council to weigh in or have much discussion, so he felt that putting their input in early produced good discussions with JPACT. He thanked Mr. Houser and Councilor Burkholder for their work.

3.  Resolution No. 01-3094 – For the Purpose of Expressing Council Intent to Respond to Court of Appeals Opinions on Two Urban Growth Boundary Amendments Adopted in 1998 and 1999.

Mr. Ken Helm, Senior Assistant Counsel, Office of General Counsel, spoke to the resolution and then commented on the procedural issues. Mr. Helm cautioned the committee to the fact that other quasi-judicial proceedings would be coming before them, and they may be hearing testimony this day relating to the Ryland application. He referred to his memo of August 6^th (distributed and made a part of this record) cautioning against ex parte contact.

Responding to a question from Councilor McLain regarding the possibility of an amendment in Section 3 of this resolution to add Locational Adjustments, Mr. Dan Cooper, General Counsel, recommended that if it was this body’s recommendation to the Council that this resolution, as drafted, be approved by the Council, that they follow through with a Code amendment that would deal with the Be It Resolved in Section 3 on not accepting major amendments next year. If they want to pick up the Locational Adjustment issue, he said, they should do it in a Code amendment ordinance, if they choose to do one, and in this resolution that was intended to deal with just the two cases that have been remanded and which weren’t Locational Adjustments.

Locational Adjustment criteria as drafted now don’t necessarily pertain to issues such as a locational adjustment for housing vs. a locational adjustment for some other purpose, he added; they’re really related to the efficiency of the existing UGB. The major amendment process, as well, is something that can be fine-tuned. It was his recommendation and advice that if the Council was going to pick up that Code amendment issue, they first deal with this recommendation in Section 3 of this resolution, then, with a little more specificity perhaps they would want to state as a general rule that in the future, during the year that the Council is engaging in a legislative review of the UGB, they don’t want major amendments for general housing or employment needs, or perhaps they want to limit their major amendment in a different way along different criteria. In other words, he said, whatever policymaking they want to make, make them as Code amendments.

Councilor Atherton asked if this resolution had been presented to the cities of Lake Oswego or West Linn for comment prior to today. Councilor Bragdon said he’d had a discussion with Mayor Hammerstad of Lake Oswego regarding the substance of it, and she said it sounded like Metro was on the right track. He said he’d had a brief discussion with Mayor Drake of Beaverton, but he could give not relay Mayor Drake’s opinion as their conversation was very brief before they decided to not discuss it. Councilor Bragdon said he’d had no contact with West Linn.

Chair Park opened a public hearing at 2:40 p.m.

Councilor Monroe excused himself from the meeting to attend a meeting at the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) in Vancouver, Washington.

1.  Al Burns, City of Portland planner, distributed handouts (see Attachments to the Public Record on the last page of these minutes; these attachments are included as a permanent part of this record). Mr. Burns testified in favor of the resolution, and offered one improvement to the text of the resolution. He referred to his handout of LUBA’s final order in the Rosemont remand, calling attention to the indented text (lines 17-22) on page 3. He said Metro needs to establish a regional need before they can begin dividing into subregional needs. Mr. Burns then referred to another of his handouts, a copy of the July 28, 2000, approved Metro LCDC Periodic Review order, specifically p. 5, Subtask 2, Subregional Analysis and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments If Necessary, and p. 10, (second row) Subtask 3, Completion of the Five-Year Regional Analysis and Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Decision, and p. 11, Subtask 14, Determination of Regional Need. He brought these to the committee’s attention, he said, because the resolution as written makes written makes reference to completing just Subtask 2 and not Subtask 3. If it’s done that way, it’s backwards with current case law, and he believed the resolution needed to make reference to Subtask 3 every time it referenced Subtask 2. If a subregional need is determined and identified before a regional need, that may be an irreversible error on the process. Emphasizing the Notes on p. 13 of this handout, he pointed out Note 4. He thought this an important clarifying technical amendment. He concurred with Councilor McLain that this resolution or the follow-up to this resolution also treat locational adjustments similarly, because looking at the Metro Code he saw no reason why something that would be one major amendment couldn’t be divided into, as an example, five 20-acre locational adjustments and have essentially the same matter processed in five proceedings rather than one.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cooper to clarify, but he thought there was not a Task 3 in Periodic Review. Mr. Cooper said at one time there were Tasks 1, 2, and 3. What had been Task 2 became a subtask of Task 3, which is now Task 2. Mr. Burns countered that there has never been a Periodic Review Work Program rewritten or distributed. Mr. Burns agreed that Task 2 means the tasks formerly known and Task 2 and Task 3.

