Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troutdale CAC to clarify charter language, emphasize outreach and meet planning commission
Summary
The CAC agreed Feb. 5 to revise its charter language to emphasize involvement in legislative land‑use processes (Type 4) and to meet the planning commission to explain the committee’s role.
The Troutdale Citizens Advisory Committee on Feb. 5 agreed to revise its draft charter language to resolve concerns raised by councilors and planning commissioners about the committee’s role on land‑use matters.
Committee members and city planning staff said some councilors and planning commissioners worried the CAC might be attempting to weigh in on quasi‑judicial matters (for example, conditional uses or variances with strict deadlines). The CAC clarified it intends to participate in legislative processes—such as code or comprehensive‑plan amendments (commonly called "Type 4" or legislative amendments)—which have longer timelines and are appropriate for public engagement.
"What they were getting hung up on is quasi‑judicial amendments. Those are Type 3s, and really we only focus on Type 4s," Dakota, a city planning staff member, told the committee while explaining the difference between quasi‑judicial and legislative procedures. Dakota said staff proposes changing the charter language to replace the phrase "quasi‑judicial" with "legislative" where appropriate and to add clearer steps showing when CAC input is sought.
Committee members supported visiting the planning commission to walk through the charter and allay concerns. "I think the primary concern from Councilor White was that we go talk to them and make sure they're on board," a committee member said, and the group agreed that meeting the planning commission’s chair would be a helpful next step.
Members also emphasized the charter’s outreach purpose. Will, a committee member, reminded the group the CAC’s practical mission is public engagement and two‑way communication rather than intervening in application deadlines. Committee members asked staff to produce a single, clean copy of the revised charter for distribution; Dakota agreed to prepare and email a clean version and to seek a scheduling slot with the planning commission.
The committee did not adopt the charter at the Feb. 5 meeting; members instead gave staff direction to revise language and to arrange a joint discussion with the planning commission before resubmitting to council for consideration.
