MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Tuesday, February 6, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Bill Atherton, David Bragdon, Rex Burkholder,

Carl Hosticka, Susan McLain

Members Absent:  Rod Monroe (Vice Chair)

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. He also described the new committee. Chair Park requested brief, regular updates from associated committees, including JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation), Natural Resources Committee and WARPAC. He wanted to keep the Metro internal agency lines of communication open.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 16, 2001, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATES

Councilor Hosticka said the Metro Natural Resources Committee would meet on February 7, 2001, to consider and adopt the committee work plan and a couple of minor items.

7.  UPDATE – PLEASANT VALLEY PLANNING

Ray Valone, Metro Senior Regional Planner, provided an update of the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP) federal grant-funding project, which was now known as the Pleasant Valley Concept Planning Project. He referred to handouts (frequently asked questions, a summary, and a copy of the newsletter). He described the project. A copy of Mr. Valone’s notes, Community Planning Committee TCSP Update, can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.

Councilor Bragdon asked if it addressed governance issues and who would provide fire service or city annexations of the area, or if it would be addressed later.

Mr. Valone said in phase 1 they determined who would govern the project. There was a demarcation between Gresham and Portland regarding most of the area. Happy Valley wanted to help Metro plan for Area C, a sliver just below the Multnomah-Clackamas County line. They had not determined whether that area would be annexed by a city or not. However, they had determined whether Portland or Gresham would annex and serve the rest.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned the OTAK engineering firm and asked if there would be some involvement on the design side by the private sector (architectural, building or development industries).

Mr. Valone said it was too early in the process for that to begin. Metro would receive model design renderings from OTAK. He was not sure what scale.

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, said there was good participation and representation on the steering committee from Portland Planning Commission. He mentioned Rick Holt and his background, and a representative from the commercial real estate interests.

Councilor Atherton mentioned the community of Demascus and asked if Metro asked the community what they wanted.

Mr. Valone said the study area was the 1500 acres just below Gresham east of Portland. Metro was charged to coordinate the studies because they could use information from the Clackamas County study to do their regional transportation modeling. They needed to integrate analysis of potential concept plans in the north with what was being produced in the south. There would be some crossover of the information being used. However, the study area did not extend down below that point.

Councilor Atherton asked if he needed to consult with Clackamas County.

Mr. Valone said yes.

Mr. Cotugno mentioned questions regarding whether there were specific targets set for population, employment or households in the area that the plan was required to meet. Another question was whether metro mandated 10 units per acre as a minimum. Metro created urban growth boundary (ugb) amendments for the area that were predicated on having the capacity to accommodate certain numbers of units. Capacity was a consideration. However, the agency did not mandate it as a requirement. The agency assumed, but did not mandate, a target in the area. Also, the code required any residential area to meet a minimum of 10 units per net acre. However, a big issue for the community was how much environmental protection would exist, which was a big part of the overall planning process. There were significant resources in the area. Until Metro knows how much was protected, through regulation or acquisition, the agency would not know how much would develop. That would affect the bottom-line number. The 10 units per acre requirement worked o.k. because it was a net requirement. Whatever they preserved through the plan, the balance was what had to meet the 10 units per acre net requirement. The message should be “Yes you need to meet 10 units per acre, but it was net of whatever was protected.” If they were way off it would create problems for further ugb issues. He solicited feedback regarding whether that was accurate.

Councilor McLain mentioned the Metro Functional Plan, Title 1 and the chart of regional targets.

Mr. Cotugno said the targets were established before the ugb amendments. Metro gave Gresham a target and then amended the ugb for the area. Therefore, he understood the target was for the balance of Gresham from Table 1. Then, Metro created a ugb amendment that included calculations for the number of housing units the agency would see in the area. However, Metro did not adopt it as a target.

Councilor McLain said she did not disagree. She agreed with his comments. However, she did not want anybody to say the functional plan was just an assumption. She knew that was not what he meant. The region agreed to the formula, which was not open to interpretation. She referred to Larry Shaw, Metro Senior Assistant Counsel, for comment. She objected that he combined functional plan and the need report elements/requirements in the scenario. The elements might be integrated, but they were not the same.

Councilor Atherton referred to the state law or Metro housing rule and asked Mr. Cotugno if it went jurisdiction by jurisdiction. He referred to 10 dwelling units per acre overall for the city of Portland and the same for Gresham. He asked if Portland and Gresham developed at lower densities if they would still satisfy the state requirement.

