MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, October 16, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Rod Monroe.

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. Because of an electronic malfunction, this meeting was not taped.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of the September 18, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  Natural Resources – Councilor Hosticka said at their meeting the next day, the Natural Resources Committee would be taking further public input on the question of what criteria to use to map natural resource features in the region. At that point, he said, the committee expects to begin the discussion of what criteria will be used to determine which are significant resources and which are regional resources. Councilor Hosticka said he expects that discussion to continue throughout the next six weeks or so with the intent of full council determination.

•  JPACT – In Councilor Monroe’s absence and because there had not been a JPACT meeting since the last report, there was no JPACT update.

•  WRPAC – Councilor McLain said this committee had had an interesting conversation with the Department of Environmental Quality, as well as city and county representatives, and the Clean Water Services people, and they had also discussed the Goal 5 criteria at their last meeting – they’ve been given some advice as well as the schedule.

3.  Functional Plan Compliance –

•  Jurisdiction Reports – Mary Weber, Manager of the Community Development Division, Planning Department, spoke to the distributed schedule for the October 30 special Community Planning Committee meeting. (This schedule is included as a part of this record.) She reiterated, for confirmation, the direction staff had earlier received that no decisions would be made by the committee at this meeting. Ms. Weber then reported that Beaverton, Durham and Rivergrove had reported that they would be in compliance by the December 31^st deadline so would not be appearing at the October 30^th special meeting.

•  Exception/Compliance Extension Schedule,

•  3.07.850 Extension of Compliance Deadline,

•  3.07.860 Exception from Compliance – Ms. Weber spoke briefly to the timeline chart in the agenda packet, and the proposed Code language written by Mr. Dick Benner of the Office of General Counsel. She said Mr. Benner’s language was straightforward on the process and procedures on how Metro does compliance. The Metro Code gives some guidance but is incomplete, she added. Metro has no track record with the Functional Plan yet, so the time is right to structure the procedure. Ms. Weber said staff pretty much agrees with what Mr. Benner has laid out in the Extension of Compliance Deadline piece. She pointed out that paragraph C was new, basically stated that the Metro Council could place terms and conditions of their choosing, and paragraphs D and E set out the legal process of notification.

There was discussion on the two pages of language, and Ms. Weber did say that while she thought some of it was self-explanatory, it was Mr. Benner’s writing and she would not presume to interpret his thinking. On 3.07.860 Exception from Compliance, however, she said she thought paragraph A was where Mr. Benner tried to establish a notice and procedures process where it was laid out so the public would know what Metro was doing. Paragraph B. outlined when the council may grant an exception.

In discussion, questions arose on the numbered points in this section, under Paragraph B, whether they were points 1 and 2 and 3, and the points 4 and 5, where they grouped? Ms. Weber thought they were, that Mr. Benner had taken two pages of criteria and boiled them down into these three points, and that points 4 and 5 are a reiteration of what’s already in the Functional Plan.

Councilor Burkholder had a question regarding point 1 whether “unachievable” was a word, and who determined if anything was achievable, and in point 5 he said the phrase “no practicable opportunity” seemed to be a matter of opinion – he wondered who would make that judgment call. Ms. Weber told him the council would. The burden of proof, she said, would be on the jurisdictions.

When Ms. Weber asked for direction on how the committee would like staff to proceed, Mr. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, explained the timeline calendar in more detail. He said it was an attempt to follow the direction of Chair Park to deal with all the processes and complete work by the end of the calendar year so any exceptions can be processed. In order to follow through with this schedule, he said, these are the two pieces of code that need to be in place. Mr. Benner will be back October 22^nd, so Mr. Cotugno said staff would like feedback to give him so he can incorporate it into an ordinance to come before the committee at their next meeting, and then continue to move it forward to adoption, to fit in this timeframe.

It was recommended that both pieces of amended code be addressed in separate ordinances. Further explanation by staff on this language said the Code is silent about conditions or conditions and extension, as well as how many extensions can be given. This new language gives the Metro Council explicit the authority for these. There was also discussion that these code amendments be taken to MPAC, not for advice, but as informational and as a courtesy; therefore, the schedule needed to be amended to reflect that. At the committee’s request, Mr. Cotugno agreed to do that. The committee also agreed to send both proposed amendments back to Mr. Benner to better explain the five points under paragraph B in the Exception from Compliance piece, and that the Extension of Compliance Deadline piece, paragraphs D and E, be made a little more clear on appeals and notification.

4.  Alternatives Analysis

Mr. Cotugno first reviewed what had been discussed in July and August in this committee about alternatives analyses. He then used a series of large maps to explain how land to be studied was eliminated, using the needs criteria (in the agenda packet). The final map (a reduced copy included with this record) showed these remaining areas, by Tier (see Legend for Final Map, also made a part of this record). Mr. Cotugno said he would like the committee’s permission to send to LCDC this final map of proposed study areas and its application, along with the Legend of the Non-Resource Land and Resource Land defined by Tier, and the General Land Need criteria chart. He said he would ask LCDC for their concurrence on these.

Discussion focused on why Metro doesn’t want a formal approval from LCDC in the middle of periodic review on a middle product, and that Metro would simply be asking if it had applied the criteria appropriately on the Need charge, and was the applied appropriately to the map. Should Metro receive an informal concurrence from LCDC, staff and their consultant can begin their studies to get back on track with their workload. Mr. Cotugno said staff needed direction on what lands to study.

