MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, September 18, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the September 4, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  Natural Resources – Councilor Hosticka said the main for the Natural Resources Committee related to the Community Planning Committee was continued discussion on Goal 5 issues. At their last meeting they looked at preliminary drafts of mapping of uplands for resource identification inventory purposes, and at their next meeting they will see the first version of a region-wide map of riparian corridor resources for consideration. They are working on a rough timeline that will have that map released as it’s presented to the committee, and then public comment and consideration with the intent of making a determination of what significant resources and regional resources are, in early December. He invited comment on all of the above. The tentative date for a final Goal 5 decision is late summer/early fall of 2002. Chair Park suggested that may be a bit late, and Councilor Hosticka said they would review their work plan to adhere to schedules. Councilor Bragdon thought it significant to mention that the maps that will be coming out will not be in a “no touch” zone, and it would be important to help the public understand what they are and what they aren’t. Councilor Hosticka agreed that that was a good point.

•  JPACT – Councilor Monroe said that once again the JPACT process worked. The Council’s MTIP priorities were honored to a large degree. This time, the MTIP process was a little different because the Council asked to be involved early in the process, and in the long run he felt that involvement actually helped smooth the final conclusion that was appropriate for the region. The vast majority of these scarce funds went to transit, to bike and pedestrian projects, to boulevard projects, to freight mobility, and to Metro for planning (especially the South Corridor EIS study, which was critical). The JPACT vote was unanimous and Councilor Monroe said this was a glowing example of why having an elected regional government is a positive thing and why he supports it.

The South Corridor Policy Group also met the evening before, he added, and they decided unanimously what to study and what not to study. Once again, the group came together for unanimous decisions. The other important transportation meeting this month is the Bi-State Transportation Committee on September 27^th and they will address necessary transportation improvements.

•  WRPAC – Councilor McLain reported that at the September 17^th WRPAC, which was a routine, informational meeting, they looked at the Natural Resources Committee material, and where they were in the same process with the Goal 5 issues. WRPAC was also updated on the GreenStreets program by staff. They discussed future agendas, particularly the utility recommendation WRPAC had made that had previously been distributed to the Council. This will get full, thorough advisory review when it’s ready to go, and Councilor McLain said if anyone had questions, to please let her know.

3.  UGB Code – Policy Points

Mary Weber, Manager of the Community Development Division, Planning Department, spoke to the September 14, 2001, memo from Mike Hoglund to Chair Park and the committee regarding Policy Options for Administration of the Urban Growth Boundary, distributed at the meeting (and made a part of this record). This memo, Ms. Weber said, was a response to an earlier expression of the committee regarding the Metro Code. The specific options to be addressed were listed in a matrix attached to the memo. Councilor McLain said she would like to see all the options that were not in the “Existing” column be considered for review. Ms. Weber briefly went through the list, explaining that this was what staff considered their Toolbox, and that now was a good time for the committee to review and revise, should they choose, the tools within that Toolbox.

Discussion followed on the list and how and where staff or the committee felt it necessary to propose changes to the Code, as well as which items on the list were specific to Metro Code and/or state law. Reasons for amending locational adjustment and major amendment requirements were put forward and clarified. Councilor Burkholder asked if staff would show the state requirements and the Metro Code requirements on the matrix. He also wondered why the locational adjustment process was needed at all since the process was created 20 years ago to clean up problems then, and seemed to create more problems now.

Chair Park asked Councilor McLain to respond. She commented on how she had felt about locational adjustments and how difficult they had been to deal with over the years. Metro’s locational adjustment criteria and process has been spotty, at best, she said, and this was one of the biggest reasons to look at it. Originally, as Councilor Burkholder had said, they were put into the Metro Code for cleanup. They are outdated and not helpful today, particularly with the state guidelines and laws. Need or no need was her first question when she studied this. She said she had moved from wanting to completely eradicating locational adjustments to, if it’s not going to be eradicated, at least make the criteria appropriate for today’s world. Councilor McLain then spoke to her September 4^th memo and its attachments regarding need, proposers and function (distributed and made a part of this record). She said she hoped that this body would do the work and make the decisions in order to be ready to go with whatever process they determine by 2002. She then gave an example of a prior locational adjustment and said there are times when they are useful and appropriate.

Chair Park then walked through the Policy Options matrix with the committee, comparing the Existing Options to Option 1 and the discussion points in the Other Options columns. County services, private vs public schools, churches, and non-housing and housing needs were other topics discussed, as well as the process for locational adjustments and major amendments being identical, but the requirements for each being different.

