MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, November 20, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  JPACT – Councilor Monroe said that there had not been a JPACT meeting since Councilor Burkholder’s report on the November 6^th meeting.

•  Natural Resources – Councilor Hosticka reported that the previous evening there was a hearing on the Fish and Wildlife Protection program and the committee received a recommendation from Metro’s Executive Officer on a definition of the riparian corridor and a definition of significant resources. They are still awaiting a recommendation on regional resources. He said this will be an item for discussion at the Council/Executive Officer Informal the following Tuesday with the intent of having a recommendation being made at the December 5^th Natural Resources Committee meeting to the full Council.

•  WRPAC – Councilor McLain said WRPAC made recommendations on significance and on regional significance, and they agreed with the majority of what GTAC had reported November 16th. There will be a written report to this committee on these issues, she said. She said she would be available to respond to questions, but that the formal report would soon be distributed.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the October 30 and November 6, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meetings. Chair Park asked the committee to vote separately on the two sets of minutes.

3.  Resolution No. 01-3124 – For the purpose of Authorizing the Executive Officer to Purchase with “As-Is, Where-Is” Conditions Property in the Gresham Civic Neighborhood for a Transit-Oriented Development Project.

Phil Whitmore, Manager, Transit-Oriented Development division, Planning Department, spoke to the staff report on this resolution, and pointed out the affected Gresham Civic Neighborhood area on a large map (not included in this record) and recounted the presentation given at the committee’s last meeting. Mr. Whitmore specifically addressed the soil ground test results that had not been completed at the time the report was filed, indicating that there had been no reported negative test results.

Chair Park thought this was an exciting development for the area, and shared the fact that downtown Historic Gresham has continued to flourish, which had been a concern. He hoped that lesson would continue.

4.  Resolution No. 01-3127 – For the Purpose of Authorizing the Study of Tiers of Lands Selected According to ORS 197.298 and Goals 2 and 14 to Complete an Alternative Analysis in Anticipation of Possible Urban Growth Boundary Amendments.

Mr. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, explained that this resolution was a follow-up to the discussion in this committee on November 6^th of the overall hierarchy of lands and their interpretation of how that hierarchy statute worked. He called attention to the colored Exhibit A, Figure 1 (not included in the agenda packet, but distributed at the meeting and included in this record) that showed the series of Tiers and criteria. (Mr. Cotugno used a large colored map in his explanation of the Tiers, not included in this record.) This resolution would provide clear direction, he said, on which areas should be the subject of study, and it made clear this is not a statement of intent to actually amend the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but was identifying the study areas for possible amendment to the UGB. As a result, it also recognized that all this land under study will be used and, conversely, down the road it may happen that we need to study further lands. Either way, Metro has not declared intent to include this area in the UGB. The key behind the Tiers is the priority of lands. The resolution refers to a recommendation to study Tiers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and those are in the hierarchy as laid out by statute.

Mr. Cotugno then explained the Tiers (see Exhibits B through G, included in this record), and pointed out on the large map the series of places staff suggested need to be studied, again without conclusions of what would be done with that land.

There was discussion on irrigation districts, river and water rights. Mr. Cotugno said staff would get more information on irrigation rights, as this could move some of the lands into different Tiers, since it improves the soil. Resource Lands were labeled Tiers 4, 5 or 6 for now, but that, too, Mr. Cotugno said, needed more clear criteria for under what circumstances these would be included for further study. There was no recommendation on those brought forward today, and they may be appropriate amendments, but he said he wanted a clear cut set of criteria for any others that may come up along the way, as well. Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Counsel, cautioned that Metro not unwittingly create a problem for themselves between priorities.

Councilor Monroe said he wanted to make certain Metro had all the information they needed, and expressed concern about restricting the study at this time. He said it might be advantageous to broaden it now so it’s not studied in increments later. Mr. Cotugno agreed and said that in order to study any land for possible inclusion, all the land in any chosen Tier should be studied, and he said the resolution should cover that, although it would be impossible to make the call of just how much land will be needed, but that staff made their best effort.

Councilor McLain said staff had done a good job providing the tools to the council to understand the Tiers and the state law and she felt confident in giving a nod of the head to go forward with this. However, she felt there was a parallel process on the need assessment – and that we do not know if we have studied enough land until we come to an acknowledgement of the need, which will be a policy decision of this council. Another issue she raised was whether the state would accept a subregional need as legitimate. An understanding with the state was needed on this, she said.