Councilor McLain asked if the Needs chart could be divided from the map, that she saw a different level of commitment for them. Chair Park replied that their request to LCDC would be for both.

Chair Park asked for a reversal of the shades of green.

Councilor Atherton asked if another chart could be created indicating those communities who say the want growth and those communities who don’t. Chair Park said that could possibly be done at a later time, but that right now this committee was at the same phase as the Natural Resources Committee of mapping the entire inventory. This is the part, he said, that asks if we’ve mapped the resources correctly. Mr. Cotugno added that what Councilor Atherton requested would be part of the information that would be collected for evaluation. He said this committee could add that as a criteria as long as it didn’t violate other criteria mandated by state law. Mr. Cotugno again recommended Metro ask DLCD for concurrent on these study areas, not just the abstract hierarchy but the application of the hierarchy on the map, and tell DLCD that we’re proposing studying down to some level (whatever Tier this committee decides), and that they comment on that.

He cautioned the committee that whatever Tier they choose to study, all the land in that tier must be studied. He asked the committee for director how far to go down. Rather than wait three months when LCDC may say we have to add an area back in, he said, at least we can begin studying the first Tiers. Adjustments may have to be made, but we will have begun.

Councilor Burkholder expressed his appreciation to Mr. Cotugno and his staff for making sense out of something that hadn’t made sense to him before. He recommended the committee go forward and seek concurrence and start their work on this, and said the other issues could be dealt with after that. He agreed that Metro needs to get moving on this.

Councilor Hosticka said he still found confusing the last map and the one right before it, which showed places that met the criteria but didn’t meet something else. He said that becomes significant if we take the last map and say that’s what we propose to study and nothing else. Councilor Hosticka said he was uncomfortable taking the gray areas out of the last map, and this led to a discussion of what to leave on the map sent to LCDC and what to take off. Mr. Cotugno said there are a few ways to go. One would be to leave the gray areas on the map, and ask LCDC to concur on what are NOT study areas, as well as what ARE study areas. That way, the gray areas, which Metro proposed not to study, could be left on the map. He also said that when areas are dropped, more information on why they are dropped can easily be provided.

Councilor McLain said she was much more comfortable with doing it this way, and she agreed 100% with Chair Park that we should stop studying after the pink (Non-Resource Lands), not in the middle of the green (Resource Lands).

After more discussion, Mr. Cotugno explained that the marked area to study was three or four times what was needed. All we want right now, he said, was concurrence from LCDC on the application of the hierarchy. He said he didn’t think it mattered to LCDC how far down we study, but it matters to us. It does matter to LCDC that our criteria is correct, however. Chair Park added that if we don’t ask them to concur with us at some level, we’re going to have to spend the money to study the rest of the red.

The committee agreed that Mr. Cotugno would submit the criteria and the map, including the gray area, for concurrence.

Councilor McLain asked if staff could brief the committee on this before the next meeting, and Chair Park agreed. Mr. Cotugno said they would. Chair Park then thanked Mr. Cotugno and Ms. Neill, as well as Mr. O’Brien, for their work in making a confusing issue less so. He asked them to please reverse the order of the green colored areas on the map.

5.  ODOT Bond Measure List

Mr. Mike Hoglund, Director of Regional Planning, Planning Department, distributed a Revised timeline and outreach schedule for HB 2142 (made a permanent part of this record) and spoke to that. He then briefed the committee regarding the Oregon Department of Transportation, Region, 1, Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTI), and the comments in the memo to the Oregon Transportation Commission from Councilor Rod Monroe, as Chair of JPACT. JPACT’s ranking and review, included with that memo, was also discussed. Mr. Hoglund also distributed a copy of the Eligibility Projects list and the evaluation form for them (made a permanent part of this record).

Mr. Hoglund said the Oregon Transportation Commission was soliciting comments from interested parties, including JPACT, and that JPACT would make their recommendation on November 1^st. Mr. Hoglund asked the committee if they chose to weigh in on this process. Councilor Burkholder said there wasn’t time for this to become a major process as the MTIP was earlier this year, but he volunteered to work with staff to draft a recommendation from the council to take to TPAC and JPACT at their next meetings. Mr. Hoglund said he and staff would work with Councilor Burkholder to bring something back to the council on Thursday. Comments could be generated there, and there would be another week to incorporate them.

Chair Park added that when the council worked on their MTIP proposal, their list added up to less than the total dollars available. He asked if the councilor would want to consider doing that again, once they got the projects ranked. There was agreement from all.

Chair Park then said this was the direction to staff, and that Councilor Burkholder would work with them.

5a.  Mr. Hoglund asked to introduce a non-agenda item. The final copies of the Let’s Talk Discussion Guide had been received, and he gave a copy to each councilor. A copy is included in this record.

6.  2040 Growth Concept – Centers

•  Request to Governor’s Community Solutions Team

As a follow-up on the last committee meeting regarding Centers, Mr. Cotugno updated the committee on his participation in the Community Solutions Team. With relation to Centers, he said he was trying to hook into the Centers piece as the area’s emphasis and attempting to develop some actions that would facilitate development rather than regulatory. This committee, of course, is statewide, he said, while his focus was for this region.

7.  Councilor Communications – None.

There being no further business before the committee, they adjourned at 4:19 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF  OCTOBER 16, 2001

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

Testimony cards – None.