MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, September 3, 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 2:06 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 6, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

3.  Periodic Review, Urban Growth Boundary. Chair Park thanked Mr. Cotugno and his staff as well as this committee for reaching this point in the process. It was the last lap, he said, and the sprint was just beginning. He then called the committee’s attention to the Periodic Review UGB Meetings Calendar (distributed and made a part of this record) that listed the tasks and deadlines which would be discussed in more detail later in the meeting.

•  Approach/Framework for Decision Making.

o  2040 Fundamentals

o  Executive Officer’s Reports and Recommendation as Framework

o  Functional Plan Updates.

The approach being taken, Mr. Cotugno said, was that this schedule had been designed around an expectation that there would be a committee conclusion in November and a council conclusion in December. Therefore the bulk of the public outreach and hearings were scheduled in October, and MPAC had begun their review and were scheduled to submit their recommendation to council October 23^rd.

On the framework for decision making, he said he thought it important to remember that there were a series of pieces to the overall decision. Somewhere along the line the council would need to adopt the overall forecast, then decide what need that constituted, what portion of that forecast was satisfied in the current UGB vs. what was needed through expansion. The need number needed to be nailed down first before the “where” side of the equation could be addressed. Associated with the capacity of the existing UGB was a series of policy recommendations, he said. There was proposed Framework Plan language included in the Executive Officer’s recommendation dealing with Centers and with industrial lands and the council’s decision on whether or not those were adopted in their proposed form or some altered form would affect the overall capacity in the UGB as those two were linked. This was not just a technical exercise of how much capacity there was but also a policy exercise of how that land was used. Also in the recommendation were two other things that affect capacity, and there was proposed Framework Plan language in those, as well. One was the Table 1, Title I population targets that were set last time for local governments – that affect capacity – and the implementation of Ballot Measure 26-29 requirements which in turn also affects capacity for that part of the UGB. All of those things are Framework Plan policy language changes that ultimately trickle down into the capacity of the existing UGB.

The next major piece is the UGB itself. If there are proposals to amend the Executive Officer’s recommendation, those will have to be dealt with as well within the framework of both state law and Metro’s own policies, he said. In addition to the obvious major areas of expansion that are called for in the Executive Officer’s report, there was also included some of the technical amendments so those were accounted for, as well, and they would need to be explicitly picked up in an ordinance to amend the UGB. They are fairly small but are more of the clean-up issues around the edge.

Some of the proposed UGB amendments were in areas outside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary so that meant there was an issue of the timing of Metro’s annexation vs. the timing of the UGB amendments. There was a proposal included for Code amendments to handle that.

Finally, Mr. Cotugno said, the last piece of the overall package was a proposal for a task to include in an amended Periodic Review Work Order, which Metro needed to formally request of the Land Conservation Development Commission (LCDC), what task would Metro carry over into the next round. This would be discussed as Agenda Item 4, he said, but added that this was a discreet piece of the overall recommendation, as well.

This series of pieces provided the framework for the overall package that would ultimately get adopted. The numbers of the overall forecast, also the need analysis of the existing UGB vs. the amount that was needed for expansion, the policy changes that affect the capacity of the UGB and then the boundary amendments themselves.

Chair Park said at some point the council would need to certify the population number as the driver, but the policy questions of where Metro wanted to go was what needed to be reaffirmed. Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Cotugno to explain the Periodic Review Work Order he mentioned.

Councilor McLain said Metro was dealing with two different audiences on this and asked that staff provide a clean, crisp, clear and simple message for the public. She said she didn’t think the material she’d received up to this point said Metro was ready to deal with the public, and she gave examples. People want to know why Metro was doing this and it needed to be answered in lay terms. Also, she said, Metro needed to do a better job describing “technical” and “clean-up” regarding the technical amendments as well as explain why certain legislative amendments were chosen. A term other than “alternative analysis” needed to be used, she added, because people didn’t know what it meant. Cleaning up Metro’s Code language and related documents was something the public didn’t really care about, Councilor McLain said, so she suggested the material be less complicated and more lay oriented. Regarding the changes to be made to the Code or the Regional Framework Plan, she said people would not understand that unless it was clearly laid out. Recommitting to the 2040 Fundamentals was something she thought this committee did not want to get into, and she asked where the Chair and the committee stood on that.

