MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, December 4, 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 November 20, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting.

2.  Related Committee Updates

•  JPACT – Councilor Monroe said JPACT would again meet on Dec. 13, 2001.

•  WRPAC – WRPAC had not met since the last Community Planning Committee meeting, Councilor McLain said, so she had nothing to report.

•  Natural Resources – There was no report on the Natural Resources Committee.

3.  Washington Square Regional Center. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, said the Washington Square area was one of the regions Metro had designated, and a difficult one, because it wasn’t a traditional downtown nor was it connected to light rail. The area has market potential because of the freeway, but it was a challenging job to have it become a multi-purpose Regional Center. The City of Tigard took the lead, he said, but he emphasized that the project also included the City of Beaverton. He said this was the conclusion of what he thought had been a very successful planning process, and it was time to move into implementation, the difficult part. It was also important to take this project into consideration in the upcoming Periodic Review, to the extent the expected housing and job growth in this area could be taken into account in making UGB decisions.

Mr. Cotugno then introduced Mr. James N.P. Hendrix, Director of Community Development, City of Tigard, who in turn introduced Elaine Cogan of Cogan Owens Cogan, and John Spencer of Spencer & Kupper, members of the Task Force team, and Barbara Shields, Planning Manager, City of Tigard. Two reports were then distributed (Task Force Recommended Washington Square Regional Center Plan, City of Tigard, September 1999, and Washington Square Regional Center, Phase II Implementation Plan, Summary Report, Task Force Recommendations, City of Tigard, Oregon, June 29, 2001) and made a part of this record.

Mr. Hendryx used a large mounted map (not included in this record) in his presentation on the progress of the plan. He added that this project comprised 1,250 acres, three-jurisdictions (Tigard, Beaverton and Metzger), with total jobs of 2,700, 3,800 houses, and 7,500 residents for the area. The City of Tigard Planning Commission recommended total support of the Plan at their December 3^rd meeting, and it should go to the Tigard City Council January 22^nd for closure.

Ms. Cogan said in her experience a public project was not successful if there was not a successful public process. The success of this project, she said, was due the 26-member Task Force and the Technical Advisory Subcommittees (TAS) in four areas – transportation, natural resources, stormwater, and parks and open space – and that it had been an open, ongoing process. The project was so successful, in fact, that the TAS members still wanted to be involved.

There were questions about funding strategies from the committee, including system development charges, and Mr. Hendryx said perhaps next spring there would be a summit of elected officials to make all participants aware of funding mechanisms.

4.  Damascus Study Findings. Mr. Cotugno introduced Doug McClain, Clackamas County Planning Director, and Maggie Dickerson, Principal Planner of the Clackamas County Planning Department. Mr. McClain first reviewed the Damascus/Boring Conversation, as Clackamas County called it. The purpose of the Conversation, which was an extensive four-month public outreach effort, was to educate the community and to receive feedback. He said they expect to have a product out of it by early spring 2002. (A Conversation With Damascus/Boring flyer was distributed, and made a part of this record.)

Ms. Dickerson spoke to the Damascus Concept Planning Study (a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of this record, together with distributed copies of Executive Summary, Damascus Concept Planning Study of June 30, 2001, and the actual Damascus Concept Planning Study Report, June 30, 2001).

At this point, Councilor Monroe excused himself to attend an RTC Board Meeting in Vancouver.

7.  DRAFT Ordinance N. 01-929 – For the Purpose of Amending the Regional Framework Plan Ordinance No. 97-715B and Metro Code Sections 3.01.010, 3.01.025, 3.01.030, 3.01.035, 3.01.040, 3.01.045, 3.01.050, 3.01.055, 3.01.060, 3.01.065, and 3.07.1120 and Repealing Metro Code Sections 3.01.037 and 3.01.075 to Revise the Scope and the Criteria for Quasi-Judicial Amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary; and Declaring an Emergency.

Chair Park said since this draft ordinance had not been First Read at Council, it was before the committee today for discussion and/or amendment. Mr. Dick Benner, Metro Senior Counsel, briefly explained that this draft ordinance would change current code provisions on major amendments, locational adjustments, and a couple of other more obscure provisions. These were the quasi-judicial ways of making changes to the Urban Growth Boundary, he said. Mr. Benner said there had been no significant public review of it yet, so limited public comment had been received. He suggested three additional amendments, distributed (and made a part of this record) and the committee discussed these. After discussion, Chair Park asked Mr. Benner to incorporate the changes into the draft ordinance by the next council meeting on December 6th. Mr. Al Burns of the City of Portland was asked if he wanted to comment; he declined.

