MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

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 2:10 p.m.

2.  Consideration of the Minutes of the February 5, 2002, Community Planning Committee Meeting.

3.  Related Committee Updates.

•  Transportation – Councilor Burkholder spoke of the upcoming February 21^st public hearing on the MTIP Air Quality Conformity Determination and a draft resolution that would be before the committee regarding the Transportation Management Area (TMA) program and funding.

•  JPACT – Councilor Burkholder, in Councilor Monroe’s temporary absence from the meeting, reiterated JPACT’s upcoming regional Federal Priorities presentation in Washington, D.C., March 5 - 7, and Chair Park mentioned the two Sauvie Island bridge solutions discussed at the February 14^th meeting. The committee had questions regarding the timeframe of the Federal Priorities letter, and Councilor Burkholder and Chair Park explained the six-year appropriation bill and the yearly opportunity for earmarking the funds.

•  Natural Resources – Councilor McLain reported that the next Natural Resources Committee meeting February 20^th agenda included the Salmon Report, the ESEE Scope and Request for Proposal, as well as tying up loose ends on the Combined Riparian Corridor Wildlife Habitat Mapping inventory.

•  WRPAC – WRPAC would meet again on February 25^th, Councilor McLain said, and would be dealing with some of the same issues as the Natural Resources Committee, as well as Waters of the State, and other work staff has done for the committee.

4.  Resolution No. 02-3160 – For the Purpose of Confirming Michael S. McFarland as a Citizen Member Alternate to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). Ms. Suzanne Myers Harold of the Executive Office said this citizen position had been empty since May 2000 as stated in the staff report, and she spoke of Mr. McFarland’s resume, also included in the agenda packet. The Clackamas County Board of Commissioner’s formally approved Mr. McFarland’s nomination to MPAC, Ms. Harold concluded.

There was no discussion.

Councilor Hosticka said he would like more information about Mr. McFarland relative to West Linn before this resolution came before the full Council.

6.  I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership, Recommendations. Councilor Burkholder explained that Ms. Christine Deffebach, Principal Transportation Planner, Planning Department, had given this presentation to the Transportation Committee and he believed the Community Planning Committee would be interested in and benefit from hearing it has well. Ms. Deffebach summarized the recommendations of the Task Force (a shorter version of the draft recommendations was distributed and made a part of this record, I-5 Partnership Update), saying it was important now for Metro to get their comments to the Task Force. She addressed the land use portion of this project (an undated copy of the Land Use Work Group Task was distributed and is included as part of this record). The recommendations called for moving forward on some kind of land use management and the questions were how that would be done, i.e., what were achievable goals, what was agreeable to assume would be agreeable and able to work towards, what kind of process could be set up now that could be carried forward in the years to come – this would not be worked out by June, she said, but there would hopefully be some agreement to work together more.

Councilor Burkholder said he hoped for two things from this. First, he’d like to see the Metro Council endorse the general direction of the Task Force, endorsing the recommendations made so far and expressing Metro’s concerns, which the Task Force has raised, about the land use issues, environmental justice issues relating to the neighborhood impacts, financing questions, and protecting capacity along the way so that the investments that are made actually work and continue to work over time. He said he thought a letter to the Task Force, signed by the Presiding Officer and possibly the Executive Officer, as well, saying this was the Council’s sense, would be appropriate.

The second hope Councilor Burkholder had was another letter he said could be sent by the Council to the City of Portland expressing Metro’s concern and request that the City not take action to rezone the Portland Meadows area from industrial to commercial until completion of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Study and the results of the Regional Industrial Land Study (RILS). He cited two reasons for his concern on this zone change: 1.) based on the RLIS study, the need for large lot industrial land and the preservation of that, and 2.) the impact of a high traffic-creating destination next to that freeway interchange. All the gains in improving that interchange would be lost with that zone change, he said. He asked the committee to give direction to the Presiding Officer and the Executive Officer on these two issues, after discussion and possible refinement of his proposal.

Councilor Monroe said he appreciated Councilor Burkholder’s comments, and that he’d repeatedly made the point at Bi-State Committee meetings that it would be a tragedy to fix I-5, Delta Park, light rail, a new bridge, Columbia interchange only to have them all blow up in our face because of the development that could occur at Portland Meadows. This site needed to be protected as a major industrial site, he said, and Metro needed to take a firm stand with the City of Portland that Metro’s support for the proposals was contingent upon Portland not rezoning the Portland Meadows property. He said he was overall very pleased with the report, and that there was a cooperative understanding on land use with southwest Washington’s leadership. The best way to encourage Washington to do the right thing would be for the Oregon side of the river to do the right thing.

In response to a question from Councilor Monroe, Ms. Deffebach said the financing issue would be addressed in June, but she said she didn’t know how deeply. Councilor Monroe said we were learning, following Councilor Atherton’s lead, that we need to figure out how to pay for the local match for federal dollars on projects before deciding to go ahead and build them.

Councilor Burkholder at the conclusion of the discussion asked the committee for their approval for him to begin drafting the two letters he proposed sending, and all agreed.