Addressing one of the Other Options to eliminate the locational adjustment process, Councilor Hosticka said he would find it useful if the criteria and processing differences were listed in this or another matrix , and Mr. Cooper, General Counsel, agreed and said his staff would prepare that.

While discussing the Who Can Apply options, Ms. Weber reminded the committee that this was their chance to craft these criteria and requirements to best suit the intent of the Metro Council. Examples she gave were if the Council wanted to limit what is done administratively, it they wanted more public review of some of them, if they wanted to set them via acres, if they wanted them to go before a hearings officer.

Chair Park asked Councilor McLain, Mr. Morrissey and Metro’s legal staff to revise the matrix, per the discussion, and bring it back before the committee as soon as possible, and he thanked them and Planning staff for their work to date on this.

4.  2040 Growth Concept – Centers

Mr. Andy Cotugno spoke to his memo and the accompanying attachment, included in the agenda packet, titled Draft Paper – Strategies Focused on 2040 Centers, of September 11, 2001. This had been presented to MPAC earlier in the month. Its intent is to begin to set building blocks in place, he said, that are essential pieces of Metro’s periodic review for the Urban Growth Boundary, and to do it in a way that addresses the big policy issues, not just the bean counting of calculating demand vs supply. Mr. Cotugno’s comments as well as the agenda material initiated a discussion on funding, land supply, legal obligations, growth, whether or not Centers were working, etc. Councilor Bragdon gave the Nike campus as an example of a Center that incorporates all the characteristics, significantly so, of a functional Center.

Mr. Cotugno said these issues have been discussed for a year, and several discussions with MPAC have taken place. Having this committee set some direction was his goal, to see if this represented the sentiment of the Council and the commitment of MPAC, and, as Councilor Hosticka said earlier, they can’t necessarily promise these things, but they can work through MPAC to figure out what level of commitment they’re prepared to give so Metro can use that as the promise as part of their periodic review. As we continue down the periodic review path, Mr. Cotugno said he anticipated a parallel discussion on Industrial Lands, and that this discussion, in his mind, had been aimed at Office and Retail.

Chair Park said if the Metro Council wants Centers to work, and he believed the answer was that they did, then the key question was did they want to start creating a differential. He said Mr. Cotugno created a gradient to make Centers more attractive by all the offered possible policy choices or techniques the Council can use. If the first answer was yes, the Metro Council wants Centers to work, the second question would be, how? Which of these gradients would Metro use, and in which order to get the synergistic effect to make it work. He mentioned the ECONorthwest report on parking structures. There may be a reason to target parking structures in those particular areas to allow the development to occur. Innovative ideas, he said, mixed-use, retail below, whatever it may be, will need to happen if that is the strategy the Metro Council and the region would like to take. Councilor Bragdon agreed that this body needed to do as much as they could to facilitate this, and that it needed to be tied fairly explicitly to an investment strategy. He also agreed with Chair Park that structured parking was key to making retail work, and that it is very expensive. Mr. Cotugno reminded the committee that structured parking cannot be paid for out of transportation dollars.

Councilor Bragdon had two other points he asked to convey, one being information sharing with the jurisdictions of what tools there are to work with, and the power of good example and sharing of that. An example he gave was from a Rail~Volution session on “gray malls” which were dead malls that had reached the end of their shelf life and were ready to turn over. He envisioned having a daylong session here at Metro for the local planners as well as local landowners and inviting architects, designers, etc., to show what could be done and what has been done.

Mr. Cotugno said his goal was to advance this discussion and engage MPAC, especially the part about what they’re supportive of and what they’re ready to commit to. He asked for some assistance at those meetings in engaging in that conversation. He said he would certainly continue to refine this as it goes on, and he intends to bring back some of the numerical analyses. At this point he’d thought it more important to talk about the principles. The direction was really the philosophy, he said.

Chair Park said getting MPAC to agree that they want the Centers to work and they want the 2040 Growth Concept to work would be first, then we can start on the list of “how,” and that may include a reordering of regional priorities of certain dollars.

Councilor Burkholder asked exactly what kind of response was expected from MPAC. Councilor Bragdon said their enthusiasm was needed, because the tools are mostly local tools. This was something their leadership would need to embrace, that it could not be imposed upon them. Their enthusiasm could be encouraged through charrettes, field trips, etc. Chair Park agreed and said a large design-type charrette and/or other techniques would be one of the next big steps that would have to happen. Inspiring people, using computer enhancements, selling it, that’s what Metro needed to do. Councilor Bragdon added that developers, either out of town or from this region, should be invited as well. Doing this in conjunction with the Growth Conference was a good idea, and selling it.

5.  Councilor Communications

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

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

Testimony cards – None.