MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, May 7, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:   Bill Atherton

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

3.  RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATES.

•  Transportation – Councilor Burkholder reviewed the upcoming issues: a discussion on the Transportation Investment Task Force, Tri-Met’s Transit Investment Plan regarding their operating and capital forecast for the next five years, and the public hearing scheduled for May 16^th on the MTIP conformity refinement.

•  JPACT – JPACT would be meeting May 9^th, Councilor Monroe said, the topics on the agenda being a discussion of GreenStreets in the region, the $17 million in funds coming to the region from the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA) and high-speed rail.

•  Natural Resources – Councilor McLain said she and Councilor Hosticka had attended the Tualatin Basin Policy Committee in Beaverton the previous day with Mr. Mark Turpel of the Planning Department, and that committee reviewed the IGA with Metro, which was still with the attorneys of both groups. The biggest issue before the Natural Resources Committee, as well as the Goal 5 inventory and wildlife and/or the ESEE analysis piece, was just the timing, and the timing in relation to the UGB issues.

•  WRPAC – This body was still reviewing and until the timing issue took place would not forward any advice or recommendation. They have looked at the inventory on the wildlife piece.

3a.  UPDATE ON APRIL 25, 2002, LAND AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING. Chair Park asked Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Legal Counsel, to review the discussion at this meeting. Mr. Benner said the most important thing to note was that the Commission accepted Metro’s petition to commence rule making and they instructed the Department to come back to their June meeting with a proposal for the Commission on the process it would follow. Of interest, he said, was three Commissioners (Dennis Derby, Lindsay Barryman and John VanLandingham) agreed that they would like to serve on a subcommittee that would oversee for the Commission the development of a rule. There was discussion on timing, and after hearing from Mr. Andy Cotugno and Mr. Dan Cooper, the Commission said they’d make an effort to complete rule making before the beginning of the next legislative session. They were not more specific than that, Mr. Benner said, but said they would try to finish by October. In order for the Commission to follow rule making procedures, Mr. Benner asked the committee to be mindful of the fact that the Commission would not meet in August, and maybe not in July, either. They would try to notify people about the commencement of rule making by the middle of May. In order to do that, he said, the Commission has to release a version of the rule and that was one of the reasons why Metro or whomever has to submit a draft rule to them. The Commission then decided if they wanted to use that as the basis for the rule that would go with the notice or to adjust it in some fashion. Mr. Benner concluded by saying Metro could expect to see something out of the Commission in the next week or two. Chair Park said he was looking forward to the next step.

4.   URBAN GROWTH FUNCTIONAL PLAN – QUARTERLY REPORT ON COMPLIANCE. Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, briefly reviewed for the committee the Quarterly Report (included in the agenda packet). Two cities, she said, Oregon City and Portland, indicated to her that they would not be able to make their timelines for compliance as noted in the report. Oregon City was scheduled to finish their compliance work by December 2002, and Commissioner Doug Neeley and City Manager Karen Haines, Interim Community Development Director, were present to address that. Portland would, if necessary, come before the committee at a later date to request additional time for compliance.

5.  URBAN GROWTH FUNCTIONAL PLAN – EXTENSION REQUEST, CITY OF OREGON CITY. Commissioner Doug Neeley, City of Oregon City, agreed with Ms. Bernards’ report and introduced Karen Haines, Interim Community Planning Director, to speak in more detail on that issue. Ms. Haines said the Oregon City has now contracted with a consultant for compliance completion, and was in the process of hiring a Community Planning Director. December 2002 was the projected completion date, she said, and Oregon City has committed $125,000 toward keeping that scheduled compliance date.

Ms. Haines apologized for and explained the city’s noncompliance and reiterated what Ms. Bernards had reported regarding December 2002 compliance and the city’s commitment to that. Responding to a question from Councilor McLain, Ms. Haines said this was her last week working with Oregon City. Regarding the potential impacts of the delayed compliance, she said Oregon City had done an assessment and had determined that there was no negative impact, to date.

