MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

1.  Call to Order and Roll Call. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

2.  Consideration of the Minutes of the January 15, 2002, Community Planning Committee Meeting.

2a.  Quasi-judicial Issues. Mr. Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said that at the Presiding Officer’s request, this briefing would take place Thursday, February 7, at the Council meeting.

3.  Related Committee Updates.

•  Transportation – Councilor Burkholder reported the upcoming agenda items for the Transportation Committee as the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership recent steering committee decisions, which would be brought to a future Metro Council Informal for discussion, and the refinement of the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Process (MTIP).

•  JPACT – Councilor Monroe said JPACT would be meeting on February 14^th and they also would be looking at the upcoming MTIP process and schedule, as well as reviewing and delineating the Federal Priorities regional message being taken in March to the federal delegation in Washington, D.C. The South Corridor Policy Advisory Group had an important meeting the previous week, he said, as they decided to go ahead with the EIS process studying light rail in the I-205 corridor, light rail in the McLoughin Corridor, a Busway in the McLoughlin Corridor, and, as a separate study, to investigate with downtown Portland interests the possibility of an enhanced light rail line that would involve a new bridge and a look at light rail. Those decisions were unanimous, he said. The Bi-State Transportation Committee also met the previous week and they accepted the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership recommendations which included improving the Delta Park bottleneck, widening it to three lanes southbound, probably with one lane being High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), and building a new or enhanced I-5 bridge, and a light rail loop probably phased into Clark County that would cross both the I-5 and I-205 corridors, looping up to SR 500 past Vancouver Mall, probably done in phases. Also, he said, they were continuing to investigate a new or enhanced rail crossing under the federal Truman-Hobbs Act which provides funds for rail corridors and rail bridges. The Bi-State Transportation Committee accepted and concurred with the report of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Committee.

•  Natural Resources – Councilor McLain reported that this committee, on February 6^th and February 20^th, would attempt to tie up the loose ends dealing with the Goal 5 issues, including the new Economic Social Environmental and Energy (ESEE) process step. Also Waters of the State would be discussed. On February 20th the committee planned to discuss wildlife and uplands and giving staff direction. The Natural Resources Committee was also developing a work plan.

•  WRPAC – The Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee, Councilor McLain said, would also be looking at the Waters of the State issue at their next meeting February 25^th.

4.  Resolution No. 02-3152 – For the Purpose of Adopting a Filing Fee for Minor Adjustments to the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Tim O’Brien, Associate Regional Planner, Planning Department, reviewed his staff report on this resolution regarding adoption of the filing fee. Councilor Atherton asked if the proposed $1,000 fee was adequate to cover the processing cost, and Mr. O’Brien said it should be. Councilor Hosticka asked about provisions for waiving the fee; Mr. O’Brien replied that there was a provision in the Metro Code for this. Mr. Dan Cooper, General Counsel, added that the Council could waive the fee if they determined there was a hardship, and that this was also in the Code.

Chair Park commented that he was curious how often these fees were reviewed, and that it was good that a mechanism was in place to do just that.

5.  LCDC Discussion. Chair Park reported to the committee that Mr. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, had done a very good job of presenting Metro’s alternatives analysis to the Land Conservation and Development Commission, and he said he thought the commission was very appreciative and that Metro had received a positive response. He commended Mr. Cotugno and his staff for their hard work.

Mr. Cotugno said he came away with three basic messages from that LCDC review: 1.) He said he thought the commission understood and appreciated how Metro interpreted and applied the hierarchy and essentially confirmed that that was their interpretation of how the hierarchy might be applied. Fundamentally they agreed with Metro’s direction, he said. 2.) Mr. Cotugno reminded the committee that he previously had said he would bring back information on ground and surface water rights as well as irrigation district water rights, as the availability of these may be something that would be considered in the tiering of property. He said he had that new information with him at the LCDC presentation. The commission’s conclusion, and Metro’s conclusion, too, he said, was that Metro ought not to treat water rights as a way to stratify the hierarchy of lands. Metro called Class 1 and 2 soils one priority, and Class 1 and 2 soils irrigated as an even higher priority; the commission said that was not the stratification provided for by law. Stratifying Class 3 and 4 soils at one level and Class 1 and 2 soils as the next level was a reasonable application of the hierarchy, but adding in the water rights as another stratification was not appropriate. Water rights were, in fact, relevant information, he said, and in the Goal 14 factors, two of those factors relate to agricultural suitability. It is relevant information that should be used to evaluate how one study area compares to another study area, but it doesn’t carry the same weight as the hierarchy the state law provides. That was an adjustment to how Metro had characterized taking water rights into consideration, but it was a somewhat gray area that was now clearer, he said. 3.) The commission raised the subregional issue, too, he said, and asked when Metro would have a proposal for tackling the question as they were ready to start having that conversation..

