MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, June 5, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Presiding Officer Bragdon and Councilor Rex Burkholder

Chair Rod Park called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the May 22, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  Natural Resources

Councilor Hosticka reported that the Natural Resources Committee would be looking at the proposed Goal 5 effort, at the different functions served by natural features and how to assess those, etc. Maps would be brought to the Natural Resources Committee for their review and he invited any and all to attend. Replying to a question from Councilor Atherton, Councilor Hosticka said the maps were of the assessed sites and what they serve, and then a combined overlay map.

•  JPACT

Councilor Monroe reported that at a meeting earlier this day of the South Corridor Steering Committee some decisions were made on what projects will be further studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – light rail in the I-205 Corridor from Clackamas Town Center to Gateway, light rail from Milwaukie to downtown Portland, a Busway from Clackamas Town Center to downtown Portland, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) through the whole South Corridor, which had been decided previously. Their next meeting is at 3:00 p.m., Monday, August 6^th; they hope to have narrowed the options by then.

2a.  Water Resource Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC)

Chair Park invited Councilor McLain to give a committee update on WRPAC, and she reported that as part of the Goal 5 work for this committee as well as the Natural Resources Committee, WRPAC has been working on utility issues, maintenance and repair, as well as emergency issues with utilities, takes some real work to make sure they’re practical as well as functional. This piece will be integrated into Natural Resources Committee work, she said, and a report will be completed shortly.

3.  Community Planning Work Plan Status

Chair Park said this item would be included in the committee agenda each month so the committee will know if they’re on schedule for their different issue/projects. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, distributed a report titled Update to the Community Planning Committee Work Plan, dated June 5, 2001, and made a part of this record, which followed the categories laid out in the committee’s work plan and deal with some of the products defined in that schedule. He then spoke about those products/products/ issues. Regarding Periodic Review, he added that the Web site is being updated and expect that to be operational by July. This will be an enhanced set of information that provides an interactive tool with the public. Staff is starting to define a Damascus outreach program in cooperation with Clackamas County as Phase II on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Alternatives Analysis work. On the Employment Research, regarding the Employment and Population Forecast shown to the council last fall, Mr. Cotugno said staff has postponed asking for adoption of that, originally scheduled for this spring, because of the 2000 census figures, and they felt they needed to factor that in. This will bring their report to the council in September, later than anticipated but well within the time needed for an Urban Growth Report (UGR).

Chair Park asked what would happen if areas don’t make it into the Phase II Study for MetroScope. Mr. Cotugno said if it’s not studied, it can’t be considered. Larry Shaw, General Counsel, said Phase II is a series of lands to study in the MetroScope model and there is still the opportunity, and perhaps the duty for when new data comes in when you open the hearings, that may cause you to react to it or to study more lands. Right now, he said, the council is not making a final decision of what lands will be studied forever, but are making the decision of what lands will be studied in the MetroScope model.

Chair Park said he wanted it clear that no one was surprised that something wasn’t studied. Mr. Cotugno said staff was studying the Damascus area now, as instructed, but they did not have closure yet on other territory.

Regarding Goal 5, Mr. Cotugno said staff was working hard with the Natural Resources Committee to get the functional criteria settled before August so that staff will have closure then in order to do the mapping, and then come back in September to move on to the significant selection step.

Councilor Monroe asked if he could have a report on the Bethany Decision of the previous week; Mr. Shaw provided the committee with a copy of his memo to Mr. Cotugno of May 31, 2001, a copy of which is included as a part of this record. Chair Park asked Mr. Shaw to schedule a briefing to the councilors on this for a later date.

Mr. Cotugno continued his briefing on the Work Plan. He reminded the councilors of the June 18^th public hearing. Also, he said, conclusions would need to be reached in the next few months on which corridors to study next in the Corridor Initiatives study, and staff would be bringing information on this forward soon. The I-5 Trade Corridor study has been moving along well and he offered an update on this to the committee; Chair Park instructed staff to note this as a future agenda item.

Chair Park said, referring back to the survey, one of the mode questions on commuter rail provided no other information other than the words “commuter rail.” He thought someone from the general public would have no idea what that was and suggested something on there explaining what it was.

4.  Transportation Policy Direction – this item was held over to the June 19, 2001, meeting.

5.  UGB Code Amendments

Chair Park said there has been discussion for years on the purpose of the jurisdictional boundary, on the use of locational adjustments and, to a lesser extent, major amendments. Councilor McLain has requested that these issues will be addressed once more. Chair Park invited Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, to review his memo of May 2, 2001 (included in the agenda packet and part of this record).

•  Jurisdictional Boundary

Mr. Morrissey explained, per his memo, that the criterion for bringing property inside the jurisdictional boundary was construed by some as confusing due to the 1999 Metro Code amendment, and there has been some discussion on the Metro Council whether or not to change the language.