Mr. Cooper said in the Periodic Review Work Program you are committed to not doing subregional needs without taking into account the regional need. You can’t make the mistake Mr. Burns is suggesting the resolution implies you would make without amending the periodic review work program, and getting the commission to agree you can do it differently. This resolution doesn’t request that they change the Periodic Review Work Program.

Mr. Burns said he did not mean to argue, he meant to be helpful.

Chair Park closed the public hearing

Councilor McLain said she thought Mr. Burns’ point was well taken, but that she felt comfortable with the way it was set up. She also said to Councilor Atherton that she believed he could stay true to his own personal beliefs and stay true to the desires of his communities and support this resolution because this resolution is making sure that whether he thinks we’re being held hostage by a state law that he doesn’t appreciate or doesn’t like or doesn’t believe in, that we are following state law.

Councilor Bragdon expressed his support for the resolution as well, saying he believed on the surface it settled a few things and yet it also raised a lot of questions to be dealt with in 2002. It’s the second part that begs the questions, he said, that we’re going to have to start coming to grips with what subregions are, and how such needs are defined and addressed. The important thing being said today is that it will be done comprehensively and objectively, not in a gerrymandered type fashion, not in a case-by-case fashion, but in a way that’s very defensible and makes clear public policy. We haven’t figured out exactly what those criteria are yet and how to do it, but that’s something we’ve undertaken to try to figure out, with local communities.

Councilor Atherton said he appreciated the Be It Resolved 1, which would clear up the legal issues. The issue of subregional needs he hoped would be looked at in a more comprehensive way and said he would address that later, in agenda item 4.

4.  Report on How to Factor Subregions into MetroScope Modeling

Mr. Cotugno reported that staff had done some further analysis of subregions and how they might be conceived. He said it was a work in progress and they weren’t there yet, but would like to have continuing discussions with the committee as they try to dissect and understand the issue.

He spoke of the different reasons for subregions, and also about how staff was using MetroScope as a method of evaluation growth patterns, etc., and how those affect the travel patterns. Mr. Cotugno reminded the committee that MetroScope is an analysis tool, not a decision making tool, being used to test different kinds of urban forms within the overall framework of 2040. Making decisions based upon some defined sets of subregions was one scenario out of seven that we have under discussion.

He then reminded the committee that four of these had been discussed in committee and this would be the fifth scenario. This scenario emphasizes making decisions on taking actions within discreet subregions based upon how you see the balance between jobs and housing happening within those subregions to determine whether or not using that as a decision tool produces a result that’s better or worse.

Mr. Cotugno told the committee that, as far as doing a study on a subregional basis, staff wasn’t yet sure yet what the right subregions were. They’ve tried a few approaches, some of which didn’t make sense to the councilors. Mr. Cotugno then reviewed the data reflected in the handouts while referring to the prop maps (not included in this record).

Councilor Atherton brought up a policy question regarding a tax base that would pay for growth, and asked if a study had been done regarding this, specifically regional tax sharing. Mr. Cotugno said a study on the tax bases had been done a few months ago, and an updated estimate of that would be done within MetroScope. Chair Park asked that when this is brought forward, staff also bring the effects of Ballot Measures 5, 47 and 50 and their actual ability to tax. Councilors McLain and Bragdon agreed that this was a question that needed to be addressed.