Councilor McLain asked if LCDC has given Mr. Cotugno any indication of what they consider the nexus of the regional application and the subregional approach, or did they say just bring it and they’ll look at it. Mr. Cotugno replied that they raised the questions that had been raised to them, examples being the tax base question that Forest Grove and Cornelius brought to their attention, and high tech land in Hillsboro. When Councilor McLain asked Mr. Cotugno how he responded to the commission on this, he said he told them Metro did not have a subregional proposal.

Councilor Bragdon asked Mr. Cotugno where the Goal 14 rewrite process ended up, and if there had been any indication in it that would give some clues to the commission’s thinking on that topic. Mr. Cotugno said that last year LCDC had a complete draft which gave clues to their thinking but that draft was not adopted, but there were some quotes about that draft in the subregional discussion because, he said, he thought it was at least an indicator of what they’re thinking. He said it also provided clues that dealt with things like the size of a subregion, etc. The commission is now going through their own strategic planning process to decide which of the various issues they want to tackle and he said he thought they were deciding on whether or not to take back up that administrative rule. Mr. Benner concurred that the commission had not yet decided this yet.

7.  MetroScope Update. Mr. Cotugno briefed the committee on the Periodic Review Case Study Results (a copy of which was distributed and made a part of this record). He emphasized that this was a first look at MetroScope information, and that it was intentionally focused on a broad regional scale and not on details of any particular part of the region. That information would continue to be generated by staff, he said, so that over a period of time an evolving set of information would be provided. Today’s presentation was the first snapshot of the broadest picture.

The committee offered suggestions and had questions, mostly for clarification and refinement of data. Mr. Cotugno concluded by reviewing the general themes from the presented case studies. He invited the committee to look more closely at the maps placed against the east wall (as they were larger and in color). Chair Park asked those committee members who were interested to contact Ms. Neill and/or Mr. Hoglund if they had questions or wanted more detail. He said the committee would need to schedule a discussion on what could be changed (or not changed).

Councilor Monroe was excused to attend a Southwest Washington RTC board meeting.

Chair Park called a short break at 3:30 p.m.; the committee recovened at 3:42 p.m.

6.  Subregional Discussion. Chair Park referred the committee to Mr. Cotugno’s memo of February 5^th on Policy Analysis of Subregional Issues – Proposed Methodology, and the Subregional Assessment Paper, attached to the memo (distributed and made a part of this record). The tables in the memo, Mr. Cotugno said, were there for reference purposes and were largely what he addressed in summary form for the committee. This paper was a proposal to the committee to see if they agreed that this was the way they wanted to approach this issue, and was open for amendment/change/etc., prompting comments and suggestions from the councilors.

The subregional discussion, as Mr. Cotugno continued to move through the technical and policy issues outlined in the memo, also addressed the definition of a subregion, economic subregions, the market factor issue, West Hayden Island, jobs/housing, land supply, school districts, etc. McLain asked legal staff to provide in writing to the committee and to Mr. Cotugno the information Mr. Benner and Mr. Cooper shared regarding schools and the two different types of process or path. She asked that it be short and in lay terms, and that it be provided soon.

Chair Park proposed to the committee that they look closely at the two approaches recommended by staff on p. 6 of the memo. He said he wasn’t saying one approach was better than the other, but asked them to be thinking about which they’d be most comfortable with in identifying subregions in the future.

Chair Park referred to and Mr. Cotugno spoke to his other memo of February 5^th regarding Periodic Review – Subregional Analysis: Options for review by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (distributed and made a part of this record), and the three scenarios regarding a proposed schedule to work toward a group decision on this issue. In scenario 1., Mr. Benner thought the March 1 date could be amended to the end of March, but suggested calling LCDC to see what they would prefer. The committee then discussed the pros and cons of each scenario.

Chair Park said these were the options and asked the committee to think about them. He then asked Mr. Cotugno to work on it more with legal staff, take it to MTAC and MPAC, and then back to Community Planning.

7a.  I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Committee. Mr. Cotugno said Councilor Burkholder had commented in the Committee Reports portion of this meeting that the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Committee was taking up the recommendations of the corridor and they are working at refining the draft recommendations by June. Now was the time to get into the details of that draft, he said, and the next several months would be the time to raise concerns, not to wait until it’s done.

8.  Councilor Communications. None.

Michael Morrissey distributed a Draft Community Planning Committee 2002 Work Plan Summary and asked the committee to review it and let him know if they had changes or additions. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2002

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

Testimony cards. None.