MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, August 6, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Rex Burkholder and Carl Hosticka were excused.

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

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 30, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

2a.  PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO LCDC REGARDING THE SUBREGIONAL RULE. Chair Park explained the short timeline for comment to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), and asked Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, to speak to the committee regarding the new proposed language. Mr. Benner said when this committee last discussed this they looked at proposed language in Section 0025(4), the subsection that would be one of measuring sticks LCDC would use to review a subregional allocation by Metro. There were two ideas on the table discussed as part of that measuring stick, that Metro would have to demonstrate that by doing subregional allocation they would end up with a more efficient form than by not doing subregional, and that Metro would end up with a more orderly and efficient transition from nonurban to urban land use. When the councilors discussed those two ideas, they weren’t completely enchanted by either one of them, Mr. Benner said, so in their letter to the LCDC Subcommittee they expressed that and asked the agency to continue to think about those words and see if a better term could come up. In the meantime, Mr. Benner said, he drafted the language presented today (a copy was distributed and is included as part of this record) and said this could be a substitute for either one of those. It would not be “more efficient form,” it would not be a “more orderly and efficient transition from non-urban to urban land use,” it would instead say Metro would have to demonstrate that “. . . the allocation of regional need to one or more subregions will achieve a greater efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area as a whole than would be achieved without subregional allocation.”

That language essentially was a paraphrase of Factor 4 of Goal 14, with the emphasis on efficiency of land use.

Councilor Atherton said he thought the committee had talked about efficiency not only of land use but of transportation investment and asked Mr. Benner if that was included in this. Mr. Benner said he believed it was included and that he thought it would be measured in part by how the transportation system supported the land uses that were chosen, and the reverse.

Regarding the new language “achieve a greater efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe,” Councilor McLain said that seemed to her to give more specificity to what the council was trying to achieve. She asked Mr. Benner what he thought the biggest difference was between the new and old language as far as specificity. Mr. Benner said several members of the committee had commented that they didn’t like the transition concept because they wanted the focus to be on the end product, and he said he felt that was the big difference between that formulation and this one.

Councilor Monroe said he thought it was much cleaner and explained exactly what the Metro Council was trying to accomplish. He thanked Mr. Benner for his work and Chair Park for allowing this matter to be heard early so that he could participate.

3.  EXECUTIVE OFFICER PERIODIC REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS. Regarding Mr. Burton’s recommendation on the Urban Growth Boundary, Chair Park said there had been calls from people wanting to testify. He said public hearings were scheduled for October, and written comments would be accepted now. The reason he said he may entertain testimony in committee at a later time rather than now was that the recommendation had just been given to the council and they needed to have time to do their work on it first.

Mr. Burton said the council had all heard his presentation last week and he didn’t want to repeat it, but rather stress that the process that would take place between now and December was required by state law. He said he hoped the council would keep in mind the larger context of the decisions that would have to be made as the region began to address the question of its future economic and ecological well being for the next 50 or 100 years. Mr. Burton said he wanted to stress that the councilors would probably want to address as much what was left out of his recommendation as what was in it. There were areas of exception lands that were looked at that were not included in it for reasons that revolve as much around policy as the technical interest of those areas. There were certain lands he thought could arguably be included for different purposes once the councilors had time to review the provided information, he said. Another comment he made was on the question of urban reserves.

Mr. Burton said it wasn’t a decision the councilors would have to make in this process but that he thought perhaps he wasn’t clear in his recommendation – his perception was that urban reserves were potentially a tool for Metro to use to take a bigger look at things. If he had his druthers, he said, Metro would be planning for the entire watersheds outside our area to really look at how to develop and preserve the areas around us. The tools available were limited. One was intergovernmental agreements (IGA) with the surrounding counties, and he encouraged the council to move in that direction and he included Clark County, Washington, and the counties to the south. Another tool was to look at urban reserves as a way to do long-range planning. With the environmental sensitivities and sensibilities that this region has developed, urban form has been redefined and development will be designed differently; urbanization is as much to protect natural resource land and design separate and different types of communities. He encouraged the council to consider those tools.