8.  Resolution No. 01-3123A. For the Purpose of Granting Time Extensions to the Functional Plan Compliance Deadline for the Cities of Beaverton, Durham, Gladstone, Gresham, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Portland, Rivergrove, Tigard, West Linn, and Wilsonville and Clackamas County and Multnomah County.

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, Community Development Section of the Regional Planning Division of the Planning Department, told the committee there was not much to add to her November 20^th testimony or the material in the agenda packet. There had been some concern regarding conditions in addition to the three already specified, she said, but Ordinance 01-925A would put into place all the conditions that might have been added separately in this resolution, particularly that any land use decision would have to be consistent with Title 3. Although the committee had not yet addressed this ordinance, it would be discussed later in this meeting. Ms. Bernards recommended moving forward with this resolution. Chair Park said this resolution would go before Council on December 13, 2001.

9.  Resolution No. 01-3127. For the Purpose of Authorizing the Study of Tiers of Lands Selected According to ORS 197.298 and Goals 2 and 14 to Complete an Alternative Analysis in Anticipation of Possible Urban Growth Boundary Amendments.

This resolution was adopted by this committee at their November 20^th meeting. Mr. Cotugno spoke to the memo and his proposed amended resolution (in the agenda packet), and the accompanying maps (distributed and made a part of this record) which were Exhibits to the resolution. The maps showed areas that were not identified previously, specifically one Tier 3 land shown in Exhibit H; the overall resolution did not need to be revisited, he said. The recommendation was for the resolution to classify both of the areas he referred to on Exhibit H as Tier 3. The property on the right (the Ryland property) on the map had been called out in the resolution as Tier 3, but the other property had not been, and this amendment addressed how it would be interpreted and how this criteria would apply.

Councilor McLain expressed concern that she had not seen this amendment prior to this meeting and said she thought this changed what had been agreed to as far as the maps and amount of acreage that would be studied, with a criteria in place. Mr. Cotugno said this responded, rather, to any land a property owner or jurisdiction may request be reevaluated. While she applauded having criteria, Councilor McLain said, she did not applaud an amendment she had not seen before where she had to make an immediate decision. Chair Park stated that the key here was that this map was just the study area, it was not determining what land would be brought into the UGB. The question was would there be adequate land studied to allow Metro to move ahead. There was discussion with Mr. Benner on whether or not Metro would be challenged by LCDC on lands not studied.

Councilor McLain said she found Exhibit H controversial, and while she wanted to move this resolution forward, she had issues she wanted explained and didn’t want Exhibit H going forward without that explanation, which Mr. Cotugno then provided. Councilor McLain asked if explanations/clarifications could be included in the criteria, saying that would be acceptable to her.

Councilor Burkholder suggested an amendment that would remove Resolve 4 and the reference to Exhibit H and that would address Councilor McLain's concerns about clarity, and there was some discussion on and on the timeframe. Mr. Cotugno said staff wanted to begin the work, regardless. Chair Park asked if Exhibit H met the criteria, i.e., was it in or out of the study. Mr. Cotugno said he couldn’t tell right now. Councilor McLain said Exhibit H could be added back in at the Council level, but she would not vote on it today.

Councilor Atherton prompted a discussion on available Metro’s resources for studying land under this criteria. It was determined that the study needed to get started. Another discussion began when Councilor Burkholder said he didn’t want just the appearance of a fair and open process. After discussion with Mr. Cotugno, he withdrew his objection to adopting the map, and said the criteria as outlined in the memo should be added to the resolution, with Councilor McLain's suggested clarifications.

Mr. Cotugno said that the resolution as previously forwarded by the committee would go to Council, in which case he would take the comments and revise the resolution, bringing then a B version that the Council will act upon. The B version will not include the current Exhibit H but would fold the sites of the sites on that Exhibit into Exhibit D (because it was the Tier 3 map), and would create a new Exhibit H that would refer to criteria and a deadline dealing with any future proposed sites under those criteria.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to bring that amended version of the resolution to the Council on December 13, 2001.

