MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, July 30, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  David Bragdon

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 16, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

2.  PROPOSED SUBREGIONAL RULE. Chair Park opened the discussion by saying the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Subregional Rules Subcommittee meeting was instructive for those who attended, and one of the things noted by Commissioners VanLandingham and Berryman was they thought Metro needed to better define why it was asking for this Rule. Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, distributed a revised draft copy of the explanation (dated July 30, 2002, and made a part of this record, titled Why Metro Seeks Guidance on Subregional Allocation of Regional Need). He explained the revision and then recapped his testimony before the Subcommittee at their July 23^rd meeting. Out of the discussion at the meeting and in response to other testimony of that afternoon, he said he attempted to draft a more concise reason for the proposed Rule. After that meeting, MPAC took the question up the following day, July 24^th, and looked at the recommendations from their subcommittee (this material in the agenda packet was not complete so a complete copy of the memo of July 19^th on the Proposed Revisions to DLCD Draft Subregional Rule was resubmitted and made a part of this record). MPAC passed the proposed revision on to this committee with their recommendation to approve and/or endorse and submit to the LCDC Subcommittee. Mr. Benner then reviewed the sequence of the next steps, and said he believed the full commission (LCDC) had scheduled a hearing on the proposed Rule.

Councilor McLain said the third paragraph on the second page of the Guidance statement looked to her like the description people were looking for and said she suggested that paragraph should be placed earlier in the statement or connected to the first paragraph. She also said she thought the statement was too technical, that an explanation was needed for the general public and that was why she was suggesting moving the previously mentioned paragraph. This would make it clearer, she said, by stating the problem and why Metro was requesting the Rule. Discussion followed on whether this was written for the LCDC Commissioners or the public, on Metro’s implementation authority, and the concept of the regional need and the allocations made on a subregional basis in order to meet that regional need. Chair Park and Mr. Benner discussed whether or not to have a subregional map in the Regional Framework Plan, with Mr. Benner saying this was not expressly stated in the proposed MPAC recommendation, but he thought it was implied. Looking at it from the Commission’s point of view for review, he said, it would probably help them to see the subregions on a map as part of 660-026-0025 in the proposed Rule, and he advised to always have a map.

Councilor McLain expressed her confidence in the way Mr. Cotugno and his staff coordinated the Goal 14 factors that were reviewed and the order in which it was done, and she expressed concern about offering the Commission the opportunity to question, every time Metro sent them a map and a subregional analysis, whether or not it had been done correctly or in order. Mr. Benner referred her to Section 660-026-0030 of the Rule where it determined how to meet subregional need and the sequencing, which he said was the sequence being followed now. It was very much up to the Council, he added, and the Rule was flexible on it, as written. His explanation did not alleviate her concern, she said. They continued this discussion, and Chair Park said it was a good debate on how specific Metro wanted to get, as well as use and/or misuse.

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

1.  Al Burns, City of Portland, Bureau of Planning, 1900 SW 4^th, Suite 4100, Portland, Oregon 97201, referred to Mayor Katz’ letter of July 22^nd regarding her thoughts and feelings on this matter (a copy of which is included in this record). Mr. Burns said Mayor Katz was the one who described to LCDC the need for a better problem statement from Metro, and he recapped the letter for the committee and said the way the Rule was now written, the region would wind up with less farm land protection. The Mayor would like more time to make Portland’s case and would like more time to discuss it. Mr. Burns then commented on the July 30^th problem statement, 2^nd page, 3^rd paragraph, last clause, “ . . . because land in another part of the region would not be able to accommodate that need,” saying he thought the Rosemont case clearly had said Metro didn’t have to look at land that didn’t accommodate the need, so it was preauthorized. What was new about the Rule Metro was proposing went beyond that, he said.

Mr. Burns also spoke of setbacks, unlinking urban growth implementation from urban growth policy, and the broad category of need. Mr. Burns closed, saying Portland thought more discussion was needed and it would be valuable if the Metro Council expressed their reasons clearly to MPAC and give some examples of what would be done new and differently.

Councilor Hosticka quoted from the Rule, 660-026-0025 (2) and (4) and asked what more Portland wanted in explanation. Mr. Burns said he had asked previously, in one of the definitions for provisions, for policy first, and he said the way it was written now Metro could base a subregional allocation on Framework or Functional Plan provisions it adopted and never send it to LCDC for acknowledgement compliance review. This was his reading, he said, and reiterated that Portland was interested in policy first. Another point Mr. Burns also said the overall result was more efficient and in keeping faith with Goal 14. He added that Portland’s understanding was the region’s type of needs had changed, and Portland hoped that could be addressed and that they were willing to work with their regional partners on this.

