MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, April 17, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the April 3, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

Councilor Hosticka said he would approve the minutes with a correction on page 2 regarding locational adjustment recommendations.

2.  Ordinance No. 01-900, For the Purpose of Amending Ordinance No. 97-713 to Correct Regional Urban Growth Boundary Map Errors and Adopting the Geographic Information System Map of the Regional Urban Growth Boundary.

Mary Weber, Manager of Community Development Division, Planning Department, explained that this ordinance was part of the periodic review process and was mainly maintenance of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The actual code amendment language associated with it would come before this body at a later date, she said.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said language regarding the floodplain boundary previously had been on the map, as Exhibit A, and that should also be done here. Councilor Hosticka said if this committee approved this ordinance on to council that this correction should be made. Ms. Weber said that was staff’s intent. The official map will be a series of GIS maps.

Councilor McLain said she wished the City of Cornelius changes could have been included and she wanted it to be on record that the City of Cornelius has asked Metro to address that.

Chair Park opened a public hearing. No one appeared to speak with regard to Ordinance No. 01-900. Chair Park closed the public hearing.

3.  Alternatives Analysis – Jurisdiction Comments

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, Community Development Division, Planning Department, at Chair Park’s request, explained the study areas on the Draft Alternative Analysis Study Areas map; a colored map was distributed and is included in the meeting record.

Ms. Neill reviewed the second round of jurisdictional comments along with the staff perspective on these comments, as set out in the April 11, 2001, memo, Draft Alternative Site Study-Jurisdictional Comments.

Chair Park asked staff to distribute a copy of criteria outlined in ORS 197.128 due to prior committee discussion regarding the importance of the one-mile rule and why that needs to be looked at. A copy of this is included in the meeting record.

Based on the staff recommendation concerning comments received from ODOT, Councilor McLain suggested when the committee addresses locational adjustments in the Metro Code, that major adjustments and clean up alignments should also be reviewed.

Ms. Neill asked for direction to proceed with discussion of the comments received from the local governments and the staff response at the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) the following day. A similar meeting has been scheduled with the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), as well as with state staff. Ms. Neill assured the committee that no changes would be made without coming back for review.

There was more discussion on the existing UGB, exception lands, the one-mile rule, logical boundaries, and the Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 purposes and studies. Chair Park said he felt it important to point out that the process wasn’t yet at the point of decision making or of excluding areas. He said he knew the process needed to move ahead, and asked if the committee was comfortable with staff taking this to MTAC and MPAC. The committee agreed.

Ms. Neill then identified the Phase 2 study areas on the map. She said staff was poised to let the contract for the Phase 2 consulting work to collect information and asked if the identified areas were what the committee wanted them to study. This question would also be proposed to MTAC and MPAC and staff could proceed one of three ways: 1) study the areas identified at this time subject to adjustment by the committee, 2) focus on the Damascus area, or 3) not study anything on the western edge and look at Damascus.

Chair Park obtained the committee’s agreement to move forward with interaction with the local jurisdictions, the state, and the consultant contract. Councilor Burkholder felt, other than the Damascus study area, that some of the other study areas needed justification. Councilors Hosticka and McLain agreed with Councilor Burkholder. Chair Park reminded the committee that this was still in draft form to be released for comment, and when comments were received the committee would then look at refining it. There were still questions on phase 2, but Chair Park said these would be addressed at a later time. Councilor McLain indicated that she was comfortable with starting in the Damascus area. With the committee’s consent, Chair Park instructed Ms. Neill to move forward and closed the discussion.

4.  Resolution No. 01-3060A – For the Purpose of Amending the MTIP to Authorize a $2.0 million Congressional Appropriation for Preliminary Engineering of North and Southbound Improvement of I-5 from Delta Park to Lombard.

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, explained that this recognizes funds that were earmarked to the region for Preliminary Engineering for the Delta Park section of the proposed southbound improvement of I-5. The funds were requested in the region’s federal transportation priorities paper last year. Councilor Monroe recommended approval of the resolution, saying it had been unanimously approved as amended by JPACT, thus making it No. 01-3060A. (A copy of the redline version of this resolution is included in this record.)

5.  Resolution No. 01-3061 – For the Purpose of Amending the MTIP to Increase Tri-Met’s FY 01 and 02 Preventative Rail Maintenance Program by $5.4345 Million to Accommodate Tri-Met/ODOT Fund Exchanges

Mr. Cotugno said that the resolution implements an agreement between ODOT, Tri-Met and the small cities of Oregon. Local jurisdictions outside Metro receive allocation of Surface Transportation Program (STP) federal funds on a formula basis based upon their population. Metro receives a guaranteed allocation of federal funds based upon federal statute. All the other jurisdictions outside MPOs of more than one million in population or more are not guaranteed that local distribution. ODOT has struck an agreement with them to provide them with an allocation on a per capita basis. Because many of those jurisdictions are very small, ODOT has also provided them with the capacity to exchange these federal dollars for state dollars because the federal dollars require compliance with more stringent federal requirements.

This fiscal year, Tri-Met has agreed to trade $5.435 million of its general fund dollars for a comparable amount of ODOT funds, and to amend its grants to increase the federal share of its existing Preventative Rail Maintenance program line item to absorb this. Metro is involved in this process in that any federal dollars that come into the region for transportation purposes need to be approved by Metro and included in Metro’s MTIP, and to demonstrate that it meets air quality conformity requirements.

