PLEASE NOTE: MEETING STARTS PROMPTLY AT 5:00 PM

AGENDA

MEETING:  METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DATE:    February 13, 2002

DAY:    Wednesday, 5:00-7:00 p.m.*

PLACE:  Metro Regional Center, Council Chamber

*At subcommittee member discretion work session could be extended.

UPCOMING MEETINGS:

February 27; March 13, 27

For agenda and schedule information, call Sherrie Blackledge at 503-797-1724.

e-mail: [email protected]

MPAC normally meets the second and fourth Wednesday of the month.

To receive assistance per the Americans with Disabilities Act,

call the number above, or Metro teletype 503-797-1804.

C:\021302 agenda.doc

 Metro Policy Advisory Committee

 February 13, 2002

 Item 4.1 – Consent Agenda

METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

January 23, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chamber

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Vice Chair Tom Hughes, Bill Blosser, Larry Cooper, Rob Drake, Andy Duyck, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Richard Kidd, Mark Knudsen, Annette Mattson, Doug Neeley, David Ripma, Jim Zehren

Alternates Also Present: Alan Hipolito, Jack Hoffman, Chris Lassen, Dave Lohman

Also Present: Paul Curcio, DLCD; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Cindy Catto, AGC; Kelly Hossaini, Miller Nash; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Greg Chew, Parsons Brinkerhoff; Mike Houck, Coalition for a Livable Future/Audubon Society; Kay Durtschi, Metro MCCI; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Al Burns, City of Portland; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Jon Holan, City of Forest Grove; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Ellen Hawes, Stoel Rives; Matthew Udziela, Cogan Owens Cogan; Linda Bauer; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Debbie Rink, PSU student; Ron Bunch, City of Gresham; Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon/Citizens for a Livable Future; Lynn Peterson, Tri-Met

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Rod Park, Metro Council District 1; Susan McLain, Metro Council District 4. Also attending: David Bragdon, Metro Council District 7

Metro Staff Present: Suzanne Myers Harold, Daniel B. Cooper, Dick Benner, Andy Cotugno, Brenda Bernards, Marci LaBerge, Mark Turpel, Mike Hoglund, Michael Morrissey, Mary Weber, Lydia Neill, Paul Ketcham

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Jordan called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were none.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

4.1  MPAC Meeting Summary, Minutes January 9, 2002

4.2  MTAC Nomination Approval

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Presiding Officer Hosticka said the Metro Council is currently preparing its master schedule for 2002. He mentioned the Let’s Talk regional conference on March 15-16, 2002. A flyer for the conference is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park said the Community Planning Committee is progressing on subregional issues, and will forward the issue to MPAC. He gave a brief update on Metro Scope and Ordinance
No. 01-925D.

6.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-925D

Mr. Benner reviewed the MTAC amendments to Ordinance No. 01-925D from the MTAC meeting on January 16, 2002, and the MTAC Commentary on Exceptions. Both documents are included in the meeting packet.

Councilor Ripma expressed concern that Metro would have the power to veto cities’ amendments to their comprehensive plans.

Mr. Cooper disagreed with Councilor Ripma’s interpretation of the ordinance. He said when a land use decision is adopted, the decision is vulnerable to appeal for 21 days by any party to the decision, including Metro. After 21 days, the decision is deemed in compliance. Ordinance No. 01-925D would not take away a city’s right or responsibility to amend its comprehensive plan.

Mr. Burns noted that MTAC discussed this concern. Under Ordinance No. 01-925D, cities would have more authority than they do now.

7.  BASIN APPROACH

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the information in the meeting packet and the supplemental material distributed at the meeting (included in the meeting record). He asked for comments from MPAC on whether the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Steering Committee should proceed with its work on the basin approach concurrently with Metro, or wait until Metro concludes its work on the basin approach before proceeding. He noted that allowing the work to proceed concurrently would allow the Tualatin Basin to link its Goal 5 work with the federal Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. Staff’s recommendation to MPAC was to recommend that the Council develop the basin approach. While there were still outstanding issues regarding the conditions, the basic parameters had been set.  

Councilor Ripma said the Tualatin Basin approach is fundamentally at odds with Metro’s obligation to pursue a regional approach to fish and wildlife protection. He said it leaves those jurisdictions outside the Tualatin Basin without an approach.

Mayor Hughes noted that while Metro works well for humans, the basin approach works better for habitat. The Tualatin Basin is politically unique and allows a chance to look at the basin approach.

Chair Jordan said MPAC agreed to look at the basin approach at a previous meeting. Tonight’s agenda item concerned MPAC’s comments to the Metro Council.

Commissioner Neeley said he agreed with the basin approach method. He encouraged the jurisdictions within the subbasin to work closely with the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Steering Committee.

Mr. Houck submitted written comments, which are included in the meeting record. He recommended that MPAC put very specific sideboards on the definition of basin approach, to avoid the creation to two different Goal 5 processes.

Councilor Hoffman expressed concern that Metro was subcontracting 11 of the subbasins to Tualatin Basin.

