MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, July 2, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

4.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

3.  RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATES.

•  Transportation Committee. Councilor Burkholder reported two items of interest that came before the Transportation Committee earlier this day: 1.) the policy criteria for the next round of the allocation of Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) funds, and this would go to the July 9^th Council/Executive Officer Informal meeting as well; and 2.) the Transportation Committee gave direction to staff to send a letter with their comments to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) regarding how Special Transportation Areas (STAs) are designated.

•  JPACT. Councilor Monroe said JPACT would meet July 11^th and one of the issues for discussion would be the proposal the expansion of the Bi-State Transportation Committee into the Bi-State Coordinating Committee, giving it authority over land use decisions affected by the transportation decisions as the I-5 Task Force recommendations were implemented.

•  Natural Resources Committee and WRPAC. Councilor McLain addressed the upcoming Natural Resources Committee and the WRPAC reports simultaneously. She gave the upcoming meeting dates and said the items of primary focus would be 1.) the wildlife inventory, and the combined map of riparian and wildlife issues, and 2.) looking at the work of the Washington County/Tualatin Basin Group group.

4.  2040 POLICIES – POTENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN POLICY AMENDMENTS. Chair Park said Mr. Richard Benner, Senior Legal Counsel, said these might need to be addressed in the Functional Plan as Metro moved ahead in Periodic Review. Mary Weber, Community Planning Manager, set the context for this agenda item as well as agenda items 5, 6 and 7, by saying staff had prepared a list of all the products that will come before the committee on August 1^st. This list was distributed (Periodic Review of the UGB Executive Officer Recommendation and Support Documents, and made a part of this record). It was designed so the councilors would have the maximum amount of flexibility in mixing and matching them in their review. The work products were also accessible to the citizenry and were written in easily understandable language. Ms. Weber spoke of each work product on the list, its status and what would be required of staff/committee/council.

There were questions and a short discussion, and Ms. Weber assured the committee that they would not adopt this document, but the policies. Mr. Cooper added that each product on this list did not require a separate action by the council, but they were items the council would look at as pieces of their decision. Chair Park said Mr. Gerry Uba’s work on the Performance Analysis would be upcoming in the next month or two, and that could be considered along with these.

Sherry Oeser, Regional Planning Manager, reviewed for the committee an updated version of the memo in the agenda packet, dated July 2, 2002, (distributed and made a part of this record). She emphasized the second paragraph on the first page, saying the real issues were what policies needed to be changed to support the council’s decision on the UGB. The intent of this briefing was for the committee to look at and talk about some of the policy issues, she said.

Councilor Burkholder said he’d like to see a tax policy added. Regarding the industrial area policies, Ms. Oeser referred the committee to the memo to Andy Cotugno from Marci LaBerge, which was attached to the document she was addressing.

Councilor McLain had two comments for staff: 1.) she asked if they had studied the effects of “big box” retail as she had heard many comments about these in the UGB workshops, and 2.) she said she didn’t see how the protection issues of industrial land were a great idea, but she said she didn’t think that answered the need for space for churches, schools, and other issues. Councilor McLain said she would like to see staff respond to these. Lastly, she said she would tag her concerns about the illogical boundary work onto the section on revising annexation procedures for quasi-judicial and legislative amendments (Code) on p. 7. There were annexation issues, she said, and there were also UGB issues as well as jurisdictional issues. Chair Park commented that Councilor Burkholder had raised an issue previously, outside committee, regarding government infrastructure in Centers. This prompted a discussion of the committee on Councilor McLain’s and Councilor Burkholder’s issues. Chair Park commented that he didn’t know how much of this the council would have to accomplish until they saw the Executive Officer’s recommendation in August, and that these had to go through the subcommittee structure, as well.