Councilor Monroe said this was Metro working at its best by providing funding to smaller local jurisdictions without all the red tape, and he urged approval.

Councilor McLain said she was happy to vote yes, and she wanted to make sure this didn’t come out of Metro’s MTIP. Mr. Cotugno assured her that these were not allocated funds. Such funds have to be put in Metro’s TIP, and receive Council approval.

Chair Park asked that Councilor Monroe carry resolutions No. 01-3060A and 01-3061 to the Metro Council.

Councilor Monroe requested that agenda item 8 be moved forward.

8.  Status Report on Activities Related to the South Corridor Study

Richard Brandman and Ross Roberts brought the committee up to date on the South Corridor Study per the April 17^th agenda status report. An untitled, unnumbered resolution was introduced in which the Metro Community Planning Committee would endorse the South Corridor Policy Group recommendations regarding options for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (This resolution has since been numbered as 01-3064, and is included in this record as is the original untitled version.) Mr. Ross provided a copy of his report (included in this record.)

Councilor Monroe explained that this would be before the Metro Council the following week in order to have approval prior to a May 7th meeting when the decision would be made of what goes into the EIS. He said this does not change the policy of the council but reaffirms past policy. Chair Park agreed that it was important to restate it and have it on record.

6.  2040 Performance Measures

•  Principles – Referred from Natural Resources Committee

Mark Turpel called the committee’s attention to an April 10, 2001, memo to Chair Park and the Committee, and a March 22, 2001, memo to Natural Resource Committee Chair Hosticka in which he asked for direction for staff concerning Performance Measures. In the policy conclusions/directions listed in the March 22 memo, Chair Park requested a revision of the wording in 5, Concentrate on How We Could Do Better. Councilor Hosticka asked for a revision in 3, Report Outputs as Well as Outcomes.

Councilor Burkholder thought this was a good direction for when people ask if they’re getting what they’re paying for, and that these were good measures to track. Councilor Hosticka suggested possibly using similar wording from the General Social Survey, a national survey, and some other information from the Oregon Social Survey research lab, both of which he offered to provide to staff.

As this seemed to capture what the committee said they would like to see, with the exception of the above changes, Chair Park directed Mr. Turpel to continue to use these as the guidelines.

•  Fundamentals

Gerry Uba, Program Supervisor in the Planning Department, opened his remarks by addressing Attachment A, the 2040 Fundamentals (with active statements), and Attachment B, the 2040 Fundamentals (without active statements), saying the changes recommended by this committee on February 20 were reflected in Attachment A. Mr. Uba said he would like some direction today which to use.

Councilor Burkholder preferred the clear, simple, concise statements in Attachment B, and Councilor McLain agreed. She said there might be a risk if there were no qualifiers or quantifiers. Chair Park said she made a good point, that there were some who could have different viewpoints on one definition. His leaning, he said, was that Attachment A needed some work, and it could then give clear direction. Councilor Hosticka added that if staff was looking for direction in what they ought to be measuring, it should be Attachment A.

In Fundamental 2, Councilor Atherton said he didn’t like the “etcetera” used in the sentence, and in Fundamental 4, he said that keeping separate community identities was a concept of the 2040 growth concept, and he had thought that was clear.

Councilor Burkholder said the ideas were there, and it was important they be clear. Rather than have the committee do the rewriting, he offered to work with staff on that; Chair Park directed staff to work with Councilor Burkholder.

Chair Park asked the committee, regarding Councilor Atherton’s comment on separate community identities and because he believed this to be a policy decision, to look at the different scenarios under A, B and C, and the 2040 Growth Concept to make sure they understand what it says. This could be a future discussion item.

•  Preliminary Draft Recommendation of Scored 2040 Performance Indicators

Mr. Uba began going through the draft recommendation of Performance Indicators (Attachment C). He explained the timeline of the indicators and that staff was hoping to bring back something to the committee by July, which was why the indicators were narrowed down to these 90.

Mr. Uba explained that the 90 indicators cover Fundamentals 1 through 7. He said the questions listed below the Fundamentals were very important, as that is how staff identified each of these indicators. If there are enough of those, a very good story can be told of what’s being evaluated.

[NOTE: The sound system did not switch over to record on Tape 3, so an exact record of this portion of the meeting is unavailable.]

Because the room was needed for another meeting, Mr. Uba’s briefing concluded early. Mr. Uba was asked to brief each councilor outside of the committee environment. Chair Park instructed him to be sure to get Councilor Atherton’s housing comments, and asked the councilors remaining in the chamber (Councilors Burkholder, Atherton and Hosticka) to make a point of meeting with staff on this.

7.  2040 Re-engagement Update

Mike Hoglund, Regional Planning Director, Planning Department, briefly touched on the recent 2040 Re-engagement activities and umbrella of work programs. He said staff was preparing to bring this to MPAC, JPACT, etc. Mr. Hoglund distributed an April 17 draft memo to the committee (included in this record), which gave a report in more detail and also asked for direction. Mr. Hoglund asked how the committee would like him to provide future reports. He suggested committee briefings as well as individual councilor briefings, and he asked them to consider any other methods for councilor involvement they might desire and to let him know.

Mr. Hoglund then invited the councilors to meet with other local elected officials, as outlined in his memo. Chair Park instructed Mr. Hoglund to begin scheduling these meetings, and told the councilors to let Mr. Hoglund know if they had any questions. Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Hoglund to provide a list of some key issues and questions.

9.  Councilor Communications

None.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5:26 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2001

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

Testimony cards

None.