MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, January 15, 2002

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Rod Monroe was excused.

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:09 p.m.

3.  Consideration of the Minutes of the December 4, 2001, Community Planning Committee Meeting.

2.  Related Committee Updates. Chair Park said he had listed this agenda item as tentative since, with the Council's new committee structure and meetings schedule, the once-monthly Committee Chair Roundtable meetings may be sufficient. He invited the councilors to provide any committee updates, as they chose.

•  Transportation – Councilor Burkholder said in addition to setting up the Transportation Committee and discussing the work plan, the substantive issue coming before the committee at its first meeting at 10 a.m., January 17^th, would be the report back on the ODOT'/WSDOT report on the I-5 Trade and Transportation program. This program was coming to a close and would be upcoming for a recommendation soon, so the committee discussion would revolve around the Metro Council's thoughts on the issue.

•  Natural Resources – Councilor McLain reported that the Natural Resources Committee would begin the year with their work plan at the 1 p.m. meeting on January 16^th, and they'd have some updates on staff work. She invited the councilors to join the Natural Resources Committee in dealing with the Environmental Social Economic Energy (ESEE) analysis and program development of natural resources.

•  WRPAC – WRPAC held an extra meeting on January 7^th, Councilor McLain said, primarily to go over the basin approach, and they also talked about natural resources. Their next meeting would be January 28^th.

•  JPACT – In Councilor Monroe's absence, Councilor Burkholder and Chair Park agreed, both being JPACT members, that the Boeckman Road interchange issue, which JPACT passed January 10^th, was the only item to report other than upcoming funding issues.

3.  Ordinance No. 01-925C. 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. Richard Benner, Senior Legal Counsel, said MTAC would look at this ordinance January 16^th and make their recommendation to MPAC January 23^rd, and then the ordinance would come before the full Council. He explained that the agenda packet included both redlined (amended) and clean versions of the ordinance (accepting the amendments into the text), and that the redlined version included only those changes derived from the discussion at MTAC. Also included were a short staff report that addressed only the MTAC changes, he said, and his updated Section-by-Section Analysis.

He said he would like to walk the committee through the MTAC proposals, explain them and answer questions, and then ask for their approval for him to prepare Ordinance No. 01-925D, which would likely be before the full Metro Council by the end of the month. With committee consent, Mr. Benner then proceeded to explain each change/correction/clarification.

The committee had questions regarding the requirements in subsection 3.07.150D and the targets for the jurisdictions, as well as 3.07.860 B. Mr. Benner, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Cotugno responded appropriately. Mr. Benner then explained Exhibit B changes/corrections/clarifications, and he and Mr. Cooper again answered the committee’s questions. Regarding compliance enforcement, Mr. Cooper said the code was explicit about the process to follow. There was no further discussion.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Benner if he was comfortable with the amendments he'd gone over today, and if he felt the continuity of the document held together. Mr. Benner replied in the affirmative. There was no further discussion.

Chair Park opened a public hearing.

Mr. Al Burns, City of Portland, Planning Bureau, 1900 SW 4^th Avenue, Portland, OR 97201, said it was his pleasure to testify for the third time on this ordinance. He said this version was a wonderful improvement over the existing Title 8, although not perfect, that it flowed better, was much more consistent internally and with the other sections of the Metro code. He thanked Metro for the good work and asked that it be adopted. One concern he expressed was exceptions for targets, saying the City of Portland was of the minority view at MTAC, that they thought that was an inherently legislative activity. He asked the committee to keep in mind that the targets and the possible consequences of such may not be known for many years as they are 2017 numbers. This would be discussed at MTAC the next day, he added, with possible focus on the existing development pattern.

Mr. Burns said another thing not included in this code revision was Metro’s mediating conflict between jurisdictions; he added that this also would be discussed at MTAC. Portland thought to ask that Metro reactivate looking at mediation, before the fact, for jurisdictions so they could ask Metro to resolve issues without having to go through the LUBA procedure, since Metro is the regional coordinator and the MPO.

Chair Park closed the public hearing.

He then asked Mr. Benner for clarification that all three conditions (p. 5 of 5 of the redlined version) listed in (2) had to be met; Mr. Benner said that was correct. There was a short discussion on this.

There was no discussion.

4.  Periodic Review Work Plan, Task II. Mary Weber, Manager of the Community Development Division, Planning Department, called the committee’s attention to the "UGB Periodic Review Task II Work Product Release Dates in 2002" (distributed and made a part of this record), and outlined the key dates as set out on page two of that handout. Staff has 28 weeks to achieve that schedule, she said. On page one of the handout, she told what staff and this committee would need to accomplish on each product listed, as well as when the products would be before MTAC, MPAC and the Metro Council. Staff would be coming back to the committee in the spring for continued direction on moving forward, and she added that the MetroScope analysis results would be presented to the committee in February.

Ms. Weber then offered to clarify any of the product issues for the committee. Mr. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, said that although there were linkages to the products on the document, this was the core. He said the council needed to approve a subregional analysis, but in a separate process. He concluded by saying MPAC was gearing up for this same type of sprint in their work program, and they would be dedicating at least one meeting a month to these issues. He suggested a Metro councilor be on each of MPAC’s subcommittees, as a liaison. Councilor McLain commented on the technical vs. policy definitions and when those are decided and by whom before going to MPAC or MTAC or the stakeholder workshops.

Chair Park asked staff to continue with the work program under Periodic Review, saying he did not anticipate any adjustments. He emphasized that this was going to be a long sprint, stretching staff resources to the very limit, even to adjusting vacation schedules, and he asked the committee to keep that in mind. He thanked staff for their work.

5.  Phase III, Centers Research. Ms. Weber spoke to the Metro 2040 Center Policy Research bulleted piece (distributed and made a part of this record) regarding an $85,000 grant for Periodic Review to undertake Phase III of the 2040 Center Policy Research Study. Councilor Hosticka asked Ms. Weber to review for the committee a few of the regulatory approaches that were cited as ways to encourage development, which she did. Following through on that thought, Councilor Hosticka then asked if there was not some caveat about not expanding the boundary to enhance development centers, and asked if Salem would accept that. Ms. Weber said they would see this and how it played out the following month in the Centers work. Chair Park restated the question, as a way to make centers work can the UGB expansion be limited, and said he remembered the answer as no (without regulations). Mr. Benner agreed, without regulations. Mr. Cotugno agreed, saying it would depend on how it was positioned.

Ms. Weber finished her presentation. Mr. Cotugno added, linking this back to the previously discussed schedule, that while the number crunching was the overall Urban Growth report, this was intended to put some meat behind “how” to get to a Centers strategy. It was the meat needed to underpin the numbers. If there were a strong Centers strategy, then there would be an aggressive set of assumptions in the numbers; this was the strategy side, he said. Ultimately, he said, it also tied back to the schedule regarding adopting an action plan, and what form that would take. Councilor Bragdon said he thought it good to keep in touch with the market and mentioned the prior interaction with the real estate community on the industrial land survey saying they could be a resource on the project as well. Chair Park thanked staff, said there was a lot of work to do on this, and the council appreciated the state’s help.

6.  Councilor Communications. None.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 2002

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

Testimony cards.

Mr. Al Burns

City of Portland

Bureau of Planning

1900 SW 4^th Avenue

Portland, OR 97201