The issue of expanding the UGB on exception land outside Metro’s jurisdiction was raised, and after some discussion Dan Cooper, Legal Counsel, recommended sitting down with the three counties, entering into urban planning agreements that would provide for the counties to recognize that moving the UGB was just the first step toward urbanization, and until the land was both planned in accordance with Functional Plan requirements and Title 11, and annexed to Metro, then the prohibition against subdivision into small parcels would continue to apply. If this were done, he said, Metro would have a coherent way to make sure things proceeded logically. Absent those agreements with the counties, Metro would want some statutory changes before they did something like that. This was discussed in more detail. The committee agreed that these discussions/agreements needed to take place.

Chair Park, hearing no objection from the committee, instructed staff to continue to flesh out the particulars of what to do with the land coming into the UGB, and to work with legal counsel, and he asked the councilors to tell him or Mr. Morrissey if they had anything else to add. He said he was sure other issues would surface, but that this was a good start, especially on Centers. Ms. Oeser said she had Councilor Burkholder’s list of requests regarding Periodic Review (not distributed to the committee, but included in this record) and staff would look at it, and put it in this document and/or respond to it. Chair Park thanked Ms. Weber and Ms. Oeser for their work.

5.  UGB – SCHOOL DISTRICT APPLICATIONS. Ms. Weber, in Ms. Bernards’ absence, reviewed the staff report in the agenda material for the committee. Basically, she said, the two school districts, Beaverton and West Linn-Wilsonville, have met the criteria for inclusion and staff was recommending that they be brought into the UGB.

Councilor McLain asked about the Hillsboro School District and Ms. Weber said they had not submitted an application. Councilor McLain asked if Ms. Weber would check and report to her on what that School District was doing. Councilor Hosticka asked about the Sherwood School District, and Ms. Weber said she didn’t know if that was a large enough school district to comply.

Councilor Monroe added that school siting was important and was something Metro needed to be involved in. He said he hoped as the region moved toward more efficient use of all land that the school districts could be convinced to break out of the old mold of 10 acres for an elementary school, 20 acres for middle school, and 50 acres for a high school, which was the guideline in the past for the building sprawling one-story buildings with maximum amounts of parking, etc. Metro, in its decision making, should encourage school districts that they need to make decisions to make more efficient use of land, as does everyone else within the UGB.

Councilor Burkholder agreed, and he asked where Metro could weigh in on this. He mentioned an elementary school for 600 children in his neighborhood that was on two acres. He suggested land efficiency was an ambitious concept and asked the councilors to give it some thought.

Councilor Bragdon said one of the ways Metro had participated in the last six months was in meetings Mr. Cotugno had attended with facilities people from Beaverton and Hillsboro where they talked about design issues and rethinking the standard assumptions because they don’t apply anymore. They explored the idea of two- to three-story buildings, of sharing facilities with parks, etc., and things that were similar to the way of making Centers work. He encouraged getting out and talking to people, coaching them to think different thoughts. Chair Park thanked Ms. Weber.

6.  UGB – TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. Ms. Weber agreed with Councilor McLain’s past and current comments that there were illogical edges to the UGB and that it was particularly messy in Washington County, and she said this resolution was to clean some of those up. Ms. Weber spoke to the packet material (a draft ordinance) and spoke of a map, although there was no reference map in the packet material. Ms. Weber said this resolution did not address Councilor McLain’s concern of a property being within the UGB but outside the Metro jurisdictional boundary, that staff could not fix those.

Councilor McLain gave examples of subdivisions and property where she thought the boundary should be changed, and there was discussion on how changes could be made. Mr. Cooper, responding to comments from Councilor McLain, said some of the boundary changes she requested were not easy to accomplish, and in some cases, if the property owner did not initiate that process, the law was very cumbersome to force them to come in over their objection. This was discussed in more detail. Councilor McLain offered to go out to speak to the property owners with a petition and explain it to them in order to take care of the past mistakes on the UGB. She and Chair Park asked Ms. Weber to provide them with maps so they could see exactly where these boundaries were. Councilor McLain asked if better legends could be provided on the maps. Chair Park said he believed there was agreement that this council did not want to create any more illogical boundaries, and asked staff to bring this back, with the fixes, in final form. Chair Park thanked Ms. Weber.

