MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Presiding Officer David Bragdon

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

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the April 17, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  JPACT

Councilor Monroe reported that JPACT was still working on the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement System (MTIP) allocation process, reviewing transportation legislation as well as Regional Transportation Authority legislation, and said there will be a report on the South Corridor status at their next meeting on May 10^th.

•  Natural Resources

Councilor Hosticka reported that on May 9^th the committee would begin to formally consider the question of criteria to be used to determine regionally significant natural resources for protection under the state’s Goal 5 program. The committee was taking a step-by-step approach to the Goal 5 program, the first step being to inventory resources – and this step was near completion. The next step was to determine what criteria would apply to the resources to determine whether or not they’re regionally significant. At the May 9^th meeting the committee will deal with the type of criteria to apply rather than which criteria to apply. He said there was discussion on whether to apply basically scientific criteria or basically political criteria in determining regional significance. This issue would thoroughly be aired, and then direction would be given to staff on how to proceed to the next step.

Once Goal 5 has been taken care of, he said the committee would like to begin working on the Parks Subcommittee report that came out of MPAC. The committee’s agenda will be fairly full over the next few months and he said they welcome the Council’s input.

3.  Ordinance No. 01-902, For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code 3.01 to Avoid UGB Map Errors

Mary Weber, Manager of the Community Development Division, Planning Department, explained that this ordinance was part of a technical exercise that had to do with the long-term management of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), tracking it and fixing glitches. This legislation is the result of this committee’s recommendation and adoption of changes to the UGB map, changing the official UGB map to the GIS map layers as well as correcting errors on the map, and dealing with the actual Metro code changes in tandem and in addition to those map corrections.

Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, Community Development Division, Planning Department, explained the code changes in greater detail as outlined in the staff report to the ordinance.

Chair Park opened a public hearing. No one appeared to speak with regard to Ordinance No. 01-902. Chair Park closed the public hearing.

Chair Park assigned Councilor McLain to carry Ordinance No. 01-902 to the full Council.

4.  Resolution No. 01-3069 – For the Purpose of Making Citizen Appointments to the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC).

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, explained the appointment of these two citizen members (of six total citizen members) to TPAC, as outlined in the staff report to this resolution. Mr. Gary Katsion was being proposed for a second term and Ms. Victoria Brown as a new citizen member. Mr. Cotugno added that Ms. Brown’s appointment will be the first time a person with a TMA affiliation would be included on TPAC, and this will provide a more formal connection with the six TMAs in the region.

Councilor Monroe said he and Councilor Burkholder were on the application review committee and had interviewed several candidates. He urged support of the resolution.

Chair Park assigned Councilor Monroe to carry Resolution No. 01-3069 to the full Council.

5.  2040 Re-engagement Update

Mike Hoglund, Regional Planning Director, Planning Department, before starting his briefing, paraphrased Governor Kitzhaber saying those involved in these issues need to reengage the public about the goals, objectives, trade offs and choices that are to be made with regard to natural resources, transportation and growth management issues. Mr. Hoglund said this 2040 Re-engagement process was Metro’s response to this. His briefing is included in the agenda material.

The councilors asked for regular updates on this process, as this was a large undertaking, and asked Mr. Hoglund to keep checking back with them.

6.  MetroScope

•  Base Case Results

Mike Hoglund distributed a summary of this presentation as well as a copy of the base case charts used in his briefing. Copies of these are included in the meeting record. He also used large maps on easels.

Chair Park said he was interested in the next cycle of the refill rates, but that he thought the trend was going in the right direction. Mr. Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, Forecasting and Modeling, Data Resource Center, Planning Department, cautioned that most of the redevelopment infill rate was mostly infill, and infill does have a finite capacity. Mr. Hoglund added that the term refill includes both infill and redevelopment. This is important to distinguish because by showing changes in infill and redevelopment over time, we will reach a point where we run out of infill lands. Both will be shown in future charts because they are two different things.

•  Enhanced Centers Case Study

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, Community Development Division, Planning Department, cited and briefed the committee on her memo of May 3, 2001, regarding Case Study Discussion: 2040 Centers and Damascus, included in the agenda material. At Chair Park’s direction, she focused on the Enhanced 2040 Centers Cast Study as the Damascus Case Study was discussed at the last meeting. She outlined what can be learned, what input assumptions were used, and proposed five discussion points where she asked for direction from the committee.

Chair Park responded to the first point on whether the study should occur only on exception lands, saying that in order to make the study have meaning he thought the recommendation that expansion should only occur on exception lands, and Ms. Neill agreed. The second point he felt required discussion by this committee.

Councilor Burkholder said he felt the assumptions for inputs looked like they were trying to subsidize growth in those areas (centers), and he would like to look at how to stop subsidizing growth and encourage redevelopment without using public funds. He mentioned looking at the tax structure, the Strategic Investment Program, and tying system development charges to actual costs of development.

Ms. Neill said it could be designed this way, and Mr. Sonny Conder, Principal Regional Planner, Forecasting and Modeling, Data Resource Center, Planning Department, agreed that it could be modeled any way the committee decides.

