MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

Council Chamber

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

 Carl Hosticka, David Bragdon, Susan McLain, Rex Burkholder

Members Absent:  

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.

2.  RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATE

Natural Resources Committee

Councilor Hosticka said the committee had essentially adopted its work-plan and timeline on Goal 5. He said they would be beginning a discussion on criteria of significance. He then reported that the Legislature had been invited by the Homebuilders Association to define “regional significance,” but they declined the invitation.

JPACT

Councilor Monroe said the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) process was underway with the deadline for local jurisdictions to submit their applications April 2, 2001. The South Corridor Policy Steering Committee met on Monday, March 19, and looked at various DEIS options, and an analysis of three different types of transit projects. The next meeting of the South Corridor Policy Steering Group will be held on April 30, 2001, at which time the projects for study will be further discussed. The preferred alternative for further study will be decided upon in one year.

3.  Update - Quasi-Judicial Applications

Chair Park asked Mary Weber to explain the difference between major and minor amendments.

Mary Weber, Planning Department, said the two ways that the Council could amend the Urban Growth Boundary were 1) legislatively, and 2) quasi-judicially. She said most jurisdictions only have one UGB process, which Metro calls a major amendment, for parcels of 50 acres or more. A minor amendment, she said, would be the locational adjustments for 20 acres or less. There was also a provision for trade of property out and in the UGB. Ms. Weber explained that March 15 was the annual cut-off date to accept applications for quasi-judicial amendments, both minor and major. This year, four amendments were submitted, three major amendments and one locational adjustment.

Councilor Hosticka asked if all major amendments were considered quasi-judicial.

Ms. Weber responded that a legislative amendment happens when the Council prepares the record and does not have a hearing’s officer. She said in a quasi-judicial amendment there is a staff report, a hearing’s officer and only what is on the record can be considered. She then explained the four applications (a copy of which may be found in the record of this meeting). She explained the process consisting of seven days from March 15, to do a completeness check. She said the Metro code provided that the applicant could not remedy any deficiencies in the application within 14 days, or they can request it be put on the Council agenda to give additional time to complete the application. After the completeness check, a staff report is produced and submitted to the hearing’s officer, a hearing is held on the request, and then issues his report to the Council. Both the hearing’s officer and staff appear before the Council for any further questions, or re-open the hearing. This year the staff services will be contracted out. She said the Metro Code stated that the full cost to Metro (printing, consulting costs and excise tax) are all fully recoverable from the applicant.

Chair Park asked which applications were currently inside the jurisdictional boundary and which were outside of the boundary. He also questioned the applicability of the Metro Code regarding the UGB need necessitating moving the jurisdictional boundary.

Ms. Weber said the locational adjustment was outside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary. She said the quasi-judicial application received included an application and fee for the annexation. She said at the direction of legal council, they would not process the annexation request unless the hearing’s officer had recommended approval of the petition to move the UGB.

Chair Park asked for clarification on the way the Metro Code is written on how they would not move the jurisdictional boundary unless they saw a UGB need.

Ms. Weber said the locational adjustment was not based on UGB need. The three major amendments mimic Goal 14 in that they have to establish need.

Larry Shaw, Counsel, said he had not looked at these applications but they had had a long-standing discussion concerning the prison site in Wilsonville. He said he thought two of the amendments were related to the impact of the prison. He said the need issue for the prison site, in particular, would probably be based on the state ordering them to do that. It is a very unique land use situation.

Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said Councilor McLain had expressed interest in revising the Code concerning the locational adjustment and major amendments. He asked the chair to give direction to possible code revisions.

Chair Park said at a future date they could discuss that policy question of the intent to move the UGB if the Council has a declared need, but also locational major amendment issues.

Mr. Morrissey said Councilor McLain could probably make the case based on prior Code revisions, the need for a locational adjustment procedure was not useful. Her point might be that the Code is out of sync with other aspects of the Code.

Chair Park agreed, but said the policy discussion was needed before staff resources were used to write something the committee might not agree on.