Chair Park opened a public hearing.

1.  Al Burns, City of Portland planner, quoted from the ECONorthwest Report (summary) included in Agenda Item 8, p. S-iv, from the first paragraph under Competitive Issues, “Many Regional Center are participants in the same subregional market for certain goods and services.” Any credibly constructed theory of sub-regions would have overlapping boundaries rather than discreet boundaries, he said, and he cautioned staff to not work toward the object of having as a product 5 to 8 (or any number) of sub-regions with the construct that if a person is at one place, he/she is in one subregion, when in reality he/she would be in two, possibly three, subregions. He said he thought it possible to construct a theory of subregions that would build and reinforce the Regional Centers. He also said he thought the subcommittee meeting on subregions was very helpful and that good progress was made at them, and he hoped those meetings would start again.

Chair Park closed the public hearing

Chair Park said he was hearing from the committee that staff was on the right track. He said he thought Planning staff, together with the Office of General Counsel staff, needed to establish some kind of criteria approved by DLCD or the commission. Mr. Cotugno said he did not think they were prepared to say they were going to do something on a subregional basis, but said he was trying to come up with a way to analyze subregions. If, as a result of that, a subregion doesn’t make sense, then staff won’t go there. He said he thought it premature to make a proposal now, but when we get there, if we are going to do something on a subregional basis, then it would be appropriate to make a proposal.

Chair Park agreed, but wanted to verify the process. Mr. Cooper said Mr. Cotugno had summarized it well; that there are a lot of steps yet to go, and it’s probably premature to ask any questions. He said the committee feels staff is on the right track, and he asked staff to flesh this out and bring something back to a September meeting.

Councilor Atherton added that he thought if there was a regional sharing of a new commercial/industrial tax base, this discussion of subregions would disappear

6.  Status Report on Compliance with the Functional Plan

Mary Weber, Manager, Community Development Division, Regional Planning Section, Planning Department, updated local government compliance on Functional Plan requirements, referring to the August 2^nd memo in the agenda packet from Mike Hoglund to the Committee outlining the status of the jurisdictions. She said Mr. Hoglund’s memo has no recommendation as to time, that staff seeks the committee’s direction on how it would like staff to process these. Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Community Development Division, Regional Planning Section, Planning Department, specifically addressed the list of jurisdictions in the memo and explained to the committee where they were out of compliance and why.

Councilor McLain said she thought a letter needed to be sent, not from staff but from this Council, to these jurisdictions telling them how important Metro believes it is to meet the Functional Plan elements. She asked the Chair and the Presiding Officer if they would work with other councilors and staff to do this. She also said she would point out to anyone asking for an exception that the Council would not be accepting exceptions until we have a criteria to bounce those exceptions off. She said she believed staff had received direction to bring exception criteria back before this committee, and that Chair Park has mentioned that again. A memo from Ms. Weber and Ms. Bernards, dated August 6, 2001 (and made a part of this record) was distributed

Chair Park asked on what basis Metro could grant a time extension to a jurisdiction, or, if not, what assurances do they have of not being pursued at LUBA for not being in compliance with the Functional Plan. Mr. Cooper said that without some formal action for the granting of an exception to the Functional Plan, Measure 7 was not a legal basis for not complying.

Councilor Bragdon suggested folding the compliance topic into the periodic review meetings. Chair Park said he had also requested that the issue be placed on an MPAC agenda. Ms. Weber said it would be helpful for staff to receive the councilors’ comments and thoughts before September. Chair Park said he would try to include this on a September agenda for the committee.

7.  Possible UGB Code Amendments

Councilor McLain referred to her distributed memo packet of August 3, 2001 (and included as part of this record), and its attachments. She asked that this be dealt with before going into the 2002 UGB amendments. This memo packet was not a final product before the committee, she said, but rather furthering the conversation and pointing out some issues this committee may want to have legal staff or individual councilors continue to review.

