Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Governance Advocacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clackamas planning commissioners discuss state land-use rule rollbacks and options for a coordinated response
Summary
Commissioners debated how the planning commission should respond to recent state-level changes that reduce public notice and appeal rights. Planning staff advised commissioners not to speak on behalf of the county without board approval, and commissioners discussed drafting a letter to the Board of County Commissioners, forming a small subcommittee, or pursuing grassroots outreach to cities and special districts.
Members of the Clackamas County Planning Commission spent a substantial portion of the meeting discussing recent state actions that curtail notification and appeal rights for certain land-use decisions and considered ways to respond.
Jennifer Hughes, planning director, told commissioners that advisory boards and commissions generally "advise the board, but the board really sets the county's message in terms of legislating, or advocacy." She urged commissioners who want a county position to submit a draft to staff and take the matter to the Board of County Commissioners so the board can decide whether to advocate at the state level. "If what you're interested in doing is having the county do something, then I think the best...option is to speak as a body to the board," Hughes said.
Commissioners said they were concerned about reductions in local notice and appeal rights, and several suggested practical outreach strategies: drafting a letter to the Board of County Commissioners for its consideration, forming a small subcommittee to prepare a proposed letter or approach, coordinating grassroots contacts with city councils and local planning commissions, and soliciting support from special districts and community organizations. Commissioner Gerald "Murph" Murphy described a local example in which a special district drafted model legislation and sought broad backers as an effective template for action.
Hughes and commissioners agreed on two limits: (1) individual commissioners may testify to state bodies or submit personal written comments as private citizens; and (2) commissioners should not present themselves as speaking for the county without Board authorization. The commission directed staff to help arrange a small working session for interested commissioners and to place a possible draft letter or report-back item on a future planning commission agenda so the board could be asked to consider formal action if commissioners so choose.
Commissioners also connected this advocacy discussion to upcoming public processes — a pair of urban growth boundary proposals and code amendments scheduled later this year — saying those items are likely to attract public attention and reveal the practical effects of the state changes on local review and public participation.