4.  Update - Periodic Review Timeline

Ms. Weber said the councilors had received a color copy of the timeline (a black and white copy may be found in the permanent record of this meeting). She reviewed the document subtasks, the Metro Urban Growth Boundary Periodic Review Work Program 2001-2002 (Task 2) Project Milestone. She said the work program was drafted in May 2000. She explained the subtask technical amendments to the UGB, which would be coming to the Council in the next month. She said that was not part of the periodic review requirement, Ms. Weber and her staff asked it to be included. She said 67 glitches on the map had been identified for change.. She said this did not include Title 4 map amendments. It was based on the maintenance and care of the UGB. She said a request will come before Council making a GIS data layer become the official map.

Ms. Weber continued with sub-regional analysis. She said Metroscope and the policy development issues were included. They were two weeks away from doing a first run of the current 2040 policies, and the model documentation was included in the packet.

Mr. Morrissey asked if sites/parcels in question would still be discussed.

Ms. Weber said it had not changed. In its first phase, it was ready for Council to review.

Next, Ms. Weber explained that alternative analysis relates to the possibility of the Council making an UGB amendment, it would be an analysis of suitability and need, as outlined by the State.

Ms. Weber addressed the forecast next. The model will be recalibrated using the real 2000 population figures rather than the simulated numbers based on trend. Mr. Dennis Yee will be able to supply this around June.

Councilor Atherton asked if she had any preliminary results from the census data differing from forecast?

Ms. Weber said the census number was higher than the forecast number.

Councilor Burkholder asked if this was an adjusted number, to account for undercounting, or was it the census department’s official number, in that the Census Bureau had decided not to use statistical techniques to arrive at a true count, and had decided to use only the actual count?

Ms. Weber said she did not have the information, and would get back to him.

Ms. Weber spoke to the land need analysis. The 2000 vacant land analysis has been completed, and currently buildable lands analysis is underway, which is the basis for Metroscope. A preliminary need analysis number is being prepared for Metroscope. She indicated a need for a mid-May 2002 directive from Council regarding the size and location of UGB amendments and the extent of the habitat protection program.

Ms. Weber continued with public outreach activities - 2040 re-engagement. A baseline values survey will begin, ending this fall. A web page will be used to gather citizen information. In the fall, direction from Council will be needed as to what information will go to the public, in preparation for the conference in March 2002.

The final subtask was complete communities. Ms. Weber said when the research was completed, Council direction would be needed as to whether these issues - jobs’ accommodation, land needs to accommodate jobs will affect an urban growth boundary decision, over-expansion of centers - have the right issues been addressed.

Chair Park asked if we were on target, on time, on task.

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, said they were on time on some, and slipping on others. The revision of the census will cause some delay. The level of effort to make that change is manageable. The buildable lands inventory work is on time. Metroscope is a little late. Research areas are beginning, but the timing is right. Minor clean up amendments are due next month, and are on time.

Ms. Weber added that when the work program was done, they knew it would be aggressive. The work program is flexible, completing the background research this calendar year. Once in 2002, Council will need as much information as possible, as this moves into a more public arena.

Mr. Morrissey asked if the December 2002 decisions were the same periodic review , UGB decisions, originally targeted for October 2002.

Mr. Cotugno responded yes, they were the same, allowing for adequate hearing schedule for deadline decision in December 2002.

5.  Presentation - MetroScope: Details on Model Operation

Chair Park said this agenda item would be addressed at another meeting, when the information was in a clearer format.

6.  Presentation - Possible Department of Environmental Quality/Title 3 Link

Ken Helm, Legal Counsel, reviewed Title 3. Title 3 was the Council’s regulations on water quality focusing on improving the region’s ability to improve non-point sources of pollution as development occurred in the region. Metro’s context was a land use approach to water quality. Chair Park’s interest was in giving credit to local government’s when applying to DEQ for stormwater and wastewater permits. Usually the cities hold the permit authority. A general concept discussion was held with DEQ staff on where Title 3 fit in to the permit process. DEQ staff felt the greatest potential was in the stormwater permitting. More research will be done by both parties. The State had previously identified four water quality criteria for the Willamette Basin. Those were sedimentation requirements, nutrient requirements, temperature requirements and DEQ’s anti-degradation policy. The next step will require further discussion with DEQ water quality staff, identifying specific criteria to integrate with Title 3. Mr. Helm has had further discussions with USA’s attorney, who said that USA had substantially complied with Title 3 and the local government’s, through intergovernmental agreements with USA, also comply with Title 3. USA has found a way to make Title 3 standards compatible with the Clean Water Act standards. There is a way to make them compatible.