Chair Park opened the meeting to public testimony.

1.  Mr. Jim Jacks, Planning Director, City of Tualatin, 18880 SW Martinazzi Ave., Tualatin, OR 97062. Mr. Jacks spoke for the City of Tualatin in support of the proposed recommendation in the resolution to study Tier 4.

2.  Mr. Mike Lilly, Attorney representing Tigard Sand and Gravel, 101 SW Main Street, Suite 805, Portland. OR. Mr. Lilly distributed a letter with multiple enclosures and an aerial map (included in this record) regarding the Tigard Sand and Gravel property. Mr. Lilly testified that his client’s property was unique in that it is a large, open gravel pit, mostly mined out, and the map classifications were incorrect because this was not farm land but mostly gravel, so didn’t fit into any of Metro’s categories. Presiding Officer Bragdon asked Mr. Cotugno if this would be studied under the proposed resolution and the study would determine the condition of the land, and Mr. Cotugno replied in the affirmative. Councilor McLain asked Mr. Dick Benner, to explain the classification of this piece of land. Mr. Benner said he assumed the land was last studied some time ago, that a follow-up survey could be done, according to Goal 3 and state statute. He also said the zoning or classification of land could include this new survey in the record. Often aggregate operations are subject to a reclamation plan, he added, and that plan may call for restoration that may call for bringing that soil back.

3.  Mr. Bob Baker, Baker Affordable Homes, 13820 SW 325^th Place, Hillsboro, OR. Mr. Baker submitted written testimony (included in this record) and spoke to that, using a large map displayed on an easel (not included in this record). Councilor Monroe asked if this property would be studied under the proposed resolution. Mr. Cotugno said it would not. Chair Park said it was not excluded from being studied at some future time, but was not included in this proposal.

4.  Ms. Kirsten Greene, Senior Associate, AICP, Cogan Owens Cogan, 813 SW Alder St., Suite 320, Portland, OR 97205-3111. Ms. Greene appeared regarding Mr. Baker’s property, and also submitted written testimony (included in this record) and spoke to that.

5.  Ms. Chris Eaton, Principal, Angelo Eaton and Associates, 620 SW Main St., #201, Portland, Oregon 97205, representing Ryland Homes. Ms. Eaton said they support the proposed resolution, and that she has been working with Metro staff (and will continue to work with them) to understand whether the Ryland Homes is Tier 4 or Tier 3.

6.  Ms. Holly Iburg, Newland Communities, 16701 SE McGillivray Blvd., Suite 150, Vancouver, WA 98683. Ms. Iburg submitted written testimony (included in this record) regarding the property formerly known as the St. Mary’s property and that she now called Reed’s Crossing. She stressed that Newland Communities suggested broadening the proposed study to look at subregional need analysis at this time to consider areas such as this.

There being no further testimony on this agenda item, Chair Park closed the public hearing and invited committee discussion and amendments.

Councilor Atherton said he supported the resolution as written because he thought it was fully adequate to accomplish the projected land need, and he thanked the people who testified.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Cotugno for verification of the Tiers, which he gave as: Tier 1 is exception land, Tier 2 is marginal land, Tier 3 is resource land that may need to come in with exception lands, Tier 4 is the first category of resources lands, class 3 and 4 soils. Chair Park pointed out on the large map the areas that would be studied. Councilor McLain said she felt it important that no exceptions be done at this point as far as going from one Tier to another, and as much as the testimony heard today was impelling as far as reasonability, she still felt there were issues that could cause the whole process to be in suspect of not following the regulations if we did more. She wanted to make sure no more than the first four classifications would be studied, and that was correct from what Mr. Cotugno just said, so she said she would support this with the understanding that when the need assessment was done and a conversation took place with the state on the subregional issue.

Mr. Cotugno agreed that this was clearly an issue that was unresolved and could impact this work, and that discussion did need to take place. Irrigation also needed to be addressed when more information was brought forward, he said. He reminded her that this body was not acting on that now. Another issue he said would need to be looked at was which areas should be called Tier 3 resource lands that would need to come in with exception lands. Clear criteria on this should also be decided on this, and soon, he hoped, but not at this time.

