MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, September 17, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Councilor Bragdon.

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.

3.  URBAN GROWTH FUNCTIONAL PLAN – STATUS REPORT ON COMPLIANCE. Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, spoke to the agenda material, a quarterly report on the status of the extensions granted on Functional Plan compliance. The next report was due at the end of September, she said. After outlining the Metro staff report on the City of Portland regarding their compliance, she introduced City of Portland staff.

4.  URBAN GROWTH FUNCTIONAL PLAN – CITY OF PORTLAND TITLE 3 COMPLIANCE. Deborah Stein, Principal Planner, and Roberta Jortner, Senior Environmental Planner, City of Portland, introduced City Planners Shannon Buono and Chris Scarzello, and Kermit Robinson from the Office of Planning Development and Review (OPDR).

Mr. Stein provided a brief overview of the context of their report (a copy of her presentation was distributed and made a part of this record), and then she asked Ms. Jortner to address specifics on the details of Portland’s compliance, included in the report in the agenda packet. There was a short discussion and questions from the councilors on following up on planning and design review with the building permitting, Tryon Creek water quality, and Portland’s Environmental Overlay Zones to which the Portland staff responded.

Ms. Linda Bauer, 6232 SE 158^th, Portland, OR 97236, a citizen, submitted written testimony as well as copies of three examples she distributed and spoke to (copies of which are included in this record) on the City of Portland not meeting environmental review standards. She said Portland gave a great presentation, but added that she was sorry that this wasn’t the way of the real world. In her first example of violation, she said that the neighborhood and the developer agreed that they hadn’t met the standards, but Portland’s Office of Planning Development and Review was not willing to take the right action. Her next example was a copy of notes from a City of Portland pre-application conference that showed two violations by the applicant. The neighborhood never heard anything from the city on this and, Ms. Bauer added, none of the neighbors were able to obtain information on the application; one neighbor was told

that it had been settled behind closed doors. The third example submitted showed the single-family setback standards (Table 110-3), and Ms. Bauer said the OPDR was telling developers to call their garages buildings in order to get around these standards.

Ms. Bauer asked the committee for help with enforcement by asking Portland to report back on specific changes they were making on Title 3 and that they were actually doing them. Councilor McLain said she appreciated Ms. Bauer bringing this before the committee, and suggested she speak with the City of Portland. Metro’s concern, she said, was that the city meet Title 3 and Metro staff had told the Metro Council that the City of Portland complied, and she didn’t see how Metro could go further than that in their responsibilities or duties.

Responding to a query on Metro’s responsibility on this, Mr. Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, said the words presented met Title 3. However, he said, there was an opportunity for a citizen to come before the Metro Council to report that the local government was not carrying it out. A provision in Title 8 gave Metro an enforcement responsibility if Metro learned that the local government was in fact not implementing the words it had adopted and the effect was harmful to the Title 3 resource. Councilor McLain asked if this testimony from Ms. Bauer could be construed as a formalized request (as required from a citizen) asking the Metro Council to do that. Mr. Benner suggested Ms. Bauer review with staff or himself what the provision in Title 8 called for and then follow that process. What Ms. Bauer had done so far, he said, was a beginning. Councilor McLain then asked Ms. Bauer to do as Mr. Benner suggested. She also addressed the City of Portland staff, saying Ms. Bauer believed the Portland code incorporated the right language and appreciated that, but the implementation issues needed to be dealt with. Ms. Bauer thanked Councilor McLain and the committee. The Portland staff declined to respond.

Councilor Monroe thanked Ms. Bauer for coming before the committee and said he thought if the region had a few thousand more citizen watchdogs/neighborhood advocates like her, everyone would be better off.

Answering a question from Councilor Atherton regarding previous instances of enforcement, Mr. Benner said when the council revised Title 8 they added a provision (3.07.870) called Enforcement of Functional Plan. It is in place, he said, and if it came to their attention that a local government wasn’t in compliance, Section 870 allowed Metro to initiate what might be called an enforcement proceeding. Ultimately, it would be up to the council to determine compliance if there were a pattern or a practice by this local government of not implementing its code provisions that implements Title 3. If the council concluded that they were not complying with their own code, he said, the council could issue an order to address the situation, and there was fairly broad authority about what could be said in that order. There would need to be findings, he added.

Councilor McLain said one of the reasons the quarterly reports on time extensions as well as compliance were instituted was to allow this council to get involved in issues such as this. This quarterly review time was a good time for anyone to bring these issues forth on a regular basis.