Councilor McLain said she’d heard this before from Portland, and that she wouldn’t go any other way, on both the rule and the problem statement. She said she got confused every time Mr. Burns says he didn’t believe the policy was there. As literally written, Mr. Burns said, the Rule did not require policy first. Chair Park asked Mr. Benner if he anticipated the Commission approving a UGB decision on an unacknowledged Regional Framework Plan. Mr. Benner’s said his understanding of the City of Portland’s point was they would prefer if the process were a two-step acknowledgement process. First, if Metro decided to do subregional allocations, Metro would revise their policies, submit them to LCDC, have LCDC acknowledge them, and then second, take those acknowledged policies and apply them in the subregional allocation. This proposed Rule did not say it couldn’t be done that way, but the Rule would also allow Metro to do the subregional allocation the same way it was doing the UGB expansion. Metro would decide what it wanted to do, square it with the policies in the Regional Framework Plan (RFP), likely make some adjustments in the policies of the RFP, and submit these to LCDC simultaneously with the UGB expansion. LCDC would review the whole thing, he said. Chair Park clarified that the suggestion of LCDC acknowledging an expansion prior to acknowledging policies would not occur.

Mr. Burns’ second point of an overall, better result, Councilor McLain said, she was in agreement with and said she thought this was what she thought Metro had in this product. Mr. Burns said the rule as proposed said a more orderly and efficient transition, and what Portland was aiming at was a more orderly and efficient urban form.

2.  Commissioner John Leeper, Washington County, 155 N. First St., Hillsboro, OR 97124, said he’d attended many meetings on the subregional concept and analysis and was a strong proponent of the concept and approach of using subregional analysis as an additional approach for satisfying the UGB expansion needs within the region. He said it had been said that Washington County had changed their position over the years, and he thought perhaps they’d gotten a little smarter. He said they had better realized, recognized and accepted their total land use needs. Commissioner Leeper said he would not be repetitious and repeat the testimony he’d given MPAC, but that he wanted to mention something he thought hadn’t been brought up yet. He said he thought one of the desires of Metro in anything approved by LCDC would be to allow flexibility back at Metro so that the region could write anything it wanted in the way of implementing directives or any actual work that would be done on a subregional analysis basis. His understanding last week at MPAC, he said, was that MPAC had recommended the much revised version of subregional analysis (prepared by LCDC, and noticeably revised by others and then considerably wordsmithed). Commissioner Leeper said if he understood Mr. Burns correctly, Portland thought this needed to be referred back to MPAC once again. Since the record would close August 2^nd, Commissioner Leeper said he didn’t see how that request could be accommodated. As he had read the document, reflected on it, heard it discussed, and discussed it with others, he said he thought it a worthwhile effort for Metro to submit this to LCDC and offer the comment that whatever was submitted would be revised a little anyway.

3.  Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3^rd Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97202, presented her written testimony to LCDC to the committee clerk (included in this record), and spoke to a few of the points made in that testimony regarding the lack of Metro’s policy objective for subregional analysis or a framework for how that would be implemented. She also said she did not think the RFP was sufficient for Metro to base a subregional analysis on (or a subregional allocation of a subregional need), and she spoke more on that. Ms. McCurdy said she was concerned that right now almost any definition or implementation of subregional could be justified in some portion of the RFP, but this was not anticipated when that plan was adopted. She said more thinking needed to be put into the RFP and some of the definitions and how they related to one another and needed to be tightened up, and she offered suggestions.

Councilor McLain asked what Ms. McCurdy meant about the RFP being too general, and a short discussion followed on that.

Councilor Atherton asked if Ms. McCurdy thought the regional need was a real concept or artificial, and she replied that there may be regional needs as the region grows. He then asked Mr. Burns, regarding complete communities, if it were easier to determine a community need than a regional need. Mr. Burns said that referred back to what first steps were not completed. We know, he said, what makes a good neighborhood and how many airports and deep draft marine terminals we need, but it’s the middle scale that was being wrestled with. This was a good concept, he said, but it needed to be made and fleshed out in a plan, not a Rule. Councilor Atherton asked the testifiers if, regarding tax capacity, they thought if Metro were to change and have a regional sharing of a new commercial and industrial tax base, that some of that would go away. Ms. McCurdy said she thought a lot of it would go away, Commissioner Leeper said no, and Mr. Burns said no.