Councilor Burkholder said Ms. Bernards’ participation in Oregon City’s effort helped to make him feel more comfortable, and he asked her for specifics. Ms. Bernards said she’d been on the selection committee for Oregon City’s consultant, she was on the Technical Advisory Committee, had participated in one open house, and had made herself available to the consultant for any questions they had regarding the compliance. She had not been asked to participate in the selection of their new Community Planning Director. Ms. Haines said she would mention that to Oregon City’s City Manager.

Commissioner Neeley said Ms. Bernards had been and continued to be extremely helpful and active in their Title 3 process and was an excellent Metro staff resource person for Oregon City. They appreciated her very much. Chair Park thanked Commissioner Neeley and Ms. Haines, saying it was nice to hear good things about Metro staff. Councilor Monroe added that we are Metro and we are here to help people.

Commissioner Neeley gave Ms. Haines credit for moving Oregon City forward during her tenure, and that she had the process well under way for the new Community Development Director. Ms. Bernards said she would bring a resolution forward regarding Oregon City’s compliance, and Chair Park asked her to bring it directly to the council, that it didn’t need to come back to this committee. Chair Park thanked Commissioner Neeley and Ms. Haines for their statements.

6.  ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

•  REVIEW METHODOLOGY

•  POLICY DIRECTION

Mr. Cotugno said the committee previously had focused on the “how much” question of the Urban Growth Report, and the discussion today would be the “where” question. The “how much” question still needed to be settled, he said, but the discussion on the “where” question needed to begin. Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, spoke to the methodology as outlined in the agenda packet material.

In addition to discussion on service providers, transportation facilities and routes, Councilor McLain asked that the threshold value change from $350,000 to $200,000 (in the Land Productivity Estimates) be explained in more detail. Mr. O’Brien said he would provide that when he received it from ECONorthwest. Mr. Cotugno said this was not intended to measure the value of the land, but the value of a house and whether or not that house would stay as a single-family house or come down and get redeveloped. He agreed, however, that Metro needed to see the premise on which the assumption was based and said it would be provided.

The methodology for the Data Analysis and Build-out Estimates was briefly discussed, as was the change in the methodology for the Agricultural Analysis on the number of acres of high-value farmland, as well as the timeline for EcoNorthwest’s work, which matched staff’s timeline.

Mr. Cotugno summarized that these criteria were location blind and fairly broad categories of information. He said this information would help when looking at exception lands, to refine some of the information gathered. Chair Park added that this information could help when it came to making choices, and discussion followed on the implications of this information and how it could be used. Councilor Hosticka said he would like to have a future discussion on what role local preference had in decision making on Metro-level policies in this area.

Another possible future discussion, he added, was the issue of the separation of communities, and whether or not that was a current Metro policy or if it fell under local preference. These communities have indicated that while Metro is picking from among the thousands of acres of exception lands, it might want to keep those communities’ preference for separation in mind as a policy consideration. Councilor McLain brought the historic perspective to the table, saying the state previously had said separation of community was not a good reason to not look at given land. She asked Mr. Benner for confirmation.

Mr. Benner said he thought what the state had said was, “If others things are equal, yes, you can choose A over B because you have your own policy about separation of communities.” And this was where the “but . . .” came into it, he said, because other things were not equal. If Metro decided they want to keep some separation between communities, and the only way they could accomplish that was to decide not to take exception land into the UGB which had the result of causing them to take farm land into the UGB, the state said, “No, you can’t do that.” Yes, Mr. Benner said, Metro can have separation of communities as one of their policies but they have to apply it in a manner that’s consistent with state law.

Chair Park said the Executive Officer would be bring forward a recommendation on Centers in August and it would be helpful if part of the discussion on separation of communities or using Centers as part of the discretionary portion, it might help in terms of the question of whether to bring in little bits all over or to bring in one large section. That discussion still needed to take place, especially with the question of things being equal. It will be interesting, he said, to see the degree of separation is between the sites.