Agreement seemed to be obtained, she said, that locational adjustments might be necessary, but if so the criteria needs to be tightened (examples are in the memo packet). She thought agreement was also achieved on the standard of “necessary to provide” services that could be adopted rather than the current standard of impracticable to provide (referring to p. 5, item 3. of Mr. Shaw’s July 10 memo, included in her memo packet). She concluded that if this is to be finished before 2002, she suggested scheduling it in September and early October in order to create a product to take out to the partners and the community in time to bring it back and make good decisions. She volunteered to continue working with the legal staff and Mr. Cotugno on this for the committee.

Chair Park said he thought this brought up policy questions as well as time considerations. He asked Councilor McLain to continue working on this, and asked the other councilors to give her their comments, etc. Responding to a question from Chair Park, Mr. Cooper suggested setting policy that Metro not accept administrative adjustments and locational adjustments while in Task 2 of Periodic Review. The deadline for filing these adjustments is March 15, 2002, so there is a substantial window of time. Mr. Cooper said this would be an amendment to a portion of the Framework Plan, so it would need to go through the MPAC advice process, but given Councilor McLain’s outline, he would expect that an ordinance could be ready some time in September for her to introduce; that could be the vehicle, and then it could go through the process, amend it to make whatever adjustments, and get it adopted in the fall in a timely fashion. Councilor McLain told Chair Park that was acceptable.

Chair Park opened a public hearing.

1.  Mr. Jim Peterson, 2502 SW Multnomah Blvd., Portland, OR, spoke to the August 2^nd memo in agenda item 6, regarding the City of Portland not adopting a design type map. He also distributed a copy of a memorandum from Lydia Neill to Gil Kelley, City of Portland (together with a copy of Proposed Revisions to Portland’s Comprehensive Plan Draft of August 3, 1999, and included as a part of this record,). Mr. Peterson said he was surprised to see that a design-type map had been submitted by Portland and asked how their extension request could be valid.

Mary Weber said the City of Portland is working on their design type maps and that this would happen slowly over time as they do their community planning. In the meantime, they have submitted a copy of the design type work that has been done to date; on that map, not all the boundaries have been adopted but Metro staff needs it for modeling purposes. Chair Park directed staff to gather more information on this and bring it back before the committee.

Chair Park asked Ms. Bernards to work with Mr. Peterson as this looked like a technical issue and more toward Portland’s process.

8.  Periodic Review

Ms. Weber noted information included in the agenda packet. Staff is still involved in research, she said, and will be ready to respond to the committee’s concerns/questions after the first of the year. Regarding getting direction from DLCD on the alternatives analysis, Ms. Weber referred to a memo to and response from Jim Hinman at DLCD. She will make copies of this for the committee. She then spoke to the work schedule and tasks, and expressed concern regarding possible scheduling issues in fall 2002.

Copies of the report (see copy in permanent record of this meeting) Metro Urban Centers: An Evaluation of the Density of Development were distributed, and Ms. Weber briefly addressed the consultant’s conclusion (that the zoning is in place for the Centers but the market just isn’t there yet), and their recommendations. She said staff would likely seek additional funds from the state to help with the Centers work.

Chair Park asked staff to provide the committee with information on the amount of differential that will be necessary to allow the Centers to be completed. He also said he would like to see transportation issues on the work plan updates.

9.  Councilor Communications

None.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2001

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

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2001 (continued)

Testimony cards

1.  Al Burns, Planning (testified on agenda items 3 and 4)

 City of Portland

 1900 SW Fourth Ave.

 Portland, OR 97204

 503-823-7832

2.  James F. Peterson (testified on agenda item 7)

 2502 SW Multnomah Blvd.

 Portland, OR

 503-246-0725