Councilor McLain interjected that she believes the jurisdictional boundary has gone thru a metamorphosis since it was first drawn, and there are parts of it that make no sense. When Metro rewrote the code on this, she said, there were some discussion items left out that were not finished being dealt with. She mentioned citizens who said there are affected by Metro’s decisions and who want to be included in the jurisdictional boundary, but aren’t and thus have no say in Metro’s processes. Other citizens are interested in park areas and feel they’d get more protection being within the boundary. Councilor McLain said she feels Metro owes these people a response, whether it’s a decision to keep or not to keep the same criterion for approval, and she still believes the code language needs to be cleaned up.

Responding to a question from Chair Park, Mr. Shaw said the Urban Reserve Rule from LCDC gave Metro the only extra territorial jurisdiction that he knew of outside the jurisdictional boundary. Designating those urban reserves as future places to go for urban growth boundary amendments that under statute would be the first priority for urban growth boundary amendments would not change the fact that at the time you do the UGB amendment you would have to move the jurisdictional boundary just as we do now. We anticipated that problem and there was a bill submitted by Metro to try to move the jurisdictional boundary to the urban reserve limits, but that bill was not adopted.

Councilor Atherton asked what the JPACT connection was regarding regional planning, specifically the scope of Metro’s jurisdictional boundary regarding transportation planning. Councilor Monroe responded that there are JPACT representatives from the three counties and their jurisdictions included their whole counties, and there are three representatives from Clark County, so yes, he said, JPACT’s jurisdiction does go beyond Metro’s boundary in those areas. Mr. Cotugno added that the JPACT membership includes jurisdictions that are outside Metro’s boundary, but the function of JPACT does not go outside Metro’s boundary. The transportation plans that have been adopted, in certain cases, have projects that go outside because functionally they serve the transportation function, but the legal effect under state land use authority is advisory as opposed to regulatory. From a federal standpoint, they would view the urban transportation plan to whatever is needed, and they are not limiting it to a jurisdictional boundary. No one has called into question those projects outside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary. Air quality conformity is the one area the federal government has called the question on because air quality conformity must, by federal statute, conform to the airshed which goes to the Chehalem Mountains and out to Sandy.

Councilor Hosticka had a similar question about the area outside the UGB and inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary in whether the provisions of the Metro plans apply to those areas. Mr. Shaw said yes, the jurisdictional boundary includes a regional law (Title 3 being an example), unless we say otherwise.

Councilor Atherton said to him being inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary meant more than being inside the UGB, that it involved parks planning, watershed planning, transportation planning and, hopefully, solving the issues of community identity and the rural reserve question. All of these are regional issues, which may or may not have anything to do with bringing land inside the UGB.

Chair Park summarized, saying the discussion had provided food for thought and certainly wouldn’t get solved at this meeting.

Councilor McLain said there was no decision today on which to vote or anything on which to give direction to staff, but she wanted to make sure the Metro Code reads clearly so as to not confuse applicants. She said still believes the primary criteria for approval is not clean enough. She asked Chair Park to request that Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Shaw and whoever else to look at how to make sure the Code we have does a good job of defining what we mean, and look at the wording.

Chair Park asked the committee’s preference. Councilor suggested if a member of council wanted to pursue this they should be free to draft proposed language, and he encouraged that in order to focus the discussion. With the committee’s agreement, Chair Park asked Councilor McLain to draft the appropriate language in the form of an ordinance.

•  Locational Adjustments and Major Amendments

A memo to Councilor McLain from Larry Shaw regarding Locational Adjustment Revision Alternatives, dated June 5, 2001, was distributed and made a part of this record. Chair Park asked Mr. Morrissey to address the options in his memo (referred to above) regarding locational adjustments and major amendments, and then Mr. Shaw to address the options in his memo, and then the committee had their discussion.

In looking at Option 1 from Mr. Shaw’s memo, there was additional discussion on school district sites, where they’re located in the community, and the amount of land they use. A quick explanation of this option, Mr. Shaw said, was to tighten up the Metro Code in ways that would restrict who could get it and for what purposes, and keep it, or to eliminate it.

Councilor McLain said once in a while there is a small locational adjustment that needs to be made and the full-blown process is expensive and not appropriate. She hoped Mr. Shaw’s memo would help the other committee members in their analysis and review because it was based on adjustments that had been made in the past. The criteria could be smaller, stricter, or they could add another exception or two that would be valid. It’s up to the council.