Chair Park closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to committee discussion and councilor amendments. Councilor Hosticka asked Chair Park for clarification on what would be sent to the LCDC subcommittee, and Chair Park replied that the committee was looking at MPAC’s recommendation at the Council’s request and would pass that along to the LCDC Subcommittee either as recommended or as amended, not knowing yet what amendments would be requested. Chair Park said MPAC was an advisory committee to the Metro Council and had not in the past made recommendations directly to other jurisdictions (LCDC included), although individual members of MPAC had made comments to LCDC.

Councilor Burkholder said he would propose amendments/potential changes to the current recommendation before the committee. The committee said they would vote on each amendment separately, and Chair Park said these would go with the comments to LCDC.

After discussion, Councilor Burkholder withdrew his amendment.

After discussion, Mr. Benner said the suggested language perhaps more clearly stated what the Metro Council would like to get out of the rule, but was not a substantive change from what the MPAC subcommittee had recommended.

Mr. Benner said there had been discussion at MPAC subcommittee on this, which he recapped for the committee, but said it was up to this committee. After discussion, Councilor McLain suggested a notation or footnote being sent to LCDC on this, and Chair Park asked Councilor McLain to work with Mr. Benner to craft language to this effect for a comment on the Rule.

There was discussion on this and with Councilor Burkholder’s question answered, the amendment was withdrawn.

Recapping committee action, Chair Park said the only substantive change made was in Amendment 2. The LCDC Subcommittee’s next meeting, he said, was August 7^th; the full Commission would meet August 22 and again August 25^th. Councilor Hosticka said he had hoped the Metro Council could forward the above amendment/comments, under his signature for the council and Chair Park’s signature for the committee, to

the LCDC Subcommittee for consideration at their August 7^th meeting. Chair Park and the committee agreed. To be included in the letter would be the draft language the council felt appropriate as proposed in Amendment 2 (above), and a request for appropriate language for the criterion in subsection (4) of 660-026-0025, submitting the draft language as discussed in Amendment 3, above. This letter would be Metro’s response to people who want to know why Metro wanted a Rule, he said. Chair Park invited a motion.

Mr. Benner asked if the committee’s intent was to say in the letter that MPAC’s recommendation was fine with the change as moved. Chair Park thanked him for the clarification and said it was.

Councilor Burkholder addressed himself to the City of Portland, and said this was not exclusive of other strategies, and he said the Regional Framework Plan would need to be revisited as well if this Rule were approved. He said he wanted to assure Portland that the goal of the Metro Council was to create better communities, and this was a tool they could choose to use or not to achieve that.

Chair Park said he thought this Rule was needed, and that it was better to do it in a proactive sense and be driven by policy rather than lawsuits. There was no guarantee, assuming subregions were defined, that it would actually end in an allocation of land on a subregional basis, so by voting on it he said he was not presupposing UGB expansion in certain areas or no expansion in other areas, but that by giving Metro the tool to be able to define the problem, if there were a problem, this allowed them to have that discussion as a region. Ducking a problem or the perception of a problem, he said, did not make it go away.

3.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Chair Park relayed a requested from Laura Oppenheimer of The Oregonian asking each councilor to call her at his/her convenience regarding the UGB. Councilor Burkholder reminded the committee of the issue of notification regarding Ballot Measure 2629, which passed in the May election. He said the voters said they would like more notification to a broader set of the population on UGB decisions. Although the provisions don’t actually take effect until May 2003, Metro could take this opportunity to implement part of that increased notification without major amounts of new resources and within a reasonable budget. The purpose would be to notify people who live within 500’ of the proposed UGB (although 2620 calls for one mile), which would add another 100,000 people and approximately $30,000 in postage. This is a good way for Metro to start fulfilling this obligation early, it would give more public notice and more public participation on the UGB decision. Councilor Hosticka added that people who live inside the UGB are as impacted as those without, so he thought the more notice given, the better. Councilor McLain said Metro needed to get some credit for complying with the notice requirement early.

Councilor McLain said she was expecting a good turnout at the Natural Resources Committee Wednesday, July 31^st, at 6 o’clock. The committee would be discussing the wildlife mapping and habitat issues.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 30, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS.

1.  Al Burns, Portland Bureau of Planning, 1900 SW 4^th Ave., Suite 4100, Portland, OR 97201.

2.  The Honorable John Leeper, Washington County Commissioner, 155 N. First, Hillsboro, OR 97124.

3.  Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3^rd Ave., Suite 300, Portland, RO 97202.