MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Councilors Susan McLain and Rod Monroe.

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:13 p.m.

2.  Consideration of the Minutes of the March 5, 2002, Community Planning Committee Meeting.

3.  Related Committee Updates.

•  Transportation – Councilor Burkholder said the Transportation Committee would be meeting March 21^st at 10:30 a.m. (instead of 10:00), and that it was critical they move two actions in order to receive federal funding. Those actions were 1.) the Unified Work Program (UWP) approval resolution, and 2.) the self-certification resolution. He said the meeting would start late to accommodate Councilors Atherton and Monroe.

•  JPACT – In Councilor Monroe’s absence, Councilor Burkholder said JPACT met the previous week and discussed briefly the Unified Work Program and Metro’s self-certification as well as the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). More detailed discussion followed on the Port of Portland Columbia River dredging project, the Sauvie Island bridge request and potential funding from the state, and the Washington D.C. trip on federal funding priorities.

•  WRPAC – As Councilor McLain was not present, there was no report. WRPAC was scheduled to meet the following Monday.

•  Natural Resources – Councilor Hosticka, in Councilor McLain’s absence, reported that the Natural Resources Committee would be considering funding for the Parks Department in a scheduled joint meeting with Solid Waste and Recycling Committee the following day (March 20^th). The other major items the committee was to review were the Economic Social Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis methodology and a method for involving economists in the oversight and review of the work of the ESEE consultant. Also, on the uplands wildlife issue the Natural Resources Committee should have a determination in the next few weeks about the methodology for scoring those areas and then determining which ones were significant and regionally significant. The basin approach seemed to be chugging along with the actual terms of the agreement still to be worked out, he concluded.

3a.  Let's Talk Conference. Chair Park spoke briefly about the success of the Let's Talk Conference of the previous week, saying he thought staff did a marvelous job and deserved thanks and recognition. He gave special thanks to Karen Blauer, Public Affairs Coordinator, for her hard work.

Councilor Burkholder added that he’d been very impressed with the conference and thought the participants also were very impressed. He noted the difference in the composition of participants on Friday versus Saturday, Friday being the professionals and Saturday the citizens. He said he heard both groups say the choices were too hard to make. The citizens were very engaged, but Saturday’s program was rushed – everyone wanted more time, the questions were too tough to decide so fast. Because of that he felt people received more understanding of what Metro faced.

Councilor Atherton said he’d made a special point to visit as many tables and meet as many people as he could to raise the issue of carrying capacity to see what it meant to them and what their reactions were. His clear impression was the citizens had an intuitive understanding of what carrying capacity meant, while planners had a totally different reaction. One woman expressed it as meaning at some point no one could come in, pointing at herself as she spoke. That was valuable to Councilor Atherton, he said, as it provided an opportunity to explain to her that it was a process, not a number or a point, and an opportunity for more discussion.

Councilor Bragdon said staff did a great job and that he thought the panelists were well selected. He asked Mr. Hoglund how many scholarships were given out, but Mr. Hoglund said he couldn’t answer the question but said the conference committee was reconvening later in the day and he could get that information. The conference committee would look at the written responses, the electronic polling results, and the Post-it Notes that were used and all of that would be put into a usable format for the Council’s information for program decision making over the next year. He’d heard 625 as the Friday morning attendance, he said, and about 350 in the afternoon going through the work sessions. This was an estimate, he cautioned, and he also spoke of the number of people attending each workshop.

Councilor Hosticka said the Tigard workshop was well organized and this was where Karen Blauer got her Facilitator of the Year award – she made the workshop good for everyone. He said he was struck by the difference in emphasis from primarily elected/appointed officials who were looking at macro effects of transportation and planning issues and other people not directly affiliated with government who were looking at their individual neighborhoods. Metro needed to find a way to capture both those emphases and find a way in Metro's own process to address each. He said he felt they were equally important but somewhat very different ways of looking at the same problem.

At Chair Park’s invitation, Ms. Meg Fernekees, regional representative to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), told the committee she was pleased to see not only the regular suspects but also faces she didn’t recognize. She said she thought Friday morning was extremely worthwhile, especially the debate, and the issues dealt with at the conference not only supported Metro's continuing goal of providing multi-model transportation choices but also offered an alternative to someone of a dissenting opinion. She said she was looking to reengage stakeholders in a DLCD reengagement process for the people who had moved to Oregon since 1973, and this could serve as a model.