Chair Park stated that it could be remotely possible that DEQ might find Metro’s program not adequate enough to address clean water.

Presiding Officer Bragdon noted that a recently passed ballot measure exempts federal actions such as the aforementioned Clean Water Act.

Councilor Atherton asked about what happens if DEQ doesn’t find Metro’s Title 3 sufficient to meet the Clean Water Act.

Mr. Helm responded that that outcome was highly unlikely. Title 3 substantially improved the overall quality of the water. It would be possible for DEQ to say that to comply with the standards that relate to a national stormwater permit or a national municipal wastewater permit, we might need a additional local help to achieve the full standard. A number of standards might be required to satisfy all the criteria at issue.

Chair Park agreed that the odds were probably very low that DEQ would reject Title 3.

7.  Resolution No. 01-3038, For the Purpose of Approving the FY 2002 Unified Work Program.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the resolution (a copy of the staff report provides detail of his review).

Councilor Burkholder said he would like to set up a formal process so the Council had the opportunity to provide some policy direction early in the process. He thought having a formal planning time would be very important because although the programs are basically set, there might be minor changes. He added that if there were changes, they should be brought up in the fall. He wanted to add a review of this to the committee’s work program for the fall.

Councilor Monroe said this motion was needed in order to receive federal funds. He said it also reinstated Metro’s current position with relationship with the Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) and JPACT. He urged support.

8.  Resolution No. 01-3039, For the Purpose of Certifying that the Portland Metropolitan Area is in Compliance with Federal Transportation Planning Requirements.

Mr. Cotugno spoke to the companion resolution to the one previous, reviewing the staff report (a copy of which may be found in the record for this meeting). He said this was to be jointly adopted by Metro and ODOT.

Councilor Monroe said Mr. Cotugno had already briefed the committee. He supported the resolution and asked for council approval.

9.  Update - Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) - Council Approval of Metro MTIP Applications

Mr. Cotugno briefed the committee on changes to the MTIP application, reviewing each major component and substitutions. (For more detail, see information included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting. The overall package is listed on page 2.)

Councilor Monroe said the base package, the core and the TOD need to continue, the freight and the corridor planning and the $1.674 million to Springwater. In addition, the Willamette Shore $.55 million and the EIS $4 million. He said something had come up at a South Corridor meeting that he was not aware of. That was that the major park and ride planned for south of Tacoma overpass, whether it was for bus or lightrail, was right where the Springwater Trail will cross the rail yard and the highway. That overpass will be very important, serving pedestrian access to that lightrail/bus way at that major stop. He said they would be connecting major projects that the region had been working on for years. he added that the Springwater trail serves the whole Estacada, Gresham, and southeast Portland region. There was a gap in the trail at the rail yard by Eastmoreland Golf Course. They were working on the trail continuation through there. He said this money was important to the success of the Clackamas County transit project.

Councilor Bragdon agreed they should try to maximize Metro’s contribution to the Springwater Corridor. He asked whether the TOD program would be a new infusion that increased their overall ability to do more.

Mr. Cotugno explained it would continue the $1 million a year for 2004 and 2005.

Councilor Atherton asked Councilor Monroe for clarification on his motion and asked about the TOD revolving fund.

Councilor Burkholder noted that these were requests and there was not enough money in the pot to cover all the projects. He asked if the money left over for culvert programs could be used as a matching fund so local jurisdictions could apply for it because there would not be enough left to cover replacing even one culvert with a bridge on a major road.

