MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Susan McLain was excused.

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

4.  2040 CENTERS STUDY. Mr. David Leland of the Leland Consulting Group introduced Mr. G. B. Arrington of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Ms. Shelby Edwards and Ms. Kimi Iboshi Sloop. Mr. Leland’s practice was implementing Centers, downtowns, urban villages, transit villages, etc., he said. He outlined the four parts of this presentation: the Philosophy and Approach, the Process, the Principles, and the Next Steps. Mr. Leland then spoke of the philosophy and approach, and Mr. Arrington spoke of the process used in this Study. (A copy of this presentation is included as part of this record.) Mr. Leland spoke to each of the ten principles for successful Centers: 1) Centers Are Not Created Equal; 2) Understand Market Impact; 3) Private Investment Follows Public Commitment; 4) Reward Leadership; 5) Build Communities Not Projects; 6) Remove Barriers to Successful Centers Development; 7) Metro as Coach; 8) Balance the Automobile; 9) Celebrate Success; 10) Take the Long View. Mr. Arrington said they thought Metro should use these ten principles as a framework for decision making at Metro. He also said he thought these could be used as an important basis for funding allocation decisions, and suggested the priority ranking for Centers be amended since all Centers were not the same or at the same stage.

Mr. Arrington concluded the presentation by talking about the Next Steps to be taken, and he and Mr. Leland invited the committee to comment or ask questions. (Two booklets were distributed to the committee at this time, Ten Principles for Reinventing American’s Suburban Strips, and Ten Principles for Reinventing American’s Suburban Business Districts, both included as part of this record.)

Councilor Atherton and Mr. Leyland discussed carrying capacity and market movement. Councilor Bragdon said this report was terrific and outlined exactly the way Metro needed to be going. He, Councilor Atherton and Mr. Leyland discussed the type of market environment that would attract the developers and businesses, with Mr. Leyland saying that the challenge there would be at the local jurisdictional level rather than at the Metro level and how Metro could help implement that. Other discussion focused on the types of Centers, funding and where to spend for the most effect, office space, and focusing on a few Centers instead of all 37 of them, as they aren’t built at the same time.

Councilor Burkholder said this was parallel to what the Transportation Committee has been discussing regarding the MTIP process. He and Mr. Arrington discussed the three phases of Centers development: early, emerging and mature development, and Mr. Arrington cautioned against putting them in tiers and suggested they be thought of as complex places for more success with them rather than as a monoculture. Discussion followed on the pattern of Centers development. In closing, Mr. Arrington said leadership was important to pull things together and bring it forward. Chair Park thanked them for the information.

6.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT (UGR) POLICY CHOICES. Mr. Mike Burton, Executive Officer, said he had discussed individually with the councilors the sense of the direction of his upcoming recommendations in August on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and that he would like to review that again and put some numbers to it, with the understanding that his actual recommendation would not be made until August 1^st. Since Metro would be out in the community discussing these recommendations at workshops, Mr. Burton said he thought this would be appropriate. Land, water and air would be affected by the decision the council would make and Mr. Burton said he had cautioned the 1998 Metro Council to not focus on the numbers then because that was not what Metro was about. He said he would ask this council, as he had asked staff over the past several months, to shift their thinking and take the opportunity to make some bold policy decisions and do what Metro should be doing, which was creating a very successful community that protected the water, protected the air, protected the land, and insured a habitat that marked the Portland metropolitan area as unique in its features.

Mr. Burton spoke of the state law that required the 20-year land supply, the impact we have on the place we live, and Metro’s role in this. With the projected 400,000 people joining the region over the next 20 years, he said he’d asked staff to provide different capture rates in order to see the different numbers on where these people will live, work and play while maintaining the livability of the region, and to look at things that affect us but are outside of our region, such as Clark County, Washington. He asked the councilors to look at what policies could be put in place that would govern the appropriate capture rate, and for them to ask themselves these questions between now and December.