Mr. Shaw referred to the 6-8-10 and said he believed that the 1981or 1983 rule and the 10 only applied to Portland. In the ‘80s Gresham was not a large city. He thought Gresham would have had a 6, instead. He remembered when they created the functional plan all the zoning throughout the functional plan exceeded the state Metro housing rule in every respect throughout the region. Except that Metro did not regulate the 50 percent split, which was up to them and was part of their requirements. He planned to review it to be sure his memory was correct.

Mary Weber, Manager – Community Development, said it was important to maintain the context that the 10 units per net acre and the target numbers the Council used to reconcile the need for land came from a very generalized productivity analysis. She believed the intent was to use the numbers in the newly urbanized areas to facilitate a change and avoid the same suburban pattern. She also referred to the functional plan, and the next steps of broad, regional concept planning and zoning. It had not been difficult to achieve the 10 units per net acre.

2.  COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE WORK PLAN

Chair Park and then Mr. Cotugno described the 2001-2002 Community Planning Committee Work Plan, which was required by the state Periodic Review Work Plan timeline and the 2040 Reengagement aimed at that timeline, which provided a critical linkage. They planned to request adoption of the 2001 plan and an advisory of the 2002 plan.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned the nature of the hearings for 2040 Reengagement in late 2002. He asked if they were hearings regarding a particular subject.

Mr. Cotugno said the accurate way to portray that would be to not refer to hearings for 2040 Reengagement, but rather to the action items listed under Periodic Review. Whatever Metro adopted for Periodic Review would be presented to the Committee/Council for hearings.

Councilor Bragdon understood how 2040 Reengagement raised the broad conceptual questions that helped to inform the specific decision made during Periodic Review. However, he wondered if the hearings for 2040 Reengagement would involve findings, a summary of the conference or a decision point, or did it provide the context for decisions that were on other lines.

Mr. Cotugno said the latter and suggested eliminating the hearings for 2040 Reengagement. The real hearings would be associated with the ordinances under consideration for the Regional Framework Plan (RFP) or Periodic Review.

Councilor McLain was concerned about the whole idea of the 2040 Reengagement as trying to produce some review of how Metro was performing. She asked where the Growth Conference in February 2002 was succeeding and was concerned that the agency was using it as a performance measure to evaluate whether any mid-term amendments or refinements were necessary. It was very important to have a decision point following the conference that provided a summary of what the Committee/Council heard. Then they could reaffirm the results as well as reengage before they addressed the package of solutions.

Mr. Cotugno said the feedback would occur at more than a single conference. The conference would be the launch point. However, it would also be used to solicit feedback.

Councilor McLain suggested the recommendation in July 2002 include a resolution that reaffirmed the product. It made more sense to request a reaffirmation or refinement.

Mr. Cotugno agreed that would be a good direction with ordinances that implemented that strategy.

Councilor Burkholder agreed they should have a resolution after recommendation and a process. He said 2040 Reengagement language did not mean anything to anyone around the Metro Council offices. People need to understand the discussion and what Metro was doing. He suggested a new term that was easier for the public to understand.

Councilor Hosticka shared and reinforced Councilor Burkholder’s comments for the future. If it meant nothing to the Councilors it probably meant even less to non-Committee members.

Mr. Cotugno focused on doing the staff work, not necessarily the communications plan.

Councilor Atherton mentioned Annexation Code Amendments.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the document.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned sub-regional needs and how they related to mixed-use centers. He asked if mixed-use centers were sub-regions, or at least vice versa.

Mr. Cotugno said they proposed that the issue of jobs-housing balance be examined on different scales. There was the centers focus (regional, town, station communities) where Metro emphasized mixed-use and favored a variety of jobs and housing types. There was also a broader sub-region where the agency examined how adding land to the ugb on one side of the region versus another worked. They proposed examining a variety of options to determine whether certain directions were preferable to others. Then, Metro could use the information to help educate the process.

Councilor Bragdon said not all sub-regions were on the fringe.

Mr. Cotugno agreed. All of the regional centers were focused more internally.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the document.

Councilor McLain said for the past two years she wanted Metro to review the locational adjustment process. Staff began the process but did not complete it. She said the locational adjustments used a code and process that was outdated and no longer useful for examining the boundary changes of the region.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the document.

Councilor Burkholder was interested in how the Council established a process to review process and criteria early on. He was not sure how it fit into 2001, in terms of timing, but he suggested Metro review the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) process from a more strategic point of view to determine how Metro wanted to fund the investment, and determine what the big picture was and how the money could achieve those goals in the future for land use planning. He suggested they include it on the agenda for late-2001 or early-2002.

