MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Rod Monroe (Vice Chair), Bill Atherton,

 Carl Hosticka, David Bragdon, Rex Burkholder, Susan McLain

Members Absent:    None

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the March 6, 2001, and the March 20, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

Councilor McLain said she would approve the minutes with the addition of the verbatim transcription.

2.  Resolution No. 01-3051, For the Purpose of Authorizing the Issuance of a Request for Personal Services for the South Corridor Study Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Richard Brandman, Transportation Planning Director, reviewed the staff report to the resolution.

Councilor Monroe urged support of the resolution. Clackamas County had expressed that they may miss the deadline for the 2002 federal appropriation, due to the length of the EIS process. Approving this resolution would expedite the process by about a month.

Councilor Monroe will carry Resolution No. 01-3051 to the full Metro Council.

2-A  Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Draft

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, reviewed the RTP Acknowledgement Status, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He called the committee’s attention to the draft letter of March 19, 2001, from him to Richard Benner, Director, Oregon DLCD, outlining clarifying amendments and proposing possible fixes. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, explained the acknowledgement process. He noted that the first Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) hearing was scheduled for May 3 – 4. Tom Kloster, Senior Program Supervisor, Regional Transportation Planning Division, reviewed the summary page on the RTP Acknowledgement Status, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Kloster then reviewed in more detail the Proposed RTP Amendments, as listed in the RTP Acknowledgement Status.

Chair Park noted the committee's concern that the work was not being done in a piecemeal fashion, and that the alternatives were being addressed. He recommended that staff continue to refine its current work. He added that the item would come before the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) before going to LCDC in May.

3.  Locational Adjustment and Jurisdictional Annexation Code

Chair Park asked staff to outline the issues and provide a quick summary of the four locational adjustments coming before the committee in the fall. He noted that Councilor McLain had requested a larger discussion on whether locational adjustments should be included in the Metro Code. Chair Park expressed concern regarding locational adjustments and a previous determination that 20 acres was the right maximum amount for an amendment.

Mr. Cotugno clarified that locational adjustments were created to fix errors in the original drawing of the urban growth boundary (UGB), such as a case where a property owner’s land might have been split in half.

The question was whether or not Metro still needed the locational adjustment tool, or if all the necessary "corrections" had been made. Should Metro better define the difference between a correction and a major amendment? The most fundamental difference was that major amendments required a demonstration of need.

Councilor McLain said in her opinion, locational adjustments were no longer needed to fix the small 20-acre or less pieces; there were two other processes to do that. There was also a major amendment process which addressed the larger need assessment issues. If there were truly mistakes in the map, then the locational adjustment process needed to be adjusted to fix those. She noted a number of 20-year-old mistakes in the Cornelius/Hillsboro area, and said she would be pleased if the location adjustment process could be used to correct those problems. She asked the committee to take up the issue.

Councilor Atherton seconded Councilor McLain’s request.

Chair Park said the committee should determine the maximum size required for a map change to come forward. The committee could change the language in the Metro Code, if necessary. Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said he had been directed to work with legal counsel to draft options for the committee, which would then direct staff to draft language. He said this had not been completed yet.

Mr. Cotugno asked if the committee wanted to have a similar discussion on the jurisdictional boundary. Chair Park said yes.

Councilor McLain said there should be three goals: 1) make sure the locational adjustment process is needed, and if so, tailor it to the needs still out there; 2) make sure the process is updated match the Metro Code concerning urban growth boundary amendments; and 3) make sure the jurisdictional boundary amendment process cannot be misused in the same way that people are trying to misuse the locational adjustment process. She noted that one reason some people want inside the Metro jurisdictional boundary is for park protection.

Mr. Cotugno said one of the criteria in Metro’s annexation code was a strong linkage, although not an absolute linkage, to council’s intent to amend the UGB. Part of his concern was that it ought to be black or white, not gray.

Chair Park asked Councilor McLain and Mr. Morrissey to return at a later date with recommendations for policy changes regarding the locational adjustment process.

4.  Alternatives Analysis: Draft Keeps and Cuts

Chair Park called the committee’s attention to a memo from Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, dated March 28, 2001, regarding Alternatives Site Study (Subtask 3-Periodic Review Work Program 2000). A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record, along with a Study Area Matrix and map.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed Ms. Neill's memo.

Councilor Hosticka recommended making a proposal to LCDC, because if Metro followed the rule according to the interpretation of LCDC staff, the council may be precluded from adopting an urban form or expanding into the areas it preferred

Councilor Atherton added that the criteria should include the concept of community.

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, said the committee’s objective today was not to seek a final decision but to become aware of some of the preliminary results and information staff had obtained. She spoke to the methodology and the extensive coordination with Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff, and the conversations with local partners. The end result, coming back to the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) for review in the next few weeks, would be the Cuts and Keeps.

Councilor Hosticka said the list of criteria mentioned didn’t seem to address urban form or cumulative impact. Can you and how do you get those other considerations in at this level?

Ms. Neill said at this point staff had tried to screen out only the worst. The next step would be for the committee to pick from those sites or create policies to go beyond what was initially studied.

Chair Park said although this may seem very pedestrian, court challenges were very pedestrian. Hopefully one of the benefits of going through the periodic review process was being in lockstep with those who were creating the policy the council needed to follow. In the end, even though it was pedestrian, it would stand up in court.

Chair Park directed staff to continue to gather information that would require the committee to look at different options, would require Dan Cooper, General Counsel, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cotugno to continue working with DLCD staff, and would require the Metro Council to continue working with the LCDC Commissioners. He added that Commissioner McRobert had been especially effective in broadening choices for Metro.

Chair Park asked Ms. Neill to bring phase two back as soon as possible.

He then called the committee’s attention to a letter from City of Portland Mayor Vera Katz to Councilor Burkholder, dated March 29, 2001, regarding an additional map amendment on some industrial land. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Cotugno said Portland had asked that an additional Title 4 amendment be incorporated into the ordinances to deal with issues in the Pearl District that is transitioning from industrial to mixed-use. This was a new issue that MPAC was trying to tackle. It did not emanate from any 2040 planning, but from the high tech industry's demand for a new land use type, called telco hotels. It was a legitimate issue and concern, but he was not sure how to make the 2040 connection.

Councilor Burkholder said there needed to be a policy that these map changes would only be considered at certain times, so Metro could consider the big picture.

Councilor McLain said her concern was doing any map changes before finishing the exception process. She supported Councilor Burkholder's suggestion.

Councilor Burkholder asked the council MPAC representatives to raise these concerns, and ask MPAC how Metro could prevent the chipping away of industrial land from having major impacts.

5.  Councilor Communications

Councilor Atherton brought to committee’s attention Oregon House Bill (HB) 3767, recently introduced in the legislature by Representative Lee from Clackamas County, at the behest of the mayor of Happy Valley, which would eliminate the ability of communities to have a vote on annexations. He said he would bring an amendment to the Metro Council for their review and discussion.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\2001\community planning\040301cp.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2001

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