Mr. Cotugno said the motion on the floor did not include a culvert program. He said it was the call of the Council, whether to apply for the $1.6 million for the Springwater corridor, which allowed money to undertake a $2 million phase of the project, or scale it back in order to have a culvert program and do a $1 million phase.

Councilor Atherton asked if there was a list of priority culverts.

Mr. Cotugno said they were all inventoried, but they did not yet have the cost of the culvert program. He said it was underway.

Councilor Atherton asked if they had to choose bicycles or fish.

Mr. Cotugno said the Springwater project had been in the process for approximately 10 years and they were at the beginning the culvert process.

Councilor Bragdon suggested there were other categories in the MTIP process where there were long lists of very expensive road widening projects. He said if they wanted to talk about priorities, they should talk about the overall pot of money.

Councilor McLain said with the motion on the floor, they were not denying there was a culvert project out there they would support. They were indicating that at this time they were putting these projects in front of it because they did not know how this culvert project would fit in to the overall response of NMFS or the federal listing. She said she felt comfortable with this priority.

Councilor Monroe said there were other things as well that need to be funded. He said he wanted to get the culverts fixed but they were just at the beginning process of finding out where those priorities were. He said culvert repairs, because they involve roads and highways, could be funded out of the state highway dollars. It was his intent to use this discretionary federal money for alternative programs that could not be funded out of the highway fund.

10.  Update - RBAT (Regional Business Alliance for Transportation)

Mr. Cotugno noted a memo to Council regarding Regional Transportation Authority legislation (see copy included with the permanent record of this meeting.). He said this draft legislation was still in its beginning stages. The Regional Business Alliance has asked a series of business oriented organizations to adopt resolutions committing to participating in this business alliance for at least a 5 year period. Their commitment is to devote an extended period of time to the issue of transportation finance. Their goal is to have the group spend a fair amount of time dealing with examining finance options for transportation and visiting places in the country where they have had successes and/or failures to see what might be transportable to the Portland metropolitan region. He said the alliance recognizes that they are at the beginning of the process and they don’t yet know what they want to recommend. They had asked for this legislation to be drafted as a placeholder to allow creation of regional transportation authorities as a possible vehicle in case there was something we wanted to implement in this region. He said they are convinced something like this needs to be done in the region. He had heard from the group that they did not want to take Metro’s planning abilities, they simply wanted to help implement the transportation plans.

Councilor Monroe was comfortable with this placeholder permissive draft. He said even though it did not guarantee that a regional transportation authority in this region would be run by Metro, it certainly did not preclude that. He said since inter-governmental agreements would have to be a part of any regional transportation authority, he was comfortable that Metro would be well protected. He felt it would be a mistake to insist that the language be absolutely iron clad in terms of if there was a regional transportation authority in this region it had to be Metro. He felt it might do disservice to the new alliance that had been working with Metro for the last several years to try to solve the region’s transportation needs.

Councilor Hosticka asked if page 2 of the memo, Section 3, Subsection 5, indicated that the boundaries of the authority had to be contiguous to the boundaries of a county.

Mr. Cotugno responded that it meant the boundaries would have to be established, but they could not be overlapping regional transportation authorities.

Councilor McLain expressed concerns about RBAT. She said it was important, if they were going to support this, to not just look for a placeholder that did not preclude Metro, but to see that there was a Metro position. She hoped Mr. Cooper had been asked to carefully review this for Metro involvement. She had heard there were positive things going on from the folks who had attended the meetings, but felt this draft did not look positive or had enough of a picture for Metro to be proactive. She was not comfortable with it yet.

Chair Park said this was not even into an LC draft yet so there was a long ways to go.

Councilor McLain asked for a response from Mr. Cotugno.

Mr. Cotugno heard her concerns. He had heard similar concerns raised by other public agencies, which was why they were asked to join in the review. He had heard from the business members that they would like to implement Metro’s plan.

Councilor Hosticka cited Section 4 of the memo, “Authority of Regional Transportation Authorities”. He asked if the disbursing of funds there was tied into any other process for disbursing funds and if there was a regional plan for the use of these funds.