7.  Committee Work Plan. Mr. Morrissey called attention to the Work Plan included in the agenda packet, and said that, other than some very minor changes, this was a fairly complete and accurate calendar for 2002, with Periodic Review tasks being separated from other task items. Chair Park mentioned the critical date of December 1 for the Urban Growth Boundary decision, and said he hoped the committee would work diligently to achieve that. He also mentioned other critical dates on the Work Plan and said he hoped they matched up with the Natural Resources Committee’s Work Plan. Responding to a question from Councilor McLain on the Performance Measures, Mr. Morrissey said those dates could be added when the report was released. Mr. Hoglund said he, Mr. Uba and Mr. Turpel met the previous week on this and they would attempt to get the Performance Measures reviewed in April, after the Growth Conference, while Mr. Morrisseey told the committee that a combined Periodic Review/Fish and Wildlife Habitat timeline was also available for councilors who wished to see it. Chair Park asked the committee to bring questions and/or items on this Work Plan to him or to Mr. Morrissey, that it would be a working document.

5.  DLCD Request re Subregional Methodology. Mr. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, spoke to his distributed memo to Chair Park regarding Policy Analysis of Subregional Issues – Proposed Methodology (with MPAC Subcommittee comments, 02/13/02), and the Subregional Assessment Paper attached to that memo (both included as part of this record), saying this was an update of a previously discussed memo. This memo did not include what the next step would be, and he said he needed to add that.

Chair Park asked him to describe to the committee the Centers concept this was based upon. Mr. Cotugno spoke in great detail about the Subregional Assessment Paper, and then responded to questions from the committee.

Chair Park asked Mr. Benner to reiterate a definition he had previously given the committee regarding specific need vs. subregional need. Mr. Benner said a specific need was a subset of a general need. An example he gave was the need for employment land was a general need, while the need for large parcels for warehousing was a specific need. The reason for the breakdown was to deal with the hierarchy for taking land into the UGB which was heavily regulated by state statute.

More discussion on this lead into what guidance Metro wanted from LCDC and how they wanted to ask for that guidance. Mr. Cooper suggested the committee focus on what they wanted to do, then on what and how they wanted to ask in order to achieve demonstrable results. He said Metro did not need a decision on subregions in order to have the commission answer a question. The timeline and whether or not to request a formal decision or not was discussed, as well as the form of the question. Mr. Cooper said his understanding from previous discussion was that this body did want to make a formal request. Chair Park said he wanted this to come back to this committee after MPAC had discussed it, and said he hoped if Metro acted by March 7^th it that would be in time to be placed on LCDC’s April meeting calendar. Mr. Cooper suggested checking with LCDC staff.

Mr. Cotugno said if the committee was comfortable proceeding with asking MPAC the question on February 27^th, he wanted to add a section at the end of his paper saying that it was an analysis approach, and that if a conclusion was drawn there would be another step of defining code that would then govern decisions. Chair Park directed him to do so and thanked him for his work. Councilor Hosticka asked Mr. Cotugno to add some caveats that the smaller the unit of analysis, the less likely one would find a “complete community” or a balanced area, so at 30 Town Centers there will certainly be differences and imbalances. He didn’t want anyone to think Metro’s goal was to make every one of those 30 whole with the criteria being used. Once the examination began, there would be quite a few things out of balance and he wanted it to be recognized that the goal was not to make every one of them balance but to identify which may or may not be egregious cases. With the caveat that this was informational but not leading to a particular outcome, he would agree to it going ahead as directed.

Chair Park agreed, saying this would be looking at the information rather than making the decisions. He directed Mr. Cotugno to take it to MPAC with those caveats, and said it would come back to this committee before going to the Council and LCDC.

8.  Councilor Communications. Councilor Hosticka said he was constantly receiving communications from various sources asking for UGB consideration. He asked if there was a central place to keep track as well as retrieve those requests. Mr. Cotugno and Chair Park said Tim O’Brien was managing this on the Alternatives Analysis, and could compile a list of the communications. Chair Park said Ms. Weber earlier had said this could be broken down by jurisdiction and by individual preferences, and that the repository of information would be available. Mr. Cotugno said this would be included in the Alternatives Analysis findings. Councilor McLain said she’d asked Ms. Coats that question because the councilors not only receive this information independently, they also respond to it independently. Each of the council clerks should be sent something from Mr. O’Brien, as well, for coordination, i.e., something that can be sent to the initiator of the communication. Mr. Cotugno said his department wasn’t responding to the communications, just keeping them in the record. Chair Park asked that a reply form be created, approved by general counsel, and by subject, i.e., the growth conference, etc., that can be send in response and that would be consistent.

4.  Resolution No. 02-3160.

In discussion, Councilor Atherton said he discovered there had been only one application for this position and he thought it should be more widely advertised. He said he would like time to be allowed for that. Councilor McLain said the proper process was followed and the fact that no one else applied wouldn’t be germane to reconsidering the vote. Councilor Atherton said he wasn’t certain that the proper process had been followed, that he’d like the time to check that. Also, he said this vacancy hadn’t come to his attention and it was in his District. Councilor McLain reminded the committee that this was for an alternate to a citizen member of the MPAC group, and that committee’s bylaws were followed. It was also her understanding, she said, that MPAC bylaws state that the Executive Officer reviews the appointments and the Council confirms. She agreed that if Councilor Atherton had not had time to review the application, she would reconsider. Councilor Atherton said that was so, and he would also like to check the process. Councilor Monroe said ordinarily the Executive shares information on an appointment with the councilor of that District, and while it was probably just an error, he would agree to give Councilor Atherton the time requested. Councilor Bragdon said he would like to see more detailed information on what process had been used. Councilor Burkholder reminded the committee that this was not a confirmation of a citizen member, but a citizen alternate, and Mr. McFarland would only participate in MPAC meetings in the member’s, Mr. Gronke’s, absence or if the member left that position.

There was no discussion.

9.  Adjourn.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2002

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

Testimony cards. None.