No action being required of the committee on this report, Chair Park thanked Ms. Bauer, the Portland staff, and Ms. Bernards for her work and for keeping the committee updated.

5.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-3226. For the Purpose of Direction to the Executive Officer on Implementing the Neighborhood Livability Provisions of Measure 26-29. See discussion and vote, below.

6.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-3227. For the Purpose of Direction to the Executive Officer on Early Implementation of the Notification Provisions of Measure 26-29. See discussion and vote, below.

7.  DRAFT ORDINANCE 02-963. For the Purpose of Amending the Regional Framework Plan and the Metro Code in Order to Protect Residential Neighborhoods and Early Implementation of Measure 26-29.

Chair Park asked Mr. Benner to give the background on these three pieces of legislation and the reason for the substitution of Ordinance No. 02-963 with Resolution No. 02-3229.

Resolution No. 02-3227. Mr. Benner reviewed the requirements of Measure 26-29 on density and protection of neighborhoods requiring notification, and said these three actions either implemented or prepared for implemention various pieces of Measure 26-29. The notification piece required notifying more people than the existing code when an urban growth boundary expansion was required. The council already decided during this upcoming periodic review that they would notify all the people required under Measure 26-29 even though it had not taken effect yet, and that notice had already been made. That was what Resolution 02-3227 covered.

Resolution No. 3226. A second element, Mr. Benner said, was the report on the possible impacts of the UGB expansion, which Metro doesn’t have to do until May 21, 2003, but the council already signaled their intention to work on preparing how the code would be changed in order to position Metro to do those reports. Resolution No. 02-3226 was a direction from the council to the Executive Officer to come back fairly quickly with a work program that would explain when and how the council would be able to make the code amendments in order to implement that part of Measure 26-29.

Resolution No. 02-3229 (distributed and made a part of this record) would replace draft Ordinance No. 02-963, and would state that Metro would not require locals to increased density as part of the decision the council was about in make in Periodic Review Task 2.

Chair Park asked how this would trigger the 45-day notice requirement, and Mr. Benner replied that this was initially an ordinance that proposed amendments to the Regional Framework Plan and the Metro Code to include language regarding the no increase in density requirement, protecting neighborhoods, water quality, air quality, etc. Since these were Code and Framework Plan amendments, however, they were post-acknowledgement Plan amendments under state planning law and can be done only after giving 45-day notice prior to the first evidentiary hearing. That would have meant Metro couldn’t do this for some time, so this was written in resolution form so that Metro coulc signal now their intent to do this soon, certainly well before May 21, 2003. What will happen, Mr. Benner said, was that the same code language will be before the council at the same time they do the Task 2 Periodic Review decision.

Chair Park said he thought it important for people to understand, prior to going into the public hearings in October, the limitation the council has placed upon it by Measure 26-29 regarding not increasing density in inner or outer area single-family neighborhoods. Councilor McLain added that she thought it very important that Metro be very clear what they were doing.

Chair Park said the council had said they would not require increased density, which didn’t mean it couldn’t ask for increased density. Councilor Burkholder agreed, and said another point was that the local jurisdictions could choose to change their designations. Notifications requirements were then discussed.

There was no discussion.

There was no discussion.

There was no discussion.

8.  DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 02-964. For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Sections 3.01.015, 3.01.025, 3.01.065 and 3.09.050 to Allow Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary onto Land Outside the District Prior to Annexation on Condition that the Territory be Annexed Prior to Urbanization.

Chair Park explained that Metro’s code does not allow this, and in order for the Council to execute the Executive Officer’s recommendation, if they so choose, the code needed amending. Mr. Benner laid out the process for straightening out the code provisions on expanding the UGB, as set out in each of the Exhibits to the Ordinance. The Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs), of course, would have to be worked out at later dates, he said.

Councilor McLain shared some information on odd boundaries she had received from Community Planning staff (no copy was provided for this record), and she asked Mr. Benner if this ordinance would help prevent most of these in the future, saying she hoped Metro would never have such a packet of convoluted boundaries again.

Chair Park said this draft ordinance would progress through the usual process. There was discussion on moving the jurisdictional boundary. Councilor McLain said she was asking for more proactive leadership on this as well as a better one-page sheet explaining what Metro was doing and why. Chair Park suggested to Mr. Benner that Metro counsel work with counsel of the three counties before taking this to MPAC.