Chair Park said he was not looking to change direction at this point, but to acknowledge and reaffirm the direction the committee and the council had set out and were currently taking. Mr. Cotugno added that the set of decisions before the committee and council and the extent to which they move this toward 2040 was really what was in question. It was not about revisiting or requestioning or taking a new path, but making sure that this set of decisions actually moved toward 2040. If there were going to be amendments to the Executive Officer’s recommendation, he said, the first thing to do was to make sure those amendments were consistent with state law and with Metro’s objectives of implementing 2040. If a councilor wanted to suggest replacing part of the Executive Officer’s recommendation with something else, the test would be if that brought it closer to the 2040 vision.

Michael Morrissey added that in a previous discussion on the approach and framework, this committee had said it was to be not only for decision making but also for educating the public on the 2040 effort. Councilor McLain said she just wanted everything to make sense to a wide variety of people and asked that Metro not make it more technical.

Councilor Hosticka prompted a brief discussion on the amendments the councilors may propose and the possible ripple effect these could cause in the schedule. Chair Park pointed out the key dates on the UGB Meetings Calendar (distributed and made a part of this record), and told the committee how many public notice brochures were sent (Mr. Donovan would address this in more detail later in the meeting) and to whom. Mr. Cooper, General Counsel, responding to a question, said any land that had not been studied and that a councilor may wish to include in the UGB was the basis for the October 1^st deadline in order for legal notification to be sent. The evidence of the property required, in order to adopt these new parcels, would depend on the property being considered, he said, which requirement had not changed and the reason for the deadline was that it would be very difficult to consider any property that had not received notice. Chair Park said November 5^th would be the final deadline for councilor’s amendments.

Councilor Monroe brought up the 20-year land supply requirement, and Mr. Cooper clarified that the state statute said “a 20-year land supply,” which had been interpreted to “about” 20 years, and which meant close to 20 years. Councilor Monroe then asked if the 20-year land supply was not achieved when the council voted on the expansion, was requesting an extension not also an option. Chair Park said that was a potential.

Councilor Burkholder asked about the timeline of amendments that would be needed in Metro documents (2040 Growth Policy, Regional Functional Plan, etc.) that would come out of the UGB expansion. Chair Park said he hoped these would be worked out ahead of time. Councilor McLain said the expansion package would be something the council had agreed to, with findings that would include the documents. Actually addressing those amendments would be a longer process, she added.

•  Key Issues. Mr. Cotugno said the Regional Framework Plan (RFP) was the first key issue, and he indicated the four areas covered in the Executive Officer’s recommendation: centers, industrial land (with a proposed new category with further restrictions and which will have an impact), Title 1, and Ballot Measure 26-29. He spoke to each of these in more detail.

Monroe wanted to know if the committee will vote on criteria before addressing the amendments, and Chair Park said hopefully, yes. Mr. Cooper said one ordinance, one package for the final work product was a good choice and he recommended that. But the procedural step of settling on the numbers before choosing areas was something the committee could work toward. The numbers were the first order of business, however, in order for the process to be orderly. Councilor McLain expressed concern about the process, and Chair Park said that by the time November 5^th arrived, the committee should know what numbers they wanted to support in order to move on to the specific pieces. Chair Park said he didn’t think the committee would want to settle on a final need number until after the October 29^th City of Portland public hearing.

Mr. Cotugno continued his briefing on the key issues.

•  Fall Schedule. Chair Park thanked Mr. Morrissey, Mrs. Barker, Ms. Weber and her staff for creating the Periodic Review UGB Meetings Calendar. Mr. Cotugno pointed out the MPAC deadlines on the calendar, and said they were targeted to finish by October 23^rd. Councilor Hosticka reminded everyone that this schedule was constructed by starting with the Dec. 5^th final decision date, and working backwards. Any slippage in the schedule meant each individual councilor would have to assess the effect of that in the schedule as well as everyone else’s. He said he hoped to avoid working on the holidays.

Councilor Burkholder added that he was trying to be aware of how busy this schedule was and that he was trying to direct staff to keep meetings very short for his two committees, Transportation and Budget and Finance. He recommended this same process to other committee chairs in order to reduce meeting times for both staff and councilors.

•  Outreach. John Donovan, Metro Council Communications Officer, distributed a copy of the Public Involvement Plan Outline (one page, and made a part of this record), which streamlined the UGB information. The goal of Metro’s public involvement staff was to reach not just property owners but the general public, he said, and it was critical that Metro do more than meet the bare minimum regarding notification. He then spoke to the outline. Next, Mr. Donovan informed the committee of the current UGB public hearing notice to the media and the public (a copy of the mailed brochure is included in this record). He thanked the Planning Department for helping to develop the mailer and for fielding the calls it generated. This was being sent to 103,000 people now and would continue to be sent as required.