Chair Park said he understood the timidity about studying any lands other than the green (refer to Exhibit A, Figure 1), and staff’s question about the efficiency of utilization of Metro resources and the fact that Tier 4 lands can be done at a lower cost now than later. The question of studying the remaining darker green areas would be debated at a later date, after this body received LCDC’s interpretation of the state law. He did want to say, however, that in those particular areas, if they’re going to be studied as part of the alternatives analysis for development purposes, those areas would also need to be studied for Goal 5 riparian habitat protection. Anyone who brings anything forward will need to understand that this was going to need to be included.

5.  Ordinance No. 01-925 – For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Title 8 (Compliance Procedures) and Title 1 (Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation) of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Section 7.5 of the Regional Framework Plan Ordinance 97-715B to Revise the Process for Adjudication and Determination of Consistency of Local Comprehensive Plans with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, and to Revise the Processes and Criteria for Exceptions From and Extensions To Comply With the Functional Plan.

Mr. Dick Benner briefly explained this legislation for the committee, including the two amendments to Exhibit A (included in the agenda packet). Since the committee’s last discussion on this draft ordinance, it had been reviewed by the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), who asked what affect it would have, and how it was different from the code. That was the basis of his memo of November 15, 2001, (and made a part of this record) which served at this point as a Staff Report, which would be made available to MTAC at their November 21^st meeting. Seven amendments were distributed (which are made a part of this record).

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Benner if he could prepare a one-page executive summary (by the following day) of his report. The discussion that followed centered on whether MTAC would review the amendments (and summary) before MPAC. Mr. Benner agreed to do a comparison cover memo for MPAC, as they requested. Presiding Officer Bragdon said he thought this would be good, but that a point-by-point discussion would be necessary, and suggested the authority granted to Metro under Title 8 needed to be addressed in the summary, as MPAC had expressed concern about that. He also suggested that the concept of substantial compliance, implied, needed to be made explicit if it soothed some of the concerns expressed by its omission. Chair Park thought that addition could be revisited after MTAC’s review, that perhaps it wouldn’t be necessary.

Chair Park opened the meeting to public testimony.

1.  Al Burns, Planning Bureau, City of Portland. Mr. Burns said he thought this ordinance was very clear, with very good language. He thought it was good to have all the authorities included in Title 8. He did say he had a few concerns, however, and he suggested Metro recognized in their code that they also adopt functional plans as framework plan components. That also tied into the one year and two years after acknowledgement, because there’s no requirement that functional plans be acknowledged at all. One concern the City of Portland had, he said, was the requirement by one year following acknowledgement by LCDC that jurisdictions start making land use decisions that comply with the plan. This is an existing authority and statute, it’s permissive, and this takes it to the maximum extent and absolutely requires it. While Portland believes Metro needs to have this authority in it’s code, they think it’s probably not a good idea to blanket turn it on for everyone in one year. However, if jurisdictions are requesting extensions or compliance requests, then it could be turned on on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Burns also said it seemed the code amendment would essentially delegate the biggest decision of all to the staff which was compliance determination. Certainty in Metro’s development review system was imperative.

His last point was that he thought MPAC was uncomfortable serving in the role of a judge in building a record, gathering facts, applying a law, etc. He suggested their role be reserved for policy recommendations to the Metro Council if there was request for a functional plan to be amended or granting an exception to it.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said that while he heard hesitance on some members of MPAC, he did not hear many of them being reluctant to engage in the discussion. He said he thought a better way to look at it would be that they would be a jury of their peers rather than judges. A couple of things were to be gained from that, one being the sharing of notes with one another, and functional plans aren’t just their commitments to Metro, but to one another. What they do has an impact on neighboring jurisdictions.

Mr. Burns responded that this came up with the recent extensions request. Mr. Benner said Mr. Burns misunderstood the provision. Applications for extensions don’t go to MPAC, he said, nor are they appealable to MPAC, but they are to the Metro Council. The amendment has all extensions going to the council, but no extensions under this draft go to MPAC.

Chair Park commented that the process was to allow the jurisdictions to see what others were doing, or if they had concerns, to allow them to comment, but Metro was not seeking their approval or disapproval. Councilor McLain said the code needed to define “Metro” and whether it meant the Metro Council or Metro staff. Mr. Burns suggested this should be made perfectly clear.

2.  Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3^rd Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97202. Ms. McCurdy said she had assumed the term Metro meant staff, and Metro Council meant the Council. She then echoed Mr. Burns’ comment that this proposed ordinance was very clear, consistent with statute and Charter, and she complimented staff on it. She expressed concern regarding Exhibit A, Compliance Review, that it was structured that the Metro Council only reviewed Comprehensive Plans for compliance if they are appealed to the Council. Given that compliance with the functional plan is the core of the success of the implementation of the plan (and the framework plan), she thought the Council would at least want to review all compliance determinations, not just those of controversy.