Councilor McLain noted that members of the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Steering Committee had raised the same concerns. It was important to be careful about definitions and specifics. Tualatin Basin recognized that its actions would affect other basins in the region. She noted that Metro would retain its authority to make the final decision.

Mayor Drake said the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Steering Committee meetings are open to the public, and regularly attended by Mr. Houck, Sue Marshall of Tualatin Riverkeepers, and several Metro Councilors. He would like to proceed with the basin approach. Washington County has a history of working together successfully on all issues, not just water.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said the Council will decide next week whether to move into final negotiations. At this point, there was not resolution or final action under consideration. He expected to sign an intergovernmental agreement sometime in February.

Councilor McLain noted that the issue will be on the Metro Council Natural Resources Committee agenda for January 30, prior to the Council’s decision on January 31, 2002.

Chair Jordan encouraged members of MPAC to submit their comments to the Council.

8.  SUBCOMMITTEE FORMATION

Chair Jordan said he and Mr. Cotugno worked together to assign members to subcommittees, and any concerns should be addressed to him. He asked each subcommittees to designate a facilitator. Subcommittees will meet after the second MPAC meeting of the month.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 6:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Staff Liaison

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR JANUARY 23, 2002

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

 Metro Policy Advisory Committee

 February 13, 2002

 Item 6 – Subcommittee Updates

Committee Name: Jobs Subcommittee

Date: January 23, 2002, Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Metro Regional Center Room 370

Recorder: Brenda Bernards and Marci LaBerge

1.  Agenda (see attached)

No agenda was prepared for this meeting.

2.  Brief Summary of topics, decisions or conclusions and next steps.

•  Outline of sub-committee discussions and policies to be covered

•  Overview of the 2040 Centers research underway

•  Focus of meeting to nominate chair, develop goals and objectives and set scope of work

•  Chair: David Lohman

•  Work Schedule

•  Feb 13 – discuss available information

•  Feb 27 – commercial and industrial

•  Mar 13 – capture rate

•  Mar 27 – industrial

•  Apr 10 – industrial wrap up

•  Apr 24 – centers

•  May 8 – wrap up centers and prepare recommendations to MPAC

•  Next meeting: UGR preliminary numbers, supply assumptions, MetroScope, case studies, beginning of industrial discussions

See attached meeting notes for more details.

3.  Futures file: items for future consideration, but not for next meeting.

Next meeting date: February 13, 2002

Signature of Recorder: ___________________________________________________

MPAC Job Subcommittee

Meeting Notes

January 23, 2002

6:00 p.m.

Room 370, Metro Regional Center

Present:

MPAC Members: Doug Neeley, Ed Gronke, Alan Hipolito (Alternate), Andy Duyck, Eugene Grant, David Lohman

MTAC Members: Doug McClain, Cindy Catto, Al Burns (for Gil Kelley), Richard Ross, Valerie Counts (for Wink Brooks), Lynn Peterson

Guests: Hal Bergsma, Greg Chew

Staff: Brenda Bernards, Mike Hoglund, Marci LaBerge, Mary Weber

•  The meeting began with self-introductions.

•  Bernie Guisto, Vera Katz, Charles Becker and Gil Kelley were unable to make this meeting, but will be on the subcommittee.

•  Dave Lohman was nominated for and accepted the position as Facilitator.

•  Mike Hoglund outlined the directions for discussions and policies to be covered by the subcommittee.

•  increasing jobs in centers

•  large lot industrial land need – how much is needed and where

•  industrial land absorbed by other uses that could be accommodated in centers

•  refill rates

•  potential need for UGB expansion to accommodate jobs

•  affect of policy decisions on the UGB decision

•  the subcommittee will need to report to MPAC in May

•  Brenda Bernards gave a brief overview of Phase I and Phase II of the 2040 Center Research Project and reviewed the RFP for Phase III

•  subcommittee members provided additions to the work program for Phase III including an examination of the capacity for growth without adding new development and using the experience of the Central City when examining the tools available

•  a further proposal was a greater integration of the public agencies working in centers through inter-governmental agreements

•  the prioritization of centers was considered an important element of the project

•  Focus of first meeting of the Jobs Subcommittee is to decide on chair, goals and objectives, scope of work and timeline.

•  What role is subcommittee expected to play. Look at what is possible and what is realistic…decisions will be based on judgements. Pragmatic approach: look at calendar, review tasks, and see what can be achieved. How much detail should group go into versus keep inquiry at higher level?

•  The Information to be used by committee includes:

•   Centers Phase III work, RILS Phase III, UGR numbers and MetroScope background information.

•  Preliminary Subcommittee Work Schedule

•  February 13

•  Information for sectors, preliminary growth numbers, MetroScope case studies, capture rate, infill rate, VMT. Base Case, I-5, Damascus, Centers. UGR numbers

•  February 27

•  Commercial numbers, MetroScope results, spillover of commercial into industrial.

•  March 13

•  Capture rate

•  March 27

•  Industrial

•  April 10

•  Wrap up industrial, special needs. RILS A, B, C, D lands, large