7.  ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS RESULTS. Ms. Weber spoke first, explaining the work product for the committee which was a table titled Preliminary Goal 14 Alternatives Analysis Summary – Tier 1 (distributed and made a part of this record). She explained the information provided by the consultant and the staff portion (the ESEE analysis and the agricultural compatibility analysis). Mr. Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, then went into detail about the information, reminding the committee that they approved the methodology for this a few months back. He explained each column and answered the councilor’s questions.

There was discussion of the high/medium/low ratings and the committee asked if these could be changed to read consistently as well as explained. In the Metro Policies section, the committee also asked if the Yes/No answers could be explained (those on the draft were for example only). Councilor Hosticka commented on the selection of criteria for these columns, and said in the absence of a better argument, he thought Mr. Uba’s list of 2040 Performance Measures with its list of seven or eight fundamentals would be the in columns so the reader could see if that property contributed to the 2040 fundamentals or not. This would maintain consistency in the planning process, he said, and would help with the ranking. Chair Park agreed.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with Councilor Hosticka’s point on how to choose which elements. He asked if property owners had seen this yet or when they could, and Ms. Weber said they had not. After the draft was complete, later this month, she said, it would be available. Regarding policy, she said they needed to do a better job of identifying what encompasses a compact urban form, and asked if the committee wanted staff to put all seven of the functional plan performance measure factors in, and she reminded the committee that these were factors, not criteria.

The consensus of the committee was that it was important for each of the areas trying to fit in the urban form and, all lands being equal, these factors should be here so the council can look at them, and yes, they should be stated in a form that could track from one project or document to another. It was important for consistency, using the same foundation in a logical way that people can understand. Councilor McLain suggested using Goal 14 Criteria for the first part and Metro Factors for the second part to help the councilors do their prioritizing. Chair Park agreed.

Chair Park asked staff to come back with the next iteration of this, and he asked the committee to please give any other input to Mr. Morrissey who would pass it on to staff. He also asked staff to look at the 2040 fundamentals which could logically be grouped under Centers, Urban Form, or something else to see if that helped. Rather than having additional columns, he hoped it possible to have fewer. He thanked staff for their work.

8.  PERIODIC REVIEW MEETINGS CALENDAR. A month-by-month calendar of all Periodic Review meetings/hearings/open houses/workshops was distributed (and is made a part of this record). Chair Park thanked staff for compiling it, at the committee’s request, and Mr. Morrissey reviewed it with the committee. He suggested they may want to discuss the number of hearings and open houses scheduled in October, and pointed out the December 5^th decision date, with the back-up date of December 12^th. This calendar did not break out any parts of the package, he said, and it was very likely bite sized pieces may be separated out. After Mr. Burton’s recommendation came out August 1^st, there would be a discussion at MPAC to see how to schedule it through their calendar in the fall.

Councilor McLain said she thought two more open houses should be conducted in October, because she’d heard comments from people in Beaverton and Oregon City that they don’t live in Forest Grove, Hillsboro or Gresham. Chair Park said he thought that request could be accommodated, and he noted that the Council/Executive Officer Informal on October 22^nd would possibly need to be rescheduled. He said there were dates in reserve for an additional Damascus area hearing, depending on how the first one went. He pointed out that the October 1^st meetings were all scheduled for one hour earlier than usual. Councilor Hosticka said the decision needed to be completed by December 12^th, or the Community Planning Committee would need to meet on December 24^th and the Council on December 26^th.