Mr. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, walked the committee through the three notebook binders (a copy of each is made a part of this record). He said he would direct the committee’s attention to portions of the material, some of which had been discussed previously, and other areas where decisions would need to be made. He said he hoped to help the councilors focus on the areas that were still in front of them. Starting with Notebook 1, he noted the Study Area and EO Recommendation Maps section, which included a summary of the Alternatives Analysis. The next section contained the complete Alternatives Analysis, which had the write-up on the Goal 14 factors that needed to be evaluated for every study area as well as the foldout summary matrix. He cautioned them that this was a purely Goal 14 analysis, not a Metro policies analysis. The Goal 14 findings could be supplemented with Metro’s findings, which was the next document, Applying Metro Policies to Exception Lands. The following were the remaining tabs in Notebook 1: UGR Residential, UGR Employment, Refinement Report Policy Recommendations, and Miscellaneous.

Mr. Cotugno said the rest of the document explained the basis for all the calculations used in the UGR table (in the UGR Residential section). The UGR Employment section provided much more in-depth information than was provided previously, he said, and included descriptions on the variations of the level of need. The employment side raises a lot of questions, he said, but this was a good foundation from which to work.

In the 2040 Refinement Report Policy Recommendations staff proposed a series of policy recommendations: 1) to implement and include in the Regional Framework Plan the recommendation of the Centers strategy, 2) a proposal for industrial land preservation, 3) dwelling unit and job targets, and 4) Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Areas with unique conditions. Mr. Cotugno said there were issues related to both Urban Growth Reports that could cause them to debate some of the factors that would cause some of the numbers to go up or down, but he said he thought the foundation was there to entertain the debate.

Councilor McLain (referring to p. 42-43 in Notebook 1, Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Areas) said she did not see any information on the split message Metro had been getting for close to five years from Sherwood property owners regarding the condensed/compact urban form, and another message, again being received over the past few years, regarding the Stafford Triangle and the suitability of certain parts of that area, exception land, that could be embraced as industrial or something similar. She said she didn’t know how Chair Park wanted to handle those, but said those two areas were something she’d like to know more about.

Mr. Burton said he would be happy to provide additional information. There were letters on record from West Linn and Lake Oswego regarding Stafford, and he said there were some areas there that actually were exception lands and that would enhance the community center that was in West Linn, but the jurisdiction didn’t want it. The overall question would have to be, he added, whether or not there was an overall plan for all of the Stafford Basin. Area 42 (along Borland Road) was exception land that could be potentially an industrial area, but Tualatin was not on record so he said he couldn’t say anything about that. He suggested Tualatin be invited to come in to talk about their plans, which would affect the Upland area. Regarding Lake Oswego, Mr. Burton said he thought their priority was focusing somewhere else. He said he thought Councilor McLain’s concerns needed to be sorted out, but that he could certainly bring back more information.

Councilor McLain said whether the jurisdiction wanted it and whether the land was serviceable were two different questions. She said she would read the notebooks to see if these areas were serviceable and met the state’s guidelines, as she needed to explain to the people who were calling her why their properties were not included. Mr. Burton again recommended she talk with the City of Tualatin regarding the Stafford area as Metro staff couldn’t know what Tualatin’s plans were, and he said his staff would provide her with the serviceability factors. Chair Park said one of the concepts that needed to be strengthened was which of the pieces of property would either strengthen or help create a new Center. That may be one of the pieces Councilor McLain was looking for, he said, by way of explanation. Mr. Cotugno added that the two areas under discussion were not called out as proposed for inclusion so they were not included in this recommendation. The Policy document explained that the Sherwood area, on the south side, was not recommended because Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan doesn’t coordinate the UGB decision with a new road alignment and there was no road alignment, so it would be held off until there was one.

Mr. Burton said any others the councilors wished to call out could be explained, as well. Councilor McLain said Mr. Cotugno’s explanation was a good example but that there were differences of condition already because of where the road was right now, so the whole area was not in the same circumstance. This was why she was asking about this area. Mr. Burton said once more that it would be good to contact the City of Tualatin but that he thought she was correct on the road alignment.