Chair Park said the key was not which policies were made but what would be the effect. Concluding the discussion, he asked staff to attempt coming up with some type of concept that eliminated subsidies. Mary Weber, Manager, Community Development Division, Planning Department, requested more direction from the committee. Chair Park responded that the five-year assumption that land will be available every five years with infrastructure is aggressive, using Pleasant Valley as an example, and clouds the model. Correcting this could have a dramatic effect on the model. Since the base case study has already begun with the five-year assumptions, he asked if this would throw it out of kilter. Ms. Weber replied that a five or even a ten-year lag could be incorporated. Ms. Neill added, regarding availability of services, that some areas would be quicker to serve than others. An example being Washington County might be able to provide services sooner than Clackamas County

Regarding Discussion Point 1, Chair Park obtained consensus from the committee that staff assume only exception lands within the current state criteria.

He then asked the committee, regarding Discussion Point 2, if they wanted staff to consider increasing densities or enlarging the centers, or stay within what is current, i.e., assume no further upzoning.

Regarding Discussion Point 3, the committee agreed they would like to see commercial development curtailed in industrial lands, and industrial uses only in industrial areas, and Ms. Weber said the floor-to-area ratios (FARs) in the corridors could be decreased density. Chair Park said Discussion Point 4 had already been answered in that it is not necessarily a use of urban renewal districts but the timing of whatever mechanism used to create a differential in costs of development inside and outside of centers. The direction of the committee for Discussion Point 5 was to focus on the eight regional centers (excluding town centers), the MTIP process and the RTP, with peer review on a five-year interval. Chair Park didn’t want to introduce another variable but did want to see a differential created. Ms. Neill said since this was the learning phase, when the committee instructs staff to develop a preferred alternative, staff would provide more information about how sensitive the model is to adding different lands and the likelihood of providing services within a five-year time frame and could perhaps use a different assumption later. Additional information will be provided to the committee on this issue.

•  Alternatives Sites Study Phase II Study Areas

A map (Draft Alternatives Analysis Study Areas) was distributed to the committee for discussion purposes (and is included in the permanent meeting record) together with Mr. Tim O’Brien’s memo to Ms. Neill of May 2, 2001, regarding Alternative Sites Study Phase II Study Areas, included in the agenda packet. The areas discussed at the last Community Planning Committee meeting were marked on the distributed map, Ms. Neill said, but the areas she would discuss today, the southwest portion, were not included on it. At the committee’s direction, she would make those revisions. On this map, Ms. Neill “walked” around the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as she briefly touched on each area set out in Mr. O’Brien’s memo.

Larry Shaw, Metro Legal Counsel, agreed with Councilor McLain that the criteria in the memo ought to be reflected somehow on the map or indicated in a shorter fashion, i.e., call it a MetroScope model alternatives analysis. Ms. Neill said she would retitle the map for clarity and its connection with MetroScope as well as the pertinent correspondence, etc., at Councilors McLain, Hosticka and Atherton request and Mr. Shaw’s suggestion, to avoid confusion.

7.  Performance Measures – Review

Gerry Uba, Program Supervisor, Long-Range Planning Section, Regional Planning Division, Planning Department, appeared before the committee to continue his briefing begun on April 17^th on Performance Measures. Mr. Uba first addressed the seven 2040 Fundamentals he and Councilor Burkholder had been requested to revise. The agenda packet included this revised recommendation (Attachment A), as well as two additional recommendations proposed, respectively, by Councilors Burkholder and Atherton (Attachment B), and by Councilor Burkholder and Presiding Officer Bragdon (Attachment C0.

(NOTE: A copy of this information is included in the agenda packet as a permanent record of this meeting.)

Mr. Uba asked for policy direction from the committee on which of the three versions to use. Regarding Attachment D, Policy Direction to Staff for Performance Measures, he said this was the final form of what the committee at their last meeting said they wanted. Attachment E included new indicators proposed by Councilor Burkholder and would need the committee’s approval. Mr. Uba explained these in more detail. There was discussion on vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) and whether time or mode should be used. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, when asked, said he felt that minutes were the correct measurement.

Councilor Hosticka said he made the above motion for purposes of discussion. Councilor Burkholder agreed this was something that needed to be discussed as he wasn’t sure it was existing, adopted policy. There was a discussion on whether or not this was already included in Metro policy, the general consensus being that it was.

In discussion, Councilor Monroe said he was comfortable adding Item 5 from Attachment B as long as the rural reserves language was removed. Chair Park said he didn’t believe current Metro policy precluded individual cities from purchasing greenbelts around themselves. Councilor McLain asked to go on record as saying Metro had acknowledgement of their reserves on their 2040 Growth Map and won’t be in trouble with the state because Metro always follows the rules and always has the best of findings. Councilor Atherton said he thought this was a legitimate design option, a legal planning option, and is what the people want.

There being no further discussion, Chair Park called for the vote on the original motion, as amended.

Chair Park and Councilor Burkholder discussed the policy question on the difference between a local and regional economy regarding Attachment C, Item. 7. Chair Park proposed a friendly amendment to the original motion, changing the “strong local economy” to read “strong regional economy.” The committee accepted the friendly amendment.

Because of time constraints, Chair Park moved agenda item 8 (Urban Growth Boundary Code Review) and item 9 (Regional Business Alliance for Transportation) to the next committee meeting agenda, May 22, 2001.

10.  Councilor Communications

Councilor Burkholder reminded the committee that they would be holding a redistricting public hearing as the Metro Council at 5:30 p.m. that day in Beaverton, as well as on Thursday, May 10^th, at 2:00 p.m. in the Metro council chamber.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:41 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 8, 2001

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

Testimony cards

None.