Councilor Burkholder expressed concern that even though three of the seven Metro districts were in the City of Portland, there was only one hearing/open house scheduled in Portland and that was at Metro. He said Metro should have hearings and open houses in each district. Chair Park said time would be set aside at each Community Planning Committee meeting for citizens to present their opinions, but Councilor Burkholder said there was the geographic issue to consider and that the Metro location was not necessarily convenient to citizens in St. Johns, as an example. He asked that more thought be given to this, and said he felt the Executive Office’s outreach did not reach out to everyone who lived in the Metro district but focused more on the edges. Everyone in the region has a stake in the Urban Growth Boundary, he said, and all are affected by it and he said he wanted to make sure they had the opportunity to speak. He asked the committee to rethink the current public outreach effort, and suggested that perhaps north Portland or the Hollywood library would be good geographically accessible locations for an open house and public hearing in his district. He said he wasn’t sure about Councilor Bragdon’s or Councilor Monroe’s districts, and asked if they would suggest locations for those areas.

There was a brief discussion on this, and Chair Park asked staff to look for some areas to add inner city open houses and hearings and to work with the appropriate councilors on those.

9.  UGB WORKSHOPS. Sherry Oeser gave her impressions of the workshops, from the back of the room at each, that Metro had held to date. So far, she said, about 800 people had attended the four workshops, the most people at Damascus (250), and Hillsboro with the lowest (150). She explained briefly the format of how each was given, and said her experience from the back of the rooms was different in that when the people looked at the maps, most of them said the did want to come into the urban growth boundary. Staff quickly reviewed the 309 surveys taken in, and they looked at Question 3, whether or not the property owner thought it appropriate that their property be brought into the UGB – so far, Ms. Oeser reported, there had been 196 responses to that question: 47% said yes, 43% said no, and 10% were not sure. To compare, she said, just from the Damascus responses, 48% said no, 31% said yes, 8% said not sure, and 13% no answer. On Question 6, whether or not they favored expansion into high quality farm land for housing or jobs, 290 people responded: 27% said yes, 58% said no, and 15% said not sure.

There was one more workshop scheduled July 11^th, she said, at Metro, at 5:30 p.m. After the workshops are done, the surveys will be taken in until 5 o’clock on Monday, July 15^th. Staff will compile the results after that. Councilor McLain shared her thoughts on the three workshops she had attended, and said the questioning period and the map room at these were enjoyable because there was the opportunity to talk one-to-one with the citizens. She said she liked the Wilsonville meeting where Mr. Cotugno asked the people to wait until he’d finished the introduction, and she said that seemed to work better. She said she thought it also important to do other outreach functions such as resurrecting the Speakers’ Bureau, which Mike Hoglund and Sherry Oeser recently brought up. Councilor Park thanked staff for their work and said he was eager to see the results of the surveys.

10.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Councilor Hosticka reminded the committee that there would be no Council meeting on Independence day, July 4^th, and alerted the councilors to an issue that had come up regarding a culvert on Bell Road adjacent to the Wilsonville Tract. He said he believed Mr. Ciecko, Regional Parks and Greenspaces Director, would be briefing the councilors on this. The culvert drains a stream that is failing. The City of Wilsonville had planned to replace that culvert in October, but now wanted to move the construction schedule up to next week. The work on that culvert would affect land that Metro owns in order to replace the road crossing, and he said at some point Metro would probably need to grant a formal easement for the long-term affect. The issue today was whether or not Metro was comfortable letting Wilsonville start working on it without a formal action of the Metro Council. He said he was asking the councilors to discuss this with Mr. Ciecko and let him know if they had any overriding concerns. In the absence of those, he would take it upon himself to tell Wilsonville to go ahead, and then have a formal easement granted to the City of Wilsonville for any long-term effects. There would need to be quick communication on this, he said, and added that it would benefit Metro’s property in that the improvement would allow the fish to get into the creek on the Metro property, and would improve the entire drainage of that creek. Chair Park added that Wilsonville was in Title 3 and Goal 5 compliance.

Chair Park said the MPAC subregional committee had met the previous evening, and had a good discussion. The next meeting with the LCDC subcommittee and the MPAC subcommittee was scheduled for July 23^rd. Councilor Burkholder said the Budget and Finance Committee would meet July 10^th, and the committee would be reviewing the assumptions that would go into the FY 2003-04 budget manual. These would be the assumptions that the departments would use to build their budgets for that fiscal year.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:11 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 2, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.