Chair Park said people were asking how certain areas were picked for housing or jobs, because the mapping did not show where those areas were, and he asked for an explanation. Mr. Burton said factors were lot size, aggregate size, relationship to road/rail factors, existing housing as well as existing zoning, etc. Chair Park said that when the concept planning was actually done, adjustments could be made, and he used Pleasant Valley as an example. Adjustments were allowable within the current law, he added, and Mr. Burton agreed that the first step in urbanization was to go to concept planning.

Councilor McLain, regarding a request from the City of Forest Grove for a trade-out of land, asked if that request and Mr. Benner’s and staff’s response to that was included in the information provided to the councilors, and if not she said it was important to show responsiveness to specific requests such as this. Mr. Cotugno said he would find out. Councilor McLain said there should also be an executive summary that showed specific requests and responses, and Mr. Burton agreed that that was a good idea and he would provide that. There was more discussion on Forest Grove’s request, and Councilor McLain said she would like to see Metro’s response to it in the record. She then said the City of Cornelius had also made a request for a small piece of industrial land and mentioned two separate requests over the past few years, one contiguous to the UGB and one not. She said she wanted to make sure that, if Metro had actually received letters from different staff at different times, that both were responded to and made part of the record.

Mr. Cotugno said the two key actions in this report were the UGB amendments themselves and the policy section, which dealt with the Functional Plan amendments as well as condition.

Councilor McLain said Commissioner Leeper of Washington County had made requests at two meetings she had attended over the past two weeks that each jurisdiction within Washington County put together their request for what they needed for industrial areas. When those requests come to the Metro Council, she said, it seemed to her that they needed to be responded to on a technical level first, prior to on the Council level, so that they could be reviewed in this body of work. She wanted to make sure staff was prepared to do that as she thought those requests would come in over the new few months and the process needed to be in place, and asked how that would be handled.

Mr. Burton said he and Chair Park had discussed the whole process, and he agreed that this was critical in what the Council would consider overall. He said these questions had prompted him to recommend bus tours to Washington County and east Multnomah County of the recommended inclusion areas so that the jurisdictions could see what the other jurisdictions were requesting. This would better help everyone see what the effect of the decisions would be 25 years down the road.

Mr. Burton closed by saying he welcomed any input the councilors would like to share. There was a discussion, prompted by Councilor Atherton, on the population forecast in the recommendation and its source.

Councilor Bragdon suggested a question to ask the jurisdictions who make special requests would be how their request fit the objectives of the region as a whole or how it made for better urban form. Regarding industrial land, he said another question would be about their industrial sanctuary policies, etc. Metro should signal to the jurisdictions that these would be the sorts of questions that would be raised. Mr. Burton said this was helpful, it was what he needed to let the jurisdictions know, and that he’d make sure to get those answers.

Councilor McLain agreed with Councilor Bragdon, adding that if a jurisdiction had more than one plan they should be asked how they would deal with a conflicting need of two industries in the same area.

The discussion then focused on areas of the recommendation where the committee asked for clarification or made suggestions.

4.  PERIODIC REVIEW – NEXT STEPS – COMMITTEE/COUNCIL.

Mr. Burton called attention to p. 14-15 of Notebook 1, and the follow-up tasks in his recommendation, and he reviewed these for the committee. Regarding his recommendation on Revenue Sharing, he said he thought it would be useful to begin having discussions on that. Councilor McLain pointed out that some of the listed tasks may be work programs and some may be findings, and she said she did not want these included in this, specifically a greenspaces bond measure, adoption of a Goal 5 program, and revenue sharing. Mr. Burton said he thought the subregional analysis needed to be taken into account, but he guessed that the ruling from LCDC would not come until possibly October and could be accounted for at a later time, as could Goal 5.