She also spoke to the plusses and minuses on the issue of MPAC’s role, and thought the way it was structured in this ordinance made that more of a planning commission role. She said she did not have a recommendation about it but had concerns. Regarding extensions of time, she emphasized her support for the proposed language that would enable Metro to impose conditions on any extension.

Ms. McCurdy said she also believed extensions should go before the Council, and supported the amendment to that effect. Her last point was that, in her opinion, Title 1 targets have not been met by Beaverton or Maywood Park, as reported by Metro staff and these jurisdictions, again in her opinion, are out of compliance. This was one of the reasons she felt the Council needed to see the bigger picture of compliance.

There were questions and discussion on means of review and who would do the review. Mr. Benner said when this proposal was conceived, there was a balance in mind to make the system more complete than it is today and to not create a cumbersome, bureaucratic expensive system. This ordinance did not establish a formal way for the Council to stipulate compliance nor did it preclude that from being done. The Council could formalize that process, if they so choose, he said. Councilor McLain said she wanted compliance to mean something, to formalize it to a point. Chair Park suggested they would have more clarity after MTAC saw the proposal, and asked Mr. Benner if he could compile a listing within the legislation of who would be responsible for which process. An outcome of this discussion was that Mr. Benner was going to work up another amendment to Section 880 on Compliance Report, probably adding a new title to that section, and would bring it back to this committee.

The following motion and vote was on Amendment 2 to Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925 only. There was no vote on the ordinance itself.

6.  Resolution No. 01-3123 – For the Purpose of Granting Time Extensions to the Functional Plan Compliance Deadline for the Cities of Beaverton, Durham, Gladstone, Gresham, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Portland, Rivergrove, Tigard, West Linn, and Wilsonville and Clackamas County and Multnomah County. Brenda spoke to this and the three conditions for granting extensions. She talked about how the cities would deal with the work programs and when they would complete them.

Ms. Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Planning Department, brought the committee up to date and spoke to her staff report to this resolution. Since the resolution had been filed, she explained, the City of Wilsonville had changes to their requests, which would amend the resolution when it went before Council.

Mr. Doug McClain, Planning Director, Clackamas County, 9101 SE Sunnybrook Blvd., Clackamas, OR 97015, submitted a letter (dated November 19, 2001, and made a part of this record) describing his previous testimony of October 30^th and Clackamas County’s efforts to date. Discussion then focused on streamside corridor protection and setbacks, the mosaic of regulations the county works with, and the commitment of their work plan to complete the areas of deficiency. Mr. McClain said they had submitted, as requested, an impact analysis and he understands the regulatory pattern in Clackamas County was complicated, he felt it was important and significant to understand that for the most part those regulations added up to significant protection of Title 3.

Chair Park asked Ms. Bernards about specific conditions to address regarding any shortfall on any jurisdiction’s part, and she said the way the resolution was written, those could be added in. Mr. Benner concurred and pointed out where this would happen in Resolve 2 of the resolution. Chair Park delegated that to staff. Chair Park then verified with Ms. Bernards that no extension requests go beyond December 2002, and that the Wilsonville time changes would be included in an amended resolution. Another discussion took place regarding the definition of the word Metro, and that it needed to be consistent throughout all Metro-related language.

7.  Draft Ordinance No. 01-929 – For the Purpose of Amending the Regional Framework Plan Ordinance No. 97-715B and Metro Code Sections 3.01.010, 3.01.025, 3.01.030, 3.01.035, 3.01.040, 3.01.045, 3.01.050, 3.01.055, 3.01.060, 3.01.065, and 3.07.1120 and Repealing Metro Code Sections 3.01.037 and 3.01.075 to Revise the Scope and the Criteria for Quasi-Judicial Amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary

Mr. Benner distributed a draft Staff Report for the committee and he spoke to that, explaining the ordinance. Councilor McLain said she thought this was getting closer to a finished product. The committee members then discussed the ordinance and its amendments at greater length. Councilor Hosticka asked if Mr. Benner could provide diagrams or visuals that would help him compare at a glance major amendments and minor adjustments. The committee said they would look at the draft ordinance again after it had bone to MPAC on November 28^th for their discussion.

8.  Councilor Communications.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001

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

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001

(CONTINUED)