Mr. Cotugno said they had raised the concern that it should only be for projects in Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan because we have to address federal and state land use and environmental requirements. He said assurances like that needed to be established.

Councilor Hosticka felt it was dangerous to set up taxing and spending authorities that were governed by appointments by the governor. There were a number of those throughout the state and they sometimes caused problems. He would rather link up with authorities that were elected by the people and existed out of a charter adopted by the people.

Councilor Burkholder said this was not the general enabling legislation he thought it was going to be, and he thought it may set up an unaccountable parallel system dominated by business people who had a different agenda than Metro. There was no process here saying they would fund the projects as prioritized by the local elected governments. He said he could not support it at this time. He added that he did think it was critical to have a regional taxing authority to raise money for regional projects.

Councilor Bragdon said the underlying assumption that the problems with transportation in this state were that there is not enough regional government might be valid in some parts of the state, but there is a regional government in this part of the state. He said he had attended some of the meetings and agreed that the business people were well intentioned, but the fact is that the transportation regime is already pretty fragmented. The confusion over who owns what streets may contribute to the lack of understanding and confidence. He said to create yet another agency, and one that they don’t get to vote for the members of, is a step in the wrong direction. He thought there was a whole lot more work to do to address his concerns and the concerns he had heard from the others. He felt this was an open-ended invitation for abuse.

Chair Park asked if Metro had the authority to impose a tax.

Mr. Cotugno thought yes, with voter referral. He said Metro did have the ability to impose a tax without voter referral up to certain limits.

Councilor Monroe said he had always been strongly of the mind that where there was public dollars involved there must be public accountability. That means elected people need to have the final say so they can be held accountable at the polls for making good or bad decisions. He said this was a first draft and it was a long process. He said they needed to let business friends know that there needs to be legislation that will fit Metro’s needs as well as the needs of other regions of the state that don’t have regional governments. He said they were all seeking the same goal, to have dollars to implement the regional transportation plan. He added that transportation and land use were two sides of the same coin, and without dollars to meet transportation needs, 2040 will break down. He saw this as an opportunity to continue to work with local government and business partners to make it possible to have the kind of regional transportation authority in this region that we all envision.

Councilor Burkholder said what the business community was talking about was how to do the public outreach, marketing and campaigning to get people to accept higher taxes. He said this piece might be useful in other areas of the state, but not here. He wanted to encourage the business partners to go ahead with their legislation, but to know that the Metro area did not need it. He wondered if they were not aware that Metro could raise taxes with a vote of the people.

Councilor Atherton added that the RTP as it stood right now had lots of lines on maps but they had never set out a funding policy. He would like to see a message carried to the business group that we have an RTP, let’s deal with that and get to the financing principles.

Mr. Cotugno said the business partners had seen the presentations on the RTP and they are helping carry it to other business organizations. They are not trying to do some other plan.

Chair Park said he would be interested in hearing a report from the meeting.

11.  Presentation - Corridor Initiatives Work Program

Richard Brandman, Transportation Department, explained the history of the Corridor Initiatives Work Program. He said they had started with a TPAC subcommittee with regional partners to prioritize 17 transportation corridors and come up with an overall strategy. They envisioned the process would conclude in June and they would bring an RTP amendment forward sometime in July.

Bridget Wieghart, Transportation RTP, said the partners had come to agreement that there was a need for corridor studies even in a fiscally constrained environment because it would help with a multi-modal master plan that could be implemented in phases. She reported they had a two-phase effort; technical ranking and political/administrative issues. She said they have been working on the technical criteria and scoring process modeled roughly on MTIP. (For more detail, see information included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Chair Park asked about Measure 1B (Growth in Density) on page 2 of the green sheet. (See copy in permanent record of this meeting.) He said a certain level of density did not allow for efficient movement.

Mr. Brandman said this process was not intended to establish or change densities already established through 2040. This was to see where the greatest increases in density were planned.

Ms. Wieghart clarified that they were only looking at the Tier 1 land uses that are already proposed for greater densities.

Chair Park asked how density was being measured.

Ms. Wieghart responded they were counting households per acre rather than people.