Chair Park thanked staff again and the Council for the work, and said it had been a great opportunity to get the message out. The best compliment he heard was that the people wanted to do it again. That told him that Metro needed to figure out ways to continue to engage people at a higher level on an ongoing basis.

4.  Resolution No. 02-3160 – For the Purpose of Confirming Michael S. McFarland as a Citizen Member Alternate to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC)

Suzanne Harold, MPAC Coordinator, recapped her testimony of February. She said she hoped that the committee had had the opportunity to research the process that had been followed. She mentioned the memo from Mr. Burton (in the agenda packet) and distributed a copy of an e-mail from Mr. Ted Kyle of MCCI (included as part of this record).

5.  Periodic Review Work Plan – Review. Ms. Mary Weber, Community Planning Manager, Planning Department, addressed the committee on her memo of March 19^th regarding Update on Periodic Review Planning Activities – Periodic Review Work Program Task 2 (distributed and made a part of this record). She reminded the committee that the original Work Program was fairly elaborate, so her memo was crafted to give an overview of where staff was on the work as well as some of their thoughts on it, and then to give the specifics on the Work Program tasks.

Regarding the Alternatives Analysis, she said the Contracts office had sent down what was called a Ten-Day Notice letter for a contract change (see March 18^th memo to the Council from Scott Moss regarding Amendment #2 to Parametrix Contract (922900) Alternatives Site Study (Phase II) for Evaluation of Additional Lands for Inclusion into the Urban Growth Boundary – distributed and made a part of this record). Ms. Weber explained that the original $35,000 contract covered the update of the old alternatives analysis work done for the 1998/1999 decision and add a few acres (40,000-45,000 acre study). This amendment was for the added $37,000 approved for studying the additional 50,000 acres that had never been studied, for a total contract of $72,000. Since the amended contract amount was larger than the original contract, the Council needed to review it. The Ten-Day Letter was a streamlined process in lieu of the normal resolution approval process for this contract amendment and we done to keep the work moving.

Councilor Hosticka asked where the additional funds would come from. Chair Park said he thought he recalled that this was originally budgeted for the full amount, or close to it. Ms. Weber said she was of the understanding that a budget amendment wasn’t required for this, but said she would need to research the source and let the committee know. Councilor Hosticka then clarified the formal process now that the Council had been notified, any Councilor within ten days could ask for further review or action. If none did, it would go to the Executive Office for approval. He then officially asked any Councilor to let him know if they wished to take action on this.

Ms. Weber then said, again relating to the Alternatives Analysis, that staff had received a number of requests from property owners or their attorneys that they wanted to be added into Tier 4 to be studied for inclusion. At Chair Park’s request, Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, said rather than have Planning or the Councilors deal with these requests one by one, they should instead be collected in a file with a response sent to each that Metro was keeping track of them. At some appropriate point down the road, the Council could take a look at them, and then give the Planning Department some direction on how to proceed with studying additional lands. Some future events may cause Council to look into this file earlier, Mr. Benner said, but for now he recommended that they not take them up one by one.

Chair Park said if the committee was comfortable with that approach, he would instruct staff to do this. He was hopeful that there would be a pattern that emerged that would help guide the Council in looking at some of these pieces.

Ms. Weber continued the Work Program update.

Chair Park suggested that staff provide an Urban Growth Report (UGR) primer at the April 2^nd committee meeting, as he thought it would be a good review of the process for the councilors. He also suggested doing something for MPAC along the same line, and there was discussion of what this would include.

Councilor Burkholder asked about the cost to Metro on the work involved and whether the produce of that work could be used in the future, as well as if this same work load was expected every time Metro went through Periodic Review. Ms. Weber explained efficiencies were gained each time the work was done, and yes, Metro would have to update the Alternatives Analysis and ESEE Analysis every time, but hopefully what staff was doing now was pretty thorough. As far as the actual cost, Ms. Weber said they could figure the Metro costs fairly easily but they would have to do a general survey of local governments. It was very expensive. Chair Park said he thought the cost was mostly in updating the land supply in the GIS system and collating the information received from the jurisdictions on their building permits, etc., and Ms. Weber said the annual buildable lands update was used for a great many things, and that those things are possible because it’s kept up to date. She said she didn’t think it could be done any more efficiently.

With or without the land supply issue, Chair Park said, the basic functions of Metro still continue at some level because Metro needs that information for everything they do. Ms. Weber agreed, and concluded her update by saying staff was on track, and that the technical work and most of the policy work would come together in April/May to be taken out to the public in June. Staff was going to be very busy, she said, and if they were involved in the Goal 14 rewrite, staff allocation would need to be reviewed. Chair Park thanked Ms. Weber for the update.

6.  Subregional Analysis – Review. Mr. Richard Benner, Senior Legal Counsel, spoke to his draft resolution and draft Petition to Adopt a Rule (distributed and made a part of this record). The previous week, he said, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) considered Metro’s Petition for Declaratory Ruling and concluded that the questions Metro asked were rather in the nature of a request for Rule making guidance. The commission invited Metro to submit a Rule that would be a Goal 14 Rule to guide the use of subregional analysis. The Petition follows the state Attorney General’s format, he explained, and said it contained a draft Rule, as required by state law.

Councilor Hosticka suggested it might be helpful, to keep the record clear, to reference in the resolution that Metro did ask for a Declaratory Ruling and that LCDC had responded in this way.

Mr. Benner then told the committee what to expect with regard to this Petition. It would be treated somewhat similarly to a Declaratory Ruling in that LCDC can decide it doesn’t want to go into Rule making (they have that discretion). On the other hand, Mr. Benner continued, Mr. Cooper said he’d received a signal from LCDC that they would look at it very seriously, especially knowing the Metro would make the first draft of the Rule. He then described what was in the draft Rule, which spoke of subregional analysis as an analysis of how to make the region work as opposed to simply focusing on expanding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The draft was a narrow rule, limited to just subregional analysis, he said, and it was limited to Metro and this region. Regarding the content, Mr. Benner said it took a lead from the cases that talked about subregional analysis, although there weren’t many of those, which gave guidance. He tried to capture that guidance in this draft, he said, as well as what was in the draft Subregional Rule that LCDC had under consideration before it closed down the Goal 14 Rule making. He thought the contents of this submission would not surprise the commission. Noteworthy, he added, was that this tied the basis for subregional analysis and what it was trying to accomplish to the Regional Framework Plan policies and to the objectives of Goal 14, which he thought was probably critical. This draft attempted to lay out a logical process for Metro to follow. Mr. Benner said subsection (1)(e) was noteworthy, as well as subsections (2) and (3). He discussed these in more detail, and responded to questions from the committee.

Mr. Benner then explained that changes to this draft and/or other changes and proposals, from this point up until it’s requested adoption by LCDC, can be made at any time, that this was just the beginning of the process. Councilor Hosticka said that as long as it was open for amendment, he asked if his earlier comment about including Metro’s initial request to LCDC in the body of the resolution. Chair Park said MPAC would have an opportunity to look at the following week, as well.

Councilor Hosticka said this would go before the Metro Council March 28, 2002.

There was no discussion.

7.  Urban Growth Report - Policy Options. Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, Planning Department, spoke to the one-page draft Urban Growth Report Options list of Housing and Employment options, dated March 19, 2002 (distributed and made a part of this record). He explained that this was put before the committee as a policy document, not for them to make the actual choices but as the pieces for the “primer” that would be used regarding the Urban Growth Report. Chair Park said he had asked staff to specify where the options originated, whether from Metro policy, state law, etc. Councilor Hosticka asked if the formulae could be given in the primer to help them understand what things meant and their likely impact on the land need estimate (such as the overall population forecast multiplied by x and then multiplied/divided by x, etc.). Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, reminded the committee that it was important to remember that this would be done again in five years. The committee discussed with Mr. Cotugno and Mr. Hoglund various of the policy options. Chair Park thanked staff for the update.

8.  Councilor Communications.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2002

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

Testimony cards. None.