Mr. Burton then talked about employment land and what was appropriate, and the loss of good industrial land at the expense of it being shifted into commercial property. He specifically mentioned Kruse Way, saying the perception was that it was an industrial area but that it was not. He said Metro needed to look at commercial and industrial zoned land and where each would be appropriate, and that it could possibly be appropriate to convert industrial land to commercial land, and commercial land to industrial land. His recommendation would urge the councilors to go beyond just the numbers and to start looking at an economic strategy that would take these questions into account. Mr. Burton said the council was probably looking at a UGB expansion of up to 22,000 acres, and that he was also going to recommend they move to an urban reserve number. He asked the councilors to focus not on just the next five-year growth adjustment, but on how to build a community inside the boundary, how to create a new town, how to focus back on the Town Centers, how to protect the natural resources we already have, how to encourage farming as an industrial use inside the UGB and make sure that’s protected, how to come up with an economic strategy that matches an ecological strategy that matches a land use strategy that matches a transportation strategy – they’re all important. Mr. Burton then asked Mr. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, to review the numbers with the committee.

Mr. Cotugno called the committee’s attention to a memo from Mr. Burton to Chair Park regarding Upcoming UGB Decision – Policy and Numbers, which summarized the policy questions that affect housing, mainly the Capture Rate and the Refill Rate. The numbers that corresponded to those policy questions were in the memo from Lydia Neill to Mr. Cotugno and Mike Hoglund regarding 2002 Urban Growth Report (UGR) Dwelling Unit Scenarios. (Both of these memos were distributed and made a part of this record. Note that the latter is the updated UGR “primer.”) The second memo included a summary of the whole series of Urban Growth Report tables and that was discussed, in parts, over the past weeks. This presented the committee with the bottom line conclusion of what the dwelling unit (housing) demand was, what share of that would come into the region, and what the supply was and, therefore, what the shortfall was. He then reviewed and explained the summary tables for the committee and the different dwelling unit scenarios.

Mr. Cotugno then spoke about jobs and how staff had been wrestling with how to understand what the land needs were for jobs. It was complicated and he said this was their first attempt to identify and quantify the possible effect of those questions. (Mr. Cotugno used a PowerPoint presentation for this, titled Draft Urban Growth Report: 2002-2022, a copy of which is included in this record.) The charts and graphs showed the patterns and densities of existing jobs across employment categories, by industry type, firm size, by different building type, and by number of firms.

Discussion followed on looking at the role of land use planning and the different characteristics of industrial vs. commercial jobs, Metro’s ability to influence that, redevelopment/refill, and the different transportation needs for different areas. Chair Park said he did not want to create satellite cities by keeping the jobs and sending residential out farther.

Councilor Bragdon said he thought it great that the conversation was focusing on quality rather than quantity, and that a lot of good policy questions were being raised. He and Mr. Burton discussed Industrial Sanctuaries. Mr. Cotugno said adoption of some of the kinds of actions that would potentially be recommended by Mr. Burton would require significant conversations with MPAC, and industrial/commercial lands would be a difficult conversation with jurisdictions. More discussion followed on industrial land inside vs. outside the UGB and Industrial Reserves.

Mr. Burton concluded his remarks by commenting that part of what he will try to recommend is that Metro get engaged in looking an economic strategy that recognizes all the components of the economy, strongly imbued with an ecological conservation strategy. Metro can set the directions and the policies for the local jurisdictions to carry out. That’s Metro’s responsibility and destiny, he said. Chair Park agreed that Metro has an opportunity here to define our future.

Chair Park then suggested that use of some terminology be redefined, i.e., rather than saying Metro should attempt to “minimize the amount of UGB expansion,” as stated on the last page of Mr. Burton’s memo, Chair Park suggested saying, “minimize the amount of the UGB impact.” When people look at this across the nation, he said, they’re going to think this is a big expansion, they’re not going to realize all the work that went into making it a rather minimal expansion in reality. Councilor Bragdon added that the UGB movement is a means to the end, not an end to itself, and it would be quality, not quantity. He agreed that the goal addressing the impact was a much better phrase to use.

Chair Park thanked Mr. Burton, Mr. Cotugno and the committee for the discussion.

5.  PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. 02-946 – For the Purpose of Adopting the Post-Acknowledgement Amendments to the 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Tom Kloster, Transportation Planning Manager, Planning Department, spoke to his memo of June 13^th to the committee on RTP Post-Acknowledgement Amendments – Ordinance No. 02-946 (distributed and made a part of this record), which was reflected, in his PowerPoint presentation, and he distributed to the committee the pamphlet Get street smart! (copies of both are included as part of this record). Mr. Kloster’s memo (on p. 2) outlined the JPACT and MPAC revisions that were not included in the document included in the agenda packet. He briefly explained the technical amendments, the new Elderly and Disabled Transportation Plan amendments and the Corridor Initiatives Project amendments before presenting the Green Streets Project in more detail and the amendments to that.