Councilor Burkholder said his neighborhood had had a great increase in housing units but a drop in the number of people actually living there. He said there was a trend for a drop in household size. He asked how transit mobility was being measured.

Ms. Wieghart agreed that they should be concerned about how quickly the transit moved through the corridor at the corridor study level. She said they had worked with Tri-Met on the study criteria and determined that was too fine a level of detail. They wanted to get to which corridors were slated for the great transit potential but had very low service levels at this time. She said those were going to be primary under this measure, keeping in mind this was just to select which corridors to study first.

Councilor Burkholder thought they were measuring two different things. They talked about mobility for people in automobiles, and access for bikes, pedestrians and transit. He said they should use the same measure if they were trying to achieve the same end.

Mr. Brandman said the intent was to have a measure to determine how large was the need for improvement in corridor A vs. corridor B. He said the criteria probably needed to be tweaked. They were trying to have a parallel need question answered in each of the corridor analyses. He said they would work with the committee on the language.

Councilor Burkholder reiterated the difference he saw with automobiles, it was how long it took to get from point A to point B, and with transit it was how many buses go by your stop per hour.

Mr. Brandman said travel time between distances for transit was critically important for determining what they would actually implement in that corridor. He assured Councilor Burkholder that that concern was well addressed in the actual study.

John Houser, Senior Council Analyst, commented that the documents largely dealt with technical criteria. He wondered, if one project was ranked higher than another in a particular county, and the county was only willing to help fund the lower ranked one, how would that fit into the plan.

Mr. Brandman said that was currently under discussion with the partners. He said this was not going to be an entirely technical ranking because of that problem.

Councilor Atherton asked if there was a difference in the way they rated corridors serving existing households versus those that were anticipated to serve new growth.

Ms. Wieghart said the criteria got at that in different ways, for instance if there was existing congestion in an area. She said they did not distinguish between current and future level services on new development. She said they also did not distinguish whether the congestion was caused by growth or existing problems. She added that if a corridor was outside of the UGB, it did not get points for growth in this study.

Mr. Brandman, in response to a question from Councilor Atherton, said by the very actions that this council takes, if something had been included in the UGB for expansion and there was population and employment expectations for that area, those were factored into this. They got no greater or lesser weight than any other population or employment anywhere else. He said it was a policy question if the council wanted to say new growth was more or less important to serve with transportation infrastructure than existing growth.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 2001, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Councilor McLain said she had changes to her motions on pages 2 and 8. She said she had spoken with the clerk of the committee regarding her concerns about the language in the two paragraphs as well as the motions. She said they also spoke about standard operating practices for writing out motions in the minutes.

She said Ordinances No. 01-892 and 01-893 were both map change issues and her comments on both motions were to relate to both ordinances. She said she may not have articulated it well enough, but the minutes did not reflect what she was thinking or what she was trying to say. She felt it could quickly be fixed by adding the 3 words that were left out of her comments on page 8, “Councilor McLain said the issue of regional impact was not confined to the Hillsboro sites”.

She said both of the motions she made were to forward this for review. Her notes on the motions said “move forward with and for MPAC review”. She said the reason for that was because the charter said they had to do it that way, they could not act on land use issues without MPAC review. She said there was a sentence in the paragraph that reflected that, “… vote forward the motion today was because she knew it would receive MPAC review”, and on page 2, “she suggests the committee move forward with Ordinance No. 01-892”. Again, that was with MPAC review. She did not think it made a big deal of difference as far as the operation because she knew the Chair had the expectation that those ordinances would go to the Council for the next action. She thought that would still happen with what the motions currently said, but she thought it was important for the makers of the motion to have the motion reflect what they were intending to say.

She concluded by saying that she wanted the 3 words added on page 8, and the motion on page 2 to say “move forward” like it did on page 8.

Chair Park said he had had a conversation with staff on the issue and had been told that the way it currently read accurately reflected the tape and the motions that were made.