Councilor Bragdon said he reserved judgment on whether these were all periodic review tasks and said he thought not. The greenspaces bond measure was also about the shortfall at the neighborhood level of neighborhood parks, and not just large-scale natural areas that Metro specializes in, that many jurisdictions were facing that locally and Metro needed to help them work on it. On revenue sharing, he said he thought it important that that be looked at in part because of the land-use concept (which wasn’t mentioned in the recommendation) to make sure those decisions were not being distorted by fiscal concerns. That connection needed to be made, he said. Mr. Burton agreed, and he urged the committee, as they make their decisions, to think about the larger context questions because whatever they do this year would have implications 20-30 years out. This was a projected 20-year land supply, he reminded them, not what would be needed just tomorrow. Mr. Cotugno added that at some point this fall an amendment to Metro’s Periodic Review work order would be needed if we want to add any of these tasks as a next task. At that point in time, the specific things included in Periodic Review need to be taken into account, and need to be asked for. Mr. Burton suggested the next task would be finding a balance on the industrial land count.

Chair Park said that intrinsic in this recommendation but not called out was a regional economic development strategy. Mr. Burton said the Metro Charter does not address this, but he thought the committee would want to consider those factors, as they were inherent. Metro is responsible for the many things that add up to that, and the question here was do you make these land use decisions in consideration of a strategy that would account for the existing economy, a significant part of which is horticulture, and does it assure the sustainability of that particular industry and other industries. He said he thought the committee would want to consider those factors, but at issue here at Metro was the regional forum, and Metro should become the facilitators of that discussion.

Chair Park said we could have all the elements of what it takes to have a strong economy, but if we put things in the wrong places, the elements and players are present but you won’t come out ahead if they’re in the wrong place. He said he wanted to bring that to the discussion.

At this time Councilor Monroe, leaving for Vancouver, Washington, to attend the board meeting of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, reminded the committee that there was a new breed of leaders over there who were trying to get a handle on their land use decision making. They’d set a goal of 1.5% annual growth instead of 3%, and they were also trying to do something to try to control the rapid urban sprawl in Clark County, as well as learn from some of the decisions made on this side of the river. If Metro doesn’t do their job right, Councilor Monroe said, if housing opportunities for people aren’t provided near their work, it would be like squeezing a balloon. In this region, the bulge was in Clark County, he said, which exacerbated not only their problem but this region’s to meet the transportation needs as people commute further and further to their jobs. Metro needed to keep in mind the opportunities to put jobs where they’re needed and to put housing where it’s needed, and that this be done very thoughtfully. It will be a difficult call and a difficult process, but he expressed confidence in Metro staff and the council that the right decisions would be made.

Mr. Burton pointed out the Refinement Report Policy Recommendations section of his recommendation that addressed the bi-state issues, and agreed with Councilor Monroe that these be carefully considered and that they need to be considered beyond the transportation needs. Councilor Bragdon said he thought the most important issue was the industrial landscape.

Chair Park added that Mr. Burton was correct that strategies needed to be laid out, and said he thought there should be two parallel tasks, one with and one without subregional. This was discussed in more detail.

[Here the recording tape malfunctioned and approximately 5-10 minutes of discussion was not recorded.)

Mr. Cotugno said a basic point was that a lot had changed in the past ten years, and if Metro was going to do major changes in how land use decisions were made, there needed to be a tie to an economic development strategy for the region. Mr. Burton suggested the council, amongst themselves, define what they mean by industrial because many people use the term industrial when they mean something else. Councilor Bragdon said there were a series of interlocking strategies, and the council’s role was to make sure it was plugged in to them.

Chair Park concluded this discussion, saying it would be a continued fascinating discussion over the new few months.

4a.  LOBBYIST REGISTRATION. Mr. Dan Cooper, General Counsel, reminded the councilors of a Metro ordinance of several years ago that said people who were lobbying at Metro needed to register as such, and that there was a record kept of who they and their client(s) were. A lobbyist is someone who is paid to talk to the council about a matter, he said, and this tied into ethical requirements of the council. Councilors are prohibited from any form of entertainment furnished by a lobbyist, he said, and there were dollar amounts specified to what they can receive. These rules are unique to Metro, and were adopted by the Council. Mr. Cooper added that the latest list of registered lobbyists was provided the previous day to the councilors and the council staff.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Chair Park announced the contact options for anyone interested in sending information to the council or contacting them regarding the UGB decisions (e-mail: [email protected] or hot line 503-797-1839).

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.