Councilor Hosticka said Mr. Shaw’s memo called a few points to his attention regarding legislative adjustments and asked Mr. Shaw how those worked. Mr. Shaw said these come up every five years under the statute; historically through 1992 there were none of these. In the last two legislatives considerations, there were individual circumstances brought up at legislative hearings that were considered and added, and because the whole decision was legislative some smaller considerations were addressed in that process. It could occur again. Often, the people who choose to do it that way are the ones who find out how much it cost to go through the major amendment process. Councilor Hosticka said an annual process might not be necessary if there were a type of safety valve like that for adjustments, as long as there was no urgency.

Councilor Atherton said he appreciated Councilor McLain’s attention and work on this issue. He said he would agree to follow up with Option 1 but to tighten it up.

Councilor Monroe said his first reaction was to do away with it but he agreed that there were some circumstances where it would be appropriate, if it were tightly restricted. As long as it’s on the books the way it is now, people will try to get around it.

Chair Park summarized that the committee wanted locational adjustment legislation drafted to tighten this up, and he listed the ideas the councilors put forward as well as his own: restrict the purpose to governments to apply for certain uses; limit how often it could be used; raise the bar for a higher public purpose; trade for natural areas adjustment – Chair Park said he would like more clarification on this one; and he heard both sides of the issue for schools. Also, regarding schools, he said he could see some type of process where schools will have the land they need but he was concerned that would be abused. He reminded the committee that there is a factor in the Urban Growth Report for the siting of schools. He said a school site would need to be placed in a “correct” location, defining correct as within the neighborhood it is intended to serve rather than at the edge of the UGB, as Councilor Atherton mentioned. Another factor, the price differential, should not be a driving factor for school siting and Chair Park admitted he wasn’t sure what mechanism could take this disincentive out.

Councilor Monroe commented that historically schools have been sited as if land were a cheap commodity. They are usually one-level buildings, provide massive parking, and go by the old criteria of 10-acres for and elementary school, 20 acres for a middle school, and 40 acres for a high school. He said he would like to see the council encourage school districts to be frugal in their use of land within the UGB. We need to get beyond providing free parking for 16-year olds to drive to school. His next comment was that the idea of siting schools on the border of farmland is troublesome. We need to do more school site planning and it’s more expensive but more appropriate; it’s a problem that needs to be addressed, and we need to be sensitive to the abuses of school sitings.

Not hearing support for Option 2, Chair Park asked that Councilor McLain, working with Mr. Shaw and Mr. Morrissey, come back with additional criteria on Option 1 in the form of an ordinance amending the Metro Code, with notice given to LCDC for an amendment to Metro’s land use code.

6.  Performance Measures: Fundamental #5

Gerry Uba, Program Supervisor, Long-Range Planning, Planning Department, reminded the committee that they had approved a new Fundamental #5 in a previous committee meeting, and directed staff to take this to MPAC for their review and comment. Mr. Uba’ comments referred to the memo from Andy Cotugno dated May 30, 2001, and it’s attachments, included in the agenda packet. MPAC edited Fundamental #5 by adding to the identification of the tools to be used, he said. Attachment B, Proposed Method for Compiling Information on Physical Identify of Communities in the Metro Program, was MPAC’s suggestion for helping the communities in identifying their community.

Mr. Uba said MPAC felt the sense of identify was not yet quite explicit or understandable, so they suggested a further amendment, Attachment A, be incorporated into Fundamental #5. This was very popular with MPAC. They also suggested more examples of the kinds of tools to define this, see Attachment B, which is what staff developed to put some kind of qualifier to it.

Councilors McLain and Hosticka asked that Attachment B be clarified, that perhaps some sample responses be given as examples. Councilor Hosticka added that the sequence of questions was important as well because first it would look at the region, and then at what Metro has done for the region. Councilor Atherton thought including Attachment B was an excellent idea and could see how it would work.

Mr. Cotugno told the committee that this unique local identification idea has been embraced by MPAC, and it would be well to encourage this and to measure that philosophy. He asked them to address Fundamental #5 first, and then Attachment B.

7.  Regional Business Alliance for Transportation (RBAT)

Mike Hoglund, Regional Planning Director, Planning Department, distributed a copy of the slide presentation to show the committee what Metro is taking to the business community (which is made a part of this record). Mr. Hoglund also referred to his memo of February 14, 2001, included in the agenda packet. He briefed the committee on his meeting with the Columbia Corridor Association and the Gresham Chamber of Commerce, and said he is scheduled to meet with the Central Eastside Industrial Council (CEIC) on June 22nd. Mr. Hoglund said Dick Reiten of NW Natural has gone to each of these meetings and has spoken directly to the problems.

Mr. Hoglund said the business groups are usually full of questions after the presentations – what can we do today, they ask. There’s a great lack of understanding on finance questions, and they ask about the Regional Transportation Plan.

Councilor McLain asked that the councilors be kept updated on these meetings and the progress of this project.

8.  Councilor Communications

None.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2001

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

Testimony cards

None.