Councilor McLain said they did not reflect her words and she made the motion. She said she was asking for a correction of the minutes. She said the second issue was when she asked the clerk specifically how he came up with those motions, she was told they were copied from the agenda. She said she could not have a clerk deciding to put in a substitute motion for her. She wanted the motion to be the one she intended to make. She felt the paragraph reflected the accuracy of what she had just indicated, that her motions should say, like they did on page 8, “moved forward”. She explained there that it was “with MPAC review”. She said according to the charter, the minutes should reflect that phrase because it is Code to have MPAC review before council action.

Chair Park said it was his understanding that the minutes had to reflect what was actually said on the tape and not what was intended. He said in discussing this issue with staff after she had talked with the clerk, that the way it was currently written accurately reflected what was on the tape. He said if she had a concern, perhaps she should please listen to the tape and the committee could put off accepting the minutes until a later time.

Councilor McLain said if the Chair refused her request to accurately put down the motion, the minutes for today’s meeting would reflect that the motion she made on March 6^th for Ordinance No. 01-892 should have read “Councilor McLain moved forward Ordinance No. 01-892 for the purpose of review by MPAC”. She said that page 8 of the minutes was appropriate because it said that Councilor McLain moved Ordinance No. 01-893 forward with an explanation that it was for MPAC review. She was comfortable that that was enough to solve the problem.

Councilor Monroe said that the Chair was correct, that under parliamentary rules and Roberts Rules, the minutes should show what was actually said, not what was intended to be said. He said that the only way he knew to clear the matter up was to listen to the tape.

Councilor Bragdon seconded the motion to table.

Chair Park commented that in the future he hoped the minutes would not be changed with staff, but at the committee meeting following proper procedure.

Councilor McLain said she had been trying to handle this issue in a diplomatic and neutral way but because of the way it was handled, she could not. She said she had checked the minutes because at the last MPAC meeting, for the first time in 11 years there was a disagreement in public over a simple issue that was captured in a minutes record. She said it was very important to her that she was able to go back to the clerk to find out what he had written and why. She said the clerk and she had discussed the minutes, which he was working on when she went to his desk to see if they were completed. He pulled the minutes up on the screen and scrolled to the motions. She told him that one was correct but the other was not what she remembered writing on her notes. She said she did not ask the clerk to change something for her, she just wanted to know what was in the minutes. She said she voted against the tabling motion because she did not need to carry this out any further. She knew that the motions would be correct in the minutes from now on and not copied from the agenda. She said she had helped the clerk clean up the minutes process as much as the dialogue today. She agreed with Councilor Monroe that the clerk needed to make sure what was said was said. She also knew that she had a right as a councilor that if she misspoke or was not clear, if she was misinterpreted or misquoted, she could change it on the minutes at the next meeting, which was what she did today. She repeated that those motions were to refer the two ordinances forward for MPAC review. She said whether the motions were going to go to Council for action or back to committee, that was not her role to say, but she did have a role in making sure her words were correct. She said she would have appreciated hearing comments from the chair before the meeting if he had problems.

Chair Park said the issue would come up at the next meeting of the Community Planning committee. He said he had instructed the committee clerk to accurately reflect what was said on the tape. He said he had not listened personally to the tape but had been told by a number of staff that the minutes did accurately reflect the tape. He added that she was correct that corrections should be made at committee and not one on one with the clerk.

12.  Councilor Communications

Presiding Officer Bragdon reported on HB 2979 which Council voted to oppose at their last meeting. He said the bill was considered by the House Smart Growth and Commerce Committee, chaired by Representative Witt and sponsored by the Homebuilders Association. The bill would have removed Metro’s authority to do natural resource planning. He and Mr. Burton went to Salem supported by Lisa Naito on behalf of MPAC, Mayor Williams of Oregon City, Mayor Lehan of Wilsonville, and a letter from Mayor Drake of Beaverton who all opposed the bill and talked about the partnership they had with Metro. He said it was basically a half-hour advertisement for Metro from the local governments. He reported it came out very well and from what they could tell, the bill would go no further.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:36 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Billington

Clerk of the Council

Attachments to the Public Record

Metro Community Planning Committee meeting of March 20, 2001

Testimony cards

None.