9.  REVIEW MTAC/MPAC COMMENTS ON HOUSING NEEDS/CENTERS POLICY. Mr. Cotugno referred to the two memos included in the agenda packet and spoke to those. This material, he said, came out of the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and went to MPAC September 12^th. He addressed the second item, the Urban Growth Report, first. The MTAC recommendation concurred that a 69% capture rate would be more legally defensible that the 68% rate reflected in the Executive Officer’s recommendation. However, MPAC formally voted to support, by an 8/7 vote, to retain the 68% capture rate based upon that being a better reflection of the long-term trend rather than the short-term. Another issue associated with this was Clark County, which was discussed at this committee before, Mr. Cotugno said. Metro has recognized in the I-5 Trade Corridor process that UGB decisions here need to be coordinated with Clark County, and that no agreement with them had been executed yet, although that was coming. They seem to be heading in the direction of making their UGB decisions based upon a smaller capture rate for residential purposes, and a larger capture rate for employment purposes. The marketplace is what would really happen, he added. This issue could change our capture rate over time, however, but both bodies (MTAC and MPAC) concurred that this did not need to be factored in now.

There was discussion on the capture rate used and the five-year or 20-year period and which would provide better guidance. Chair Park and Councilor McLain agreed that it was the principal that was important, not the numbers, and that discussion continued. More discussion followed on housing type need and services. Mr. Cotugno continued his briefing on Schools and Parks, as outlined in the material. Two factors Mr. Cotugno spoke of that were not reflected in this document because he did not have the analysis yet were the actual experience on densities and mix of housing types, and projection of different housing types and density and income levels for the future forecast for demand vs. supply. Those are yet to come. MPAC also supported the MTAC recommendation on Issue 2 - Environmentally constrained lands.

Councilor Burkholder asked, regarding Issue 5 - Housing Type Needed, if there were cultural assumptions about what people of different income levels want or need or if it was a question that could be answered. Mr. Cotugno said the availability of housing at differing income levels would be provided in the analysis for both multi- and single-family dwellings. Councilor McLain suggested that the specific need of the type of people be looked at, i.e., seniors and the services they need, or a two-person household. Mr. Cotugno said the analysis wasn’t completed yet so he was not prepared to respond or discuss this, but he said whether or not the committee wanted to delve into other issues such as these and other than those required by statute was a whole other discussion.

He the spoke to the agenda material that excerpted the proposed Executive Officer’s recommendation on added language to the Regional Framework Plan dealing with Centers, annotated with MTAC’s comments, and said this item also was taken before MPAC on September 12^th. MPAC generally supported MTAC’s comments, he said. He then reviewed the material. MTAC’s comments were fairly central, he said, and are noted in the document. MPAC concurred with, as much as possible, the activities being included in a jurisdiction’s periodic review in order to integrate it with the planning, but with the caveat that it would need to be done at least within the next five years.

Councilor Burkholder asked if the 40,000 sq. ft. number referenced in the 3.07.1230, Access to Commercial Services, should not read 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Cotugno said he would check.

10.  REFINE KEY ISSUES.

Mr. Cotugno distributed a paper dated September 13, 2002, and titled Periodic Review of the Urban Growth Boundary Discussion on Industrial Lands Policies and Map (included as part of this record) and said this came out of an MTAC subcommittee and was still under discussion by MPAC. The document outlined points for discussion (italicized in the document) on so much industrial land being converted to non-industrial use, ending in a surplus of commercial land. A map was included with this handout but it was difficult to distinguish the Title 4 Industrial Land from the Proposed Regionally Significant Industrial Areas. Mr. Cotugno said he would provide a better map to the councilors.

The next topic of discussion was a distributed memo of September 16, 2002, titled Feedback on Metro Jobs UGR (and included in this record), on the assumptions and methodology that were the basis for the non-residential urban growth report. This had not been discussed yet at MTAC, but would be at their next meeting, he said. The Industrial Land Deficits table, part of this document, was discussed. The Commercial Land Need table was missing from the copy distributed, but was recopied at a later date and redistributed (and included in this record).

The third document Mr. Cotugno distributed was a September 17, 2002, memo regarding First Step in Identifying Additional Land for Industrial Purposes (and included in this record) that addressed this deficit. This analysis came out of a request from Chair Park to staff, he said. The proposed strategy, methodology used and identified areas are outlined in the document. Mr. Cotugno said this was the first review of this analysis, and he explained each area. He referred to a large map in his briefing (no copy in this record), and on which he pointed out all the identified potential suitable industrial areas.

Councilor McLain asked if the councilors were being asked to identify areas on this list in which they wanted more research done on this, and Chair Park said this was the first cut. Council McLain said she would like the committee to look at the Gresham land out by Hwy. 26 and the Tonquin area up above the prison as potential land that the committee should look at more. Out Cornelius, Forest Grove and Hillsboro way, she said she thought Metro needed to do a better job explaining why those exception lands were not being considered, and asked that some of them needed to be looked at again.

Mr. Cotugno said that under the latitude of state law of the land that had been studied, any of these lands could be considered. There was no alternatives analysis information beyond the study areas shown on the map he was using, so if there were areas the councilors wanted considered beyond that, they would need to keep in mind that if they wanted to study one Tier 5 area, they needed to study all Tier 5 areas, and if the UGB was going to be amended on a regionwide basis following the hierarchy of land, they would have to move through the acceptable tiers first.

Councilor McLain said she would make every effort not to bring in any controversial amendment, and that meant she recommended staying with exception land now in order to make a clean decision. Ms. Mary Weber, Community Planning Manager, reminded the committee that some of the identified lands were not included because of Metro policies, not necessarily the land itself, and if included would require amendments to those policies.

In looking at the Periodic Review Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) – Critical Dates sheet (distributed and made a part of this record), Chair Park pointed out the October 1^st preliminary deadline for councilor amendments and asked the councilors to coordinate their amendments through Michael Morrissey. This date would be for amendments covering property not considered or studied. The November 5^th deadline would suffice for amendments of land that had been studied.

Councilor McLain asked that a memo be sent to the councilors laying out the jurisdictions’ requests so the councilors could meet the deadlines. She also said more requests would probably be coming in right up to the last minute by jurisdictions, developers, etc. The committee needed to know by October 1^st that any analysis work done by them was comparable and met Metro’s standards. Councilor Burkholder agreed that this was a critical issue that needed an answer and he thought it should be answered by the next Community Planning Committee. The committee needed to decide, he said, if they would accept amendments in Tier 5, and they needed to have an answer on whether or not they could accept them. Councilor Burkholder said he would like to know what the cost of evaluating other analyses would be. Mr. Cotugno said he would try to respond to these questions by the September 24^th Council/Executive Office Informal meeting.

Councilor McLain mentioned for the record that she was reviewing specific areas: 1) the Tonquin area in the Wilsonville/Tualatin area (#47) which had been studied but which brought up the question of separation of communities and a possible road alignment condition, 2) Cooper Mountain (#65 exception land and #64 not exception land), and 3) she said she was interested in supporting an amendment (#6) south of Gresham, east of Hwy. 26, and is reviewing that area.

Mr. Cotugno reminded the committee of the resolution they adopted directing staff to study Tiers 1 through 4, and any further study of areas would require council approval. Consequently, he said he didn’t have the latitude to study Tier 5 land, so the question of whether or not to study more areas was for the council to determine. It was fair for the committee to ask what it would cost, but the question was on the table and the council needed to respond to the jurisdictions and others whether or not Metro would study their proposals. Staff could not respond, they were not allowed to. Chair Park asked him to do preliminary assessments to see if the analyses were comparable to Metro’s work and report at the Informal.

10a.  DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 02-____. For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, the Regional Framework Plan and the Metro Code in Order to Increase the Capacity of the Boundary to Accommodate Population Growth to the Year 2022. This ordinance was distributed (and made a part of this record) by Chair Park. The Exhibits to the ordinance would be ready by October 1^st for the public hearing, Mr. Benner said, and the public could give their testimony on those, which would be the real meat of the document. Councilor McLain expressed concern that the exhibits be clearly laid out in decision packages, and that they be done in the right order and voted on one at a time. Chair Park said those would hopefully be done by November 5^th, and said he assumed Councilor McLain didn’t want to vote on these prior to finishing the MPAC recommendation or the public hearings. Councilor McLain spoke off the microphone and was not recorded.

10b.  PLEASANT VALLEY STUDY. Chair Park informed the committee of a resolution coming up soon on the Pleasant Valley Concept Plan. Pleasant Valley won a statewide award and a national award, he said, and they want to present their plan to both MPAC and the Council to show what they’ve done.

Ms. Weber commended the council staff (Rooney Barker, John Donovan and Michael Morrissey) for working so diligently with the Communication Team and Planning staff on the upcoming October public hearings.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. Linda Bauer, 6232 SE 158^th, Portland, OR 97236 (testified on agenda item #4)