6.  Ordinance No. 01-925A – For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Title 8 (Compliance Procedures) and Title 1 (Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation) of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Section 7.5 of the Regional Framework Plan Ordinance 97-715B to Revise the Process for Adjudication and Determination of Consistency of Local Comprehensive Plans with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, and to Revise the Processes and Criteria for Exceptions From and Extensions To Comply With the Functional Plan; and Declaring an Emergency.

Mr. Benner spoke mainly to the amendments listed at the end of the packet material (asking the committee to ignore the amendment list as it was out of date), mainly to amendments 8, 9 and 10 as the committee had not yet seen those. There were questions from the committee and discussion.

Mr. Benner said since the first seven amendments had been looked at previously by the committee, he had created an omnibus set of all the amendments that the committee could consider as a whole, should they so choose. The only thing included in the omnibus set that hadn't been in the amendments in the agenda packet was the Metro versus Executive Officer language.

Chair Park opened the meeting to a public hearing.

1.  Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3^rd Avenue, Room 300, Portland, OR 97204, spoke to her faxed letter, earlier distributed to the committee (and made a part of this record), which addressed amendments 1 through 7, and she then spoke to the three new amendments. She closed by reiterating her concern that the City of Portland was not in compliance with Title 1, as stated in her letter. Chair Park invited Ms. Bernards and Mr. Benner into this discussion which included amendment 8 and the notification process. Specifically, Ms. McCurdy asked Metro to require jurisdictions to provide notice to citizens who have requested notice if the jurisdiction is taking an action related to the Functional Plan. Mr. Benner said a citizen could request notification from either the state or the jurisdiction, and that Metro could offer that service, as well, but it wouldn't need to be put in the code, or Metro could require local governments to do this as a new Functional Plan requirement.

2.  Al Burns, Portland Bureau of Planning, 1900 SW 4^th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, commented on amendments 2, 7 and 8. On amendment 2 he said a blanket turn-on for all jurisdictions one year after acknowledgement was too extreme and could wreak havoc in their system. He said Portland would rather Metro reserve this for specific instances where noncompliance was found or an extension was required. Mr. Burns spoke in support of amendment 7. A concern Portland had, he said, was Portland wanted their citizens to bring their concerns to Portland first, and would appreciate something on this being included. Mr. Burns also expressed support for Amendment 8, but questioned the appeal to LUBA in paragraph F, saying he thought this was under LCDC jurisdiction.

Mr. Benner said he did not see that, and a discussion followed, closing with Mr. Benner saying he would consider the point but that he did not see it as a problem for the moment. There was also discussion regarding amendment 7 and citizen concerns/appeals. Mr. Benner reminded Mr. Burns that citizens could do as they chose, and Chair Park said that at some point the citizens become citizens of Metro with regard to the Functional Plan and that was the line crossed.

There being no further discussion, the committee voted on the omnibus amendments first:

7.  I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership. Mr. Cotugno distributed his memo of December 3, 2001, and a copy of the I-5 Partnership Update, 12/4/01 report (both made a part of this record). He then focused on the Facilitator’s Summary Analysis for Use by Task Force at November 27^th Meeting, included in the agenda packet. Mr. Cotugno said the purpose of this update was to provide an opportunity for the committee to give detailed information and/or to state any concerns to the I-5 Task Force and to express their support.

Ms. Kate Deane of ODOT and Ms. Christina Deffebach of Metro Planning staff, joined Mr. Cotugno in the discussion with the committee that followed. Chair Park said he wanted to make sure the Council weighed in on this at the proper time.

8.  Councilor Communications.

At this point, Chair Park apologized that the last meeting of the calendar year had been the longest, and thanked the committee.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said this Council had had two very good years and he hoped they would stay on a good roll. Being Presiding Officer was a great job, he said, but he wouldn’t have time to do it in 2002. He’d had two very good years in the position, they’d been great, and he wanted to hand the office over in better shape than he’d found it. He said there was quite a bit of scheduling to be done for January and February, and he expressed his hope that it would be handled smoothly, and asked the councilors to please keep that in mind.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2001

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

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2001 (continued)

Testimony cards.

Mary Kyle McCurdy

1000 Friends of Oregon

534 SW 3^rd Avenue, Rm. 300

Portland, OR 97204

Al Burns

Portland Planning Bureau

1900 SW 4^th Avenue, #4100

Portland, OR 97201