Mr. Donovan asked the committee to let him know of any questions they might have that weren’t addressed in this meeting. He reiterated Metro’s Web site information and the means of communication that had been set up to assist and hear from the public. He encouraged the councilors to use their monthly newsletters to further the outreach effort on the UGB, and said five different public utilities had agreed to allow Metro either to use their newsletters or to insert a notice in the utility bills to the ratepayers. This would reach 114,000 notices in September, augmenting Metro’s mailing. Planning staff was working closely with the Communications Team and Mike Burton’s staff on the two tours Mr. Burton would be leading for the elected officials. Mr. Donovan added that the Communications Team was coordinating inviting representative elected officials to the public hearings, and he mentioned the teams that were working on the different elements of the outreach effort. He thanked the Planning Department for the effort in this project.

Councilor Monroe said Mr. Donovan, in his usual modesty, failed to announce his great success in convincing the board of realtors to help in the public relations campaign.

Councilor Bragdon asked about renters receiving notice, and Mr. Donovan said this was why the utilities had been approached for assistance. Councilor Burkholder said he would contact the City of Portland Commissioner in charge of the Portland Water Bureau to see if they could include notice in their billing statements, as well. Councilor Bragdon suggested perhaps the solid waste haulers could also be approached.

Councilor Hosticka cautioned that the council decision date (December 5) be accurately advertised so that there were no misconceptions. Responding to a question from Councilor Burkholder, Mr. Donovan said at this time there was no UGB material available in any language other than English. He hoped to incorporate that in future projects, he said, with the council’s approval.

•  Legislative Package. Mr. Cooper said his office was preparing an ordinance to implement the Executive Officer’s recommendation, and there would be other items that would be brought before the council for separate adoption, one being the technical amendments ordinance (which Ms. Bernards would address in the next agenda item), the decision to allow UGB amendments outside the Metro jurisdictional boundary was also recommended as a separate ordinance, and any decision for requesting approval of a Task 3 for Periodic Review would be a separate resolution. Chair Park asked regarding any clean-up issues councilors wanted to bring forward that they please do so soon so they could be acted upon in September and October in order to concentrate on the final decision in November.

•  Map Corrections. Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, spoke to her staff report and map (distributed and made a part of this record) and said the series of maps that went with it were included in the councilor’s 2^nd UGB binder. She did, however, provide an index map with this report. Her report dealt only with map corrections where city limits extend beyond the UGB, she said. She explained the amendments proposed in the staff report, and discussion followed. Ms. Bernards said this would be brought to the committee at their September 17^th meeting for their approval.

4.  Committee Updates/Discussion:

•  Task 3. Chair Park reported on an August 26^th meeting with MPAC representatives that Commissioner Michael Jordan had called as chair of MPAC, and said some of the issues that were of concern to Washington County were discussed at this meeting. Chair Park said he thought it fair to say that the majority of Washington County’s concerns were addressed and he believed they were not officially asking for a holdback of 35% of the HB 2709 decision of the 20-year land supply for housing. Chair Park then asked Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, and Mr. Cotugno to discuss the Subregional Rule and how Task 3 would fold into that. He said Meg Fernekees of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) suggested that Metro should try to have this in place for the December LCDC meeting.

•  Subregional Rule. Mr. Benner talked about the LCDC work session at Metro on the draft rule on August 22^nd. The Commission voted to proceed, he said, and instructed the department to make revisions to the draft in front of them based upon the conversation that day. They instructed their staff to talk with Metro and others about how the boundaries were established. Overlapping boundaries was questionable to them. A draft would be published by the Department; the next time the Commission would take it up would be October, and they would be looking at the new draft. It would be a public hearing and they would adopt it at that hearing, if everything went smoothly. Mr. Cooper then explained the appeal period.

There was more discussion on the rule, led by Chair Park and Mr. Cotugno, on the policy direction that would need to be adopted to establish the direction that would be set and included in the Regional Framework Plan, and the UGB amendments that would implement that policy direction. This sequence was important, Mr. Cotugno said, so that policy wasn’t being set to fit a UGB amendment. After this discussion, Mr. Cotugno said he understood that Metro needed to submit a request to the Commission, prior to the Subregional Rule and prior to the UGB decision, on Metro’s work order for Task 3.

4.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Chair Park spoke about the public hearings on the UGB being held in October, and asked the committee if they wanted to start the Community Planning Committee meetings at 1 p.m. on October 15 and 22, instead than 2 p.m. The October 1^st meeting was already scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. He explained that those were evening public hearings dates and thought a 1 p.m. start time would allow the councilors and the staff more time to get to the hearings. Receiving head nods, he declared that the 1 p.m. start time would be in effect October 1, 15 and 22.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.