Councilor Burkholder commented for future thought and discussion on the Elderly and Disabled Plan and the concept of being able to age in place, and the land use implications of a publicly subsidized transportation system this would require.

Mr. Kloster then spoke of the Green Streets Project in more detail, and said the Get street smart! brochure listed the other related publications that Metro would be selling and an order form. Staff hoped to pay for the printing of the documents in sales, he said. The documents were Creating Livable Streets – Street Design Guidelines, Green Streets – Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Stream Crossings, and Trees for Green Streets – An Illustrated Guide.

Councilor Burkholder said the last MTIP process required that all projects meet the regional street design guidelines in order to qualify for funding, and one of the open questions now was how far to go this time with this. Should it be made a requirement that they comply or make it bonus points, he asked, and he suggested the committee consider that.

Councilor Bragdon, referring back to the Mr. Leland’s and Mr. Arrington’s comments, said this project was a perfect illustration of Metro being a good coach and showing how things could be done in working with the jurisdictions to make things happen. He told Mr. Kloster that this was very good.

Mr. Kloster concluded by calling the committee’s attention to the JPACT and MPAC revisions to Exhibit C of the Ordinance.

Councilor Monroe said this Ordinance updated the RTP and was an action Metro needed to take, as the RTP was a moving document. He commented that the Green Streets proposal was Metro working at it’s best.

Chair Park opened a public hearing. No one came forward to testify. Chair Park closed the public hearing. He thanked Councilor Burkholder for bringing this item to this committee, as it crossed land use issues.

7.  ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS/REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN. Mary Weber, Community Planning Manager, referred to the information in the agenda packet and her appearance before the committee on June 3^rd when she gave a brief overview regarding the existing policies in the Regional Framework Plan (RFP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that pertain to a decision on the UGB and what was done inside the boundary as well. After reviewing portions of the memo, she called their attention to p. 6 where all the points were summarized in a table. An updated draft of this document would be available on June 21^st, she said, and a cleaner version available at the end of June, which would include an elaborate table that would bring together all the factors the councilors needed in their decision making. The table would show the alternatives analysis areas divided into three areas: those more suitable for urbanization, those less suitable for urbanization, and those not suitable for urbanization. The key part of what would come of that would be the cuts, she said, and then there would be a lot of play between the other two categories.

Chair Park added that part of the reason for going in this direction was to reinforce the Centers strategy and he said he was trying to make sure the committee was on the same track as staff. He asked if the committee was still comfortable moving in this direction of allowing staff to look at these in that light of what empowered Centers the best. The committee agreed.

Ms. Weber referred to a June 17^th memo to Mike Burton from Andy Cotugno regarding Recommended Growth Management Policy Changes for Periodic Review Urban Growth Boundary Decision (this document was distributed and is included as part of this record). The proposed policy changes listed in the document were Centers Policies, Industrial Areas, Housing and Employment, Map Updates, and Other Policies. She briefly reviewed each and asked Chair Park if this could be scheduled for a future

committee meeting as staff would like to do a follow-up work task in Periodic Review that focused on Centers. This was going before MPAC the next day, she said, so staff would begin to get a sense of the local governments’ thinking.

Concluding, Ms. Weber spoke to the draft schedule of the delivery of the different products that would be forthcoming (distributed and made a part of this record) and the 17 related support documents.

Chair Burkholder asked about the procedure for introducing other ideas for potential policies to be introduced. Chair Park asked him to first check with Michael Morrissey to ensure there wasn’t a duplication of work staff was already doing, and then to bring it forward in discussion at committee.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 4, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

Councilor Atherton and Ms. Weber briefly discussed housing density and housing costs supporting transportation, as cited from the RTP.

3.  RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATES. There were no committee updates.

8.  URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY WORKSHOPS PREVIEW. Chair Park asked Ms. Sherry Oeser, Regional Planning Manager, to please distribute the next day copies of the information she had on the workshops to the councilors and he apologized that this item could not be heard.

9.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2002

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

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2002 (cont’d.)

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.