There was much to look at, Chair Park said, and more information was needed, and Councilor McLain asked if Green Corridors could be added to the list of something to think about. He asked Mr. Cotugno when staff needed more direction back from the committee. Mr. Cotugno said staff expected to have a basic Low/Medium/High sorting, based upon the criteria given today, in June, and that could be examined to see if it made sense and to see if some of the data itself would move up or down. Then there will be the overlay from discussion today, and then there might be something else that would move things up or down the list. It was this “something else” that staff might need direction on, he said, within the next month. Chair Park said the committee should be able to do that. Councilor Burkholder asked if the information could be presented in colored graphs so as to be easily discernable from each other. Councilor McLain cautioned that the timing of presenting any maps could be a sensitive issue.

7.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT:

•  METHODOLOGY UPDATE

•  SUPPLY NUMBERS

Ms. Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, distributed an updated copy of her April 30^th memo included in the agenda packet (dated May 7, 2002, and included as part of this record). The Draft background information from the packet remained the same. Starting with the Draft 2000-2022 Urban Growth Report Dwelling Unit Capacity Estimate & Need, Mr. Cotugno said the committee had reviewed the demand side, and now would begin to review the supply side. Ms. Neill, beginning with line 5, explained the numbers used, their source, and why that acreage would be excluded. Staff was reviewing those numbers to verify excluded lands and Ms. Neill said the numbers could be amended because of that review, and she would be asking for policy direction on these numbers from the committee. It was noted that Line 14, Acres for New Parks, was revised (from the agenda packet version) in the updated memo. The next step for staff, Ms. Neill, said would be to convert the Net Vacant Buildable Acres to Dwelling Units, and then begin talking about underbuild and refill to get to a final Dwelling Unit count that could be matched with the anticipated demand.

Mr. Cotugno said the Acres for New Parks was on this Draft as a range of numbers since Mr. Mark Turpel was still working with the Parks subcommittee, and would have a recommendation from them. Mr. Cotugno referred to the table in the packet which accounted for Mr. Turpel’s methodology (Table 2 – Estimate of Acres of Additional Future Parks based on Park System Development Charges) for converting local system development charges to revenue levels, and therefore to acreage levels. Mr. Turpel wanted feedback from the local governments on those assumptions, Mr. Cotugno said, so some of those numbers might change. Also, he said, the Parks subcommittee had asked Mr. Turpel to go back and look at what the experience has been in the last five years, so for now the range of numbers was being used for this committee’s purpose.

Councilor Burkholder asked the committee, as a policy question in relation to parks, to think about whether Metro wanted to look at an aspirational goal and how to get there vs. a goal of what could potentially be done if every System Development Charge (SDC) dollar were committed to the purchase of new parks vs. maintenance or capital improvements in existing parks, etc. He said he heard the public say they wanted more parks, not less. Mr. Benner said if Metro concluded that they wanted to set more land aside for parks, they would need to show that there was something in place to make that happen. Just because you don’t include a higher number in the capacity analysis doesn’t mean you can’t have a policy to put more land in parks. Using the regional average vs. the last five or ten years’ trend was another point Councilor Burkholder brought up. Mr. Cotugno reminded the committee of the recommendation from MPAC that Metro should develop a Parks Functional Plan. MPAC had concluded that they didn’t want to set a single standard for the region, but felt that individual jurisdictions should come up with a standard and then submit a plan to the Metro Council that met that standard. Nothing has been done on the Parks Functional Plan, he said, but that was what MPAC had said, so far. His understanding, he added, was that what he heard from the MPAC Parks subcommittee, so far, was that they would like to say something aspirational even though they may say something low for Urban Growth Report purposes, but they understood the difference and they didn’t like the low, either.

Ms. Neill concluded her report by addressing line 18 of the Draft report, a new category, Land Adjustments, to account for land that was missed or mistakes that were the exception to the rule. Mr. Cotugno suggested the committee look at the other attachments in the agenda packet regarding more detailed methodology. He said staff proposed taking this to MTAC on May 8^th, then the next increment to MPAC on May 22^nd, and at the May 21^st Community Planning Committee they would bring the bottom of the Draft Dwelling Unit Capacity Estimate & Need table. Chair Park said the next step would be to start on Employment.

8.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. None.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 7, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.