Chair Park said that seemed late.

Mr. Cotugno said the resolution the Committee/Council adopted two weeks ago indicated that after the allocation process was finished (in September or October 2001) Metro should completely revisit the criteria. He suggested including a review reference for October, November December 2001 next to the established process and criteria. Therefore, it would not be left to the last minute, so there would be time to think about the issue. That was recommended by the resolution the Committee/Council recently adopted.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the document.

Councilor McLain mentioned conditions that could be put on the Washington County Commuter Rail funding that could prevent them from closing loops to a larger commuter rail project Metro examined to tie light-rail and commuter rail together.

Mr. Cotugno said the intergovernmental agreement would be strictly for engineering funding. It would not address design issues. There would be opportunities to comment on design issues, if any. It addressed only the section from Wilsonville to Beaverton. He was not aware of any closures of connections.

Councilor McLain said Metro should use the opportunity, if it existed.

Councilor Burkholder asked when the affordable housing progress review was scheduled.

Mr. Cotugno said at one year, 2 years and 3 years. There were 3 milestones. The clock started ticking following acknowledgement. Therefore it would affect 2002. Metro would reexamine the need in the second or third year after the agency received the census data.

Councilor Burkholder asked in what Metro Committee the Parks and Greenspaces Department was included.

Councilor Hosticka said the Metro Natural Resources Committee. The reference to Goal 5 was designed to coordinate Metro’s Community Planning and Natural Resources committees. Other Natural Resources Committee work items did not appear on the Community Planning Work Plan.

Michael Morrissey, Metro Senior Council Analyst, said there was a Natural Resources Work Plan in the last Natural Resources Committee meeting packet, which included the Parks and Greenspaces work.

Chair Park said the Parks and Greenspaces portion was not a Metro Functional Plan requirement. However, the amount of set-aside (3,700 acres) was set aside for Parks and greenspaces. This would affect the buildable land supply number. However, there was no established mechanism to ensure that would actually occur. He planned to ask the Metro legal staff how to count that without a mechanism.

Councilor McLain mentioned items 4 and 5 and wanted to make sure the Committee recognized the implications that could connect them and that item 4 would not be business as usual. Instead the Committee planned to review what happened to the work that was performed regarding locational adjustments and changes in the process.

Mr. Cotugno said item 4 was simply processing applications if they arrived. If the Committee wanted to revisit the code on locational adjustments or major amendments with another work program or item, the Committee needed to program that. He was familiar with the work she suggested was performed a year or two ago or how major an effort it would be to revise the code. Therefore, the Community Planning Work Plan did not propose a code revision on locational adjustments. If she wanted that, they would have to return with a proposal.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Cotugno to return before the Committee with an idea of what a revision would entail for him and the necessary FTE funding required for that effort. She understood if the money and time was not available. However, it was a major and important issue that should not be left for the last minute. The Committee should at least consider the issue.

Chair Park suggested Mr. Cotugno work with Councilor McLain to return with a proposal. He also urged Councilor McLain to seek support from the rest of the Council. He asked Mr. Shaw if on major ugb amendments Metro was required by state law to include locational adjustments.

Mr. Shaw said locational adjustments were not only not required but the state agency wanted Metro to abandon them. It had slightly different criteria than Goal 14. They did not appeal it in 1981. The major amendments approach was quasi-judicial and not required by state law. They were included as an alternative. Legislative amendments were considered something that would occur periodically whether as an official periodic review or not. Therefore, the major amendments were included to be able to respond if something came to the Committee. Originally there were more of them and fewer legislative amendments.

Chair Park said it would produce a good debate regarding the types of tools the Committee would like to have available.

Mr. Cotugno said approval would include the review step in the Fall of 2002 for the MTIP criteria, strike the hearings on 2040 in the Fall of 2002 and change the recommendation step to a resolution of direction step in the Summer of 2002. Those were the amendments he picked up.

Chair Park agreed.

Mr. Cotugno said he would incorporate them in the work plan.

Mr. Morrissey suggested including “review” on the locational adjustment and a parallel in April 2002 with the word review. Mr. Cotugno could return with a review he could afford. That way they could get it on the document now. Otherwise, the issue would have to wait until Council. If that was appropriate the Committee would not have to change the document in April 2002 with the code amendments for the annexation material.

Chair Park said it made sense because the subjects were related.

Mr. Cotugno said that indicated if there were any changes to procedures they would not affect the March 15^th application period.

3.  UPDATE – MAP AMENDMENTS

Ms. Weber referred to the document Staff Report: Consideration of Ordinance No. 01-892 Amending Ordinance No. 95-625A to Amend the 2040 Growth Concept Map and the Title 4: Industrial and Employment Areas Map, February 2001. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Brenda Bernards, Metro Senior Regional Planner – Community Development, referred to the staff report and slide show presentation.

Chair Park asked what regulation hierarchy the map was based on.

Ms. Bernards said it was what made sense visually with the final product. There was some level of the hierarchy with the centers on top of the inner and outer neighborhoods. However, in the end they laid the parks over everything. She was not sure how the decision was made regarding the exact order of the layering, other than what made sense with the final picture.

Chair Park mentioned the industrial lands and the restrictions.

Ms. Bernards said the restrictions that applied to the industrial and employment areas would still apply. Because they were industrial employment areas, they might also have a station community or center on top with additional things in that area. However, it would not eliminate the underlying restriction.

Councilor McLain cited the urban reserves and asked for a map with an updated list of study areas that would provide people with an understanding of what Metro had and had not reviewed.

Ms. Weber said the content of the maps was ultimately a legislative decision made by the Council. The best way to look at the map was as a communication tool that described the urban form. The study area was approximately 20, 000 plus acres. It was a point in time. It was also a 50-year plan when it was originally conceived. Therefore, it was about a long-term or short-term intent and communication. The maps were all adopted and tied to regulations. The study areas would only be study areas for less than 2 years.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Shaw, from a historical perspective of urban reserve studies, issues and state law, if there was a separate map or appendix that provided the historical background.

Mr. Shaw said the history of the 2040 Growth Concept, as evidenced by all the rural reserves, was to identify areas. Before they were designated urban reserves, they were left blank as exception lands. The intent was to not have rural reserves extend into areas that Metro was likely to consider. With the urban reserves off legally, Metro was back to that same situation. The exception lands were blank because they were not rural reserves or urban growth boundary.

Chair Park mentioned the alternatives analysis map. He suggested that would be more appropriate as a snap shot in time, because the urban reserves were on, then off.

Ms. Weber said Council had not taken action on the alternatives analysis, which was still in draft form. Until Council made that a legal document it would remain an analysis tool.

Councilor Burkholder was confused by the hidden information (industrial lands) and asked if it was possible to make the centers transparent over the top to illustrate the underlying, preexisting condition that would affect what could be done in that area.

Ms. Weber said there was a separate map that illustrated specifically the Title 4 lands.

Carol Hall, Metro Senior Regional Planner – Data Resource Center, said transparency layers with symbols would be almost impossible. However, it would be possible to show on a series of maps what each layer looked like separately. She suggested maybe a series of smaller maps to accompany the concept map.

Councilor Burkholder asked if the ugb map was legally encoded in Metro’s GIS system or still on paper. It was the official document that controlled the ugb.

Ms. Weber said the ugb maps were currently on paper. Amendments to the ugb clean up process would include a recommendation to make the official ugb map a digital information GIS layer. They addressed Mr. Shaw’s concern regarding the safety of a GIS layer. The paper maps were not good, accurate science. The GIS would be much better.

Councilor Atherton said he did not know Metro encoded the concept of rural reserves. However, he wanted to pursue that discussion.

Mr. Shaw said there was a 2040 Growth Concept designation with very limited applicability to rural reserves because most were outside Metro’s planning jurisdiction. Therefore, they were a concept of land that was intended to be retained in rural use for the long term from Metro’s policy point of view. They were primarily the adopted policy basis of Metro for negotiating green corridor agreements, etc. However, Metro could not regulate those areas outside the agency boundary.

Councilor McLain said following the dialogue with the Farm Bureau and others, Metro was willing to put the rural reserves on the map with the understanding that the agency had no control over those areas. However, Metro recognized the importance and validity of why the land was tagged as rural reserves. It was a recognition that others outside the ugb asked for. It was acknowledged as an important part of the map.

Councilor Atherton said there were many people who believed the concept of rural reserve did fit inside the Metro boundary, looked forward to that and made decisions based on that. He suggested Metro address that issue as a specific land-use designation and option for the new concept map. The Committee was talking about the ability to create the complete communities with open space around them, without having to buy the land. Instead, the region could zone it for rural reserve, with exception areas for limited residential use.

Chair Park suggested Metro would experience difficulty regulating that type of land-use.

Ms. Bernards referred to the document Attachment 1 – List of Maps and the 15 map documents. (Copies of these documents can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Chair Park mentioned regional centers and town centers, and asked if the maps reflected the individual properties.

Ms. Bernards said no. Because they were concept maps, the town centers would remain the circles. They did not propose that that change.

Chair Park said it appeared Metro was making precise adjustments based upon actual properties. He asked if that was correct.

Ms. Bernards said they moved one town center because it was too far to the east. When Hillsboro planned it, it did not make sense to have the focal point on 185^th and Highway 26 because the town center was located to the West. Previously, they moved two other town centers to achieve a better reflection on the map of where the town center was actually located. It was not a huge adjustment.

Chair Park said location could be very important when considering funding for projects.

Ms. Bernards said the city of Hillsboro already defined the town center’s boundaries on its map. Metro had those maps for analysis purposes. Metro adjusted its analysis map to reflect the boundaries provided by the cities.

Councilor Atherton mentioned proposed map changes 5 and 6 on map 12. He asked if they were designated as inner neighborhoods.

Ms. Bernards said yes.

Councilor Atherton asked how they were distinguished from outer neighborhoods.

Ms. Bernards said inner neighborhoods had slightly smaller lot sizes than outer neighborhoods. In the Metro Functional Plan, the recommended density for inner neighborhoods was 14 persons per acre. For outer neighborhoods, it was 13 persons per acre.

Councilor Hosticka asked if there was a legal impact associated with the roads or if they were simply included on the maps for illustrative purposes. He referred to map 15 and Beef Bend Road and said the change would make a big difference to the people in that community.

Councilor McLain referred to the exception process and said the bar needed to be raised high. Achieving an exception to the Metro Functional Plan, and requirements that everyone else will be expected to follow, should be difficult. There were some technical, routine, housekeeping map changes and adjustments that should be easy. However, there were jurisdictions that mistake an exception for a map change. Therefore, she asked how to handle a map change that should go through the exception process. Metro needed to ensure that staff reviewed it through an established process. She referred to proposed map changes 9, 10 and 11 on maps 6 and 7.

Ms. Bernards mentioned citizen concerns regarding the map changes and particular properties, and referred to Attachment 2 – City of Hillsboro Request to Remove Industrial Area Designations for the Employment and Industrial Areas Map Located on the Home Depot and River Road Sites, Tualatin Valley Highway. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor McLain said she was contacted by many different sources, which included people in the downtown city of Hillsboro area who disagreed with Hillsboro on this point. It was also a property that was presented to the Oregon state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) regarding a different issue. The citizen who took Hillsboro to LUBA won. Therefore, the city was not allowed to do what they wanted. This was not a routine piece of property. She also had considerable conversations with Hillsboro regarding their need for more industrial land. They continuously asked for more industrial land. She referred to proposed map change 11 and said that issue, and adding and removing industrial land along the Tualatin Valley Highway, was not a simple map change. There were some policy issues there regarding where Hillsboro’s town centers were located, and how their regional issues fit their Title 4 properties. She heard from more than one concerned party. She requested removal of proposed map changes 9 and 10, because they were also not simple map changes. She left the process and time frame to the Committee to decide. She planned to contact Hillsboro and the new mayor again to notify them where Metro stood regarding those properties.

Chair Park suggested further discussion of that issue and the policies for inclusion or exclusion of those changes on the maps.

Ms. Bernards said Attachment 2 began to address the policy position the staff was in when they recommended that they support Hillsboro’s request.

Ms. Weber said in that context staff described what they considered a reasonable approach and argument for making that recommendation. Therefore, she was not sure what other materials the Committee needed.

Chair Park suggested allowing the Committee time to study and discuss the issue to attempt to achieve some clarity.

Councilor McLain agreed and referred to the map attached to the back of Attachment 2. She described her concern; especially regarding adding proposed map change 11, which was not shown on the map. Routine map changes needed to follow general housekeeping, rather than policy laden, criteria. It also had a lot to do with Title 4 issues and how they related to town centers and regional centers. She had some questions based on concerns of Hillsboro citizens. She referred to page 3 of Attachment 2, which listed those concerns.

Chair Park asked if the other Committee members were concerned about any of the other map amendments. He suggested separating the proposed map changes in Hillsboro from the rest of the proposed map amendments, and moving the acceptable map amendments ahead. He also suggested some additional discussion with Hillsboro regarding their justification for the map changes. The Committee had not heard form the city.

Councilor Burkholder cited map 14, the Demascus Town Center and the corridors that extended outside the Metro planning boundary, and asked what Metro thought about designating future land uses outside the areas the agency controlled and planned for.

Chair Park said it was within Metro’s jurisdictional boundary but still outside the Metro ugb. He cited the small orange line for reference.

Ms. Bernards referred to that town center and the one at 172^nd and Foster Rd. as urban reserve town centers. However, now that 172^nd was within the ugb, that town center needed to be renamed.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with the idea to separate the proposed map amendments. He also agreed that the properties in Hillsboro deserved some scrutiny. The map change would have huge implications for the town centers and regional centers, and other properties in that area. There were also issues regarding the addition and subtraction of industrial lands in that area. The issue did raise policy concerns.

Chair Park said the Committee would ask staff to separate the Hillsboro map changes from the rest of the map changes so the ordinance could be moved ahead.

Councilor McLain said she discussed the issue with Hillsboro for approximately 7-8 months with the mayor, city staff and the task force. The city, planning committee, task force and citizens did not agree on the issue. Therefore, it was not a simple housekeeping issue. She assumed the Committee would forward only the map amendments that were not controversial. She wanted to invite those who requested the map change to make their case before the Committee.

Chair Park said there was a process question. The exceptions criterion, which was part of the process, was not established. Therefore, he sought advice from Mr. Cotugno or Ms. Weber.

Ms. Weber mentioned an additional dynamic. When the Council makes a decision and changes to the map, it was an appealable decision. Denying was not an appealable decision, because the Council was not making a decision. However, if the Council shifted the issue to the land-use context it could be. Metro would want to consult its own codes and policies (Metro Regional Framework Plan, etc.) to receive direction toward making a decision.

Councilor McLain agreed with Ms. Weber for a different reason. Metro should not consider an exceptions issue until the agency knew what the exceptions process would look like. She also consulted with Metro legal staff and their interpretation of the Metro Functional Plan and the Metro Code. She still did not believe the growth staff, legal staff and some councilors agreed regarding the legal status of the Metro Code. That was another reason to allow that conversation to progress and ripen. The first step was separating the questionable map amendments from those the agency planned to adopt.

Mr. Cotugno was flexible to whatever direction the Committee/Council wanted to proceed. He brought it before the Committee to receive some direction.

Councilor Hosticka said the best option was to move forward with adoption of the non-questionable map amendments and then simply not include the questionable map amendments in that motion or process. Then, the Committee could take time to determine what it wanted to do with the rest of the map amendments as they proceeded.

Councilor McLain said only proposed amendments 9, 10 and 11 on maps 6 and 7 should be separated. The Committee could forward the rest of the proposed map amendments on maps 6 and 7 for adoption, because they were housekeeping items.

Councilor McLain seconded the motion.

Chair Park said it would be nice to be able to see the map layers underneath, possibly by using symbols.

Ms. Bernards said they would make the changes to the maps requested by the Committee and distribute the new maps.

4.  UPDATE – JPACT (JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION) FEDERAL PRIORITIES

Mr. Cotugno referred to an updated version of the document, JPACT Federal Priorities that reflected TPAC (Transportation Policy Advisory Committee) recommendations from their meeting on February 2, 2001. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) The JPACT would meet on February 8, 2001 and this TPAC recommended version would be presented to them for consideration. The Metro Transportation Department proposed this document to be adopted as a resolution that would be presented to the full Metro Council on February 15, 2001, for final adoption. Mr. Cotugno referred to the document.

Councilor Hosticka referred to language changes in the Commuter Rail section of the document from active to passive voice.

Mr. Cotugno said it was an attempt to link current and future authorizations. Then, he referred to the document.

Councilor Bragdon said there were many projects Metro was not asking for money for and, therefore, asked why the document mentioned the “I-5 Delta Park – Lombard” project.

Mr. Cotugno said up above Metro identified projects the agency might ask for money for in the authorizing bill in 2 years. The agency might also ask for money for the “I-5 Delta Park – Lombard” project in 2 years. All of the projects had been declared, in some fashion, a priority. They were either on the bond list and were approved, or the Metro Committee/Council adopted a resolution that established some type of priority. It was intended to indicate not everything but instead a fairly limited set of projects.

Councilor Hosticka asked how the Amtrak South Station and high-speed rail worked together.

Mr. Cotugno said they were both related to the same high-speed rail service. The Amtrak South was a specific station that affected the region. High-speed rail was improvements up and down the line in Oregon and Washington to reduce the running speeds between Eugene and Seattle.

Councilor Hosticka asked if the current high-speed rails stopped in Oregon City.

Mr. Cotugno said no.

Councilor Hosticka said adding every station on the line would prevent the line from remaining a high-speed rail line.

Mr. Cotugno said the station was consistent with Metro’s adopted plan that called for both a downtown station and a south metro station. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Amtrak would also like to stop at the station. At all levels everyone agreed the station made sense without adding every small town along the route.

Councilor Hosticka said he hoped it worked.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the document.

Councilor Burkholder asked if it was structured parking.

Mr. Cotugno said no, it was surface parking proposed to be co-located where the commuter rail park-and-ride would be located as well. For now it was only bus. However, if the Commuter Rail connected it was designed to become an expanded lot.

Councilor Bragdon seconded the motion.

Councilor Hosticka asked at what point in the process the councilors should express their policy preferences.

Chair Park said now. If he asked the question a month ago there would be more leeway.

Councilor Bragdon said the time was now. The JPACT would then review what the Committee had done, which would be a clear indication of where the Council would be going. The timing was perfect if people had issues with the letter.

Councilor Burkholder asked if the Metro Council had the final say.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno for clarification.

Mr. Cotugno said the question was whose government body the statement of priorities represented. If any of the projects were funded as the result of a statement of priority, by definition they were funded with federal funds. The action to receive the federal funds would be an MPO action, which had to be approved by JPACT and concurred upon by the Metro Council. Ultimately, it would be a joint action between the Metro Council and JPACT.

Chair Park referred to the letter and possible differences.

Councilor Hosticka referred to the Columbia River Channel Deepening project. He did not object to the language as long as it simply reported on what the situation was. However, he would want more discussion before he voted on the record to indicate he supported the project as a regional priority at the current time.

Chair Park assumed it was one of the Port of Portland’s priorities. They agency was also a member of JPACT.

Mr. Cotugno said the Metro Council adopted prior years priorities that recommended supporting the Columbia River Channel Deepening Project subject to meeting environmental permitting requirements. There were past actions taken by the Council but with that caveat. The paper was not written to be supportive or non-supportive. Instead, it was written as a status report. Things were still happening.

Councilor Atherton referred to maintenance of the existing infrastructure. He asked if Metro could use federal highway funds for that purpose.

Mr. Cotugno said it depended on how the project was defined.

Councilor Atherton seconded the motion.

Councilor McLain suggested a friendly amendment of “Metro and JPACT partners” instead of just “Metro” in the first sentence. Otherwise Metro might offend JPACT.

Councilor Burkholder said the Metro JPACT representatives (he, Councilor Park and Councilor Monroe) needed direction from the Council regarding how they should present the Council’s priorities at JPACT. His personal opinions were different than the Council’s priorities in terms of regional transportation. He did not believe those Council priorities were being solicited. Currently, he did not feel he could speak clearly for the Council’s position and priorities.

Councilor Bragdon suggested a friendly amendment to reformat the document.

Councilor Atherton seconded the motion.

Chair Park, Councilor Burkholder, Councilor Bragdon and Mr. Cotugno discussed the intent of the last sentence in section II-B.

Councilor Hosticka withdrew his motion (to delete the last sentence in section II-B and report the situation without speculating on the future) because he entered the process very late. However, he generally preferred that the language created by Metro be as clear and simple as possible, without speculating on unknown conditions or making statements regarding what could be done.

Councilor Atherton withdrew his second.

Councilor Burkholder said he was also uncomfortable with the proposed Columbia River Channel Deepening project. He was not convinced it was the right thing to do, especially considering the delays caused by the pending opinion form the National Marine and Fisheries Service. He questioned whether it was a high priority project in the next fiscal year. He’d be happier if it was not located in section II.

Chair Park said the project was very important to the Port of Portland and the regional economy. It seemed like opponents were objecting very late in the process. He favored leaving it the way it was and moving it ahead.

Councilor McLain believed Councilor Burkholder’s comments were appropriate. She suggested his comments would be more effective at JPACT. She opposed item II-H, Intelligent Transportation System. It was a waste of limited funding resources. The JPACT should have heard the concerns of the Metro Council.

Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, said the channel deepening project would be funded by water resources, not transportation, funding. Therefore, it was a question of priorities, and the project was a high priority for the Port of Portland.

Councilor Atherton suggested the Sunrise Corridor should receive a lower priority based on the uncertainty of current transportation funding policies.

Mr. Cotugno said Clackamas County considered the Sunrise Corridor a high priority project because the region’s growth plans aimed in that direction. It was just a matter of when. They wanted to be able to serve that growth. The whole project was massive and thus expensive.

Councilor Atherton mentioned growth paying its own way, the formation of local improvement districts to fund the projects and the possibility of violating important principles by searching for federal funding. He wanted to make a point on a basic issue.

Councilor Hosticka said he echoed Councilor McLain’s comments. The Metro Council needed to be more involved in the transportation planning process from a policy perspective, not project by project. The Council JPACT representatives needed to communicate those concerns to JPACT.

Chair Park said the Committee would forward the letter as drafted, with the amendments that were made by the Committee, to JPACT for February 8, 2001. Then, the letter, with whatever changes were made by JPACT, would be reviewed by the full Metro Council on February 15, 2001.

Councilor Bragdon asked if it was currently still open to further amendment.

Chair Park said yes.

Councilor Bragdon seconded the amendment.

Councilor McLain did not believe taking items off the list was necessary. A lot of the projects on the list would be helpful. However, some had higher priorities than others. She did not favor removing any project or that it would produce benefits. The Metro Council needed to communicate what it considered the top priority projects. She mentioned the importance of freight in the region. However, she wanted the channel deepening to be environmentally sound. The goal was to achieve regional agreement on a transportation system. Prioritizing, instead of project removal, would be a good start.

Councilor Bragdon was tempted to vote for the amendment. However, he was hesitant to do so without suggesting an alternative. There was more than $10 million of need in that area.

Councilor Burkholder said he was frustrated, first as a citizen and now as a councilor, about the way the process functioned. He had the feeling he was always too late. The decisions had always already been made. There was no way for the Metro Council to reach a consensus. He suggested the Council indicate that it did not understand how it fit into the regional transportation planning structure. The Council felt excluded from the process and did not want to be a rubber stamp.

Councilor Atherton said he was also frustrated. The region needed to figure out how to fund necessary projects. He appreciated Councilor Bragdon’s comments and said he would be receptive to language that would do something other than simply remove the $10 million from Clackamas County.

Councilor McLain sited Councilor Burkholder’s comments, and suggested identifying areas of concern and establishing priorities for the items on the list, instead. She did not want to see the Metro Council perceived as whining to JPACT. Instead, the Council representatives should continue to find ways to get Council ideas on the table for consideration. Metro should talk internally with one another regarding the difficulty of not being part of the process. Metro should be organized internally before the agency reacted to external problems.

Executive Officer Burton understood the Council’s frustration with the transportation issues. It was created, in part, by long-term engineering and financial questions, and federal requirements. He believed the transportation issues mirrored and were inter-twined with land-use issues. He suggested the Council was contributing to the problems with the process. The council needed to decide, as a group, what its priorities were. The last thing the Council should do is complain about the way it related with JPACT. He said the Council needed to have a debate regarding priorities at the Council Retreat. The Metro staff simply reacted to what the Council told them to do. It was tough to get ahead of the curve with transportation issues. The list, though frustrating, was not new. Almost all the projects, to some degree, fit into some element of the overall planning process for the region. Whether the region could afford a particular project was to be debated. The staff would back the Council’s policy decisions.

Councilor Hosticka said the conversation was very useful and hoped Councilor Burkholder could deliver some message without being perceived as whining. There was a trend that the elected representatives and bodies wanted to be more involved in the policy questions regarding transportation and shift the discussion from a project by project approach to move ahead faster on the overall transportation system.

Councilor Atherton addressed Executive Officer Burton’s comments and said the region had never settled the issue regarding how it planned to pay for the projects. The elected officials needed to create that linkage.

Councilor Bragdon suggested the motion should be tabled or withdrawn. However, he also suggested using the conversation to direct the JPACT Council representatives.

Councilor Atherton withdrew his amendment.

Councilor Bragdon withdrew his second.

Councilor McLain seconded the motion.

Executive Officer Burton said it was an error and would be removed.

Chair Park agreed with Councilor McLain and Executive Officer Burton and the suggestion that Metro not whine to JPACT. The Metro Council could own the process if they decided to seize it. He looked forward to the changes and steps the Council planned to take to reach that goal.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record

Metro Community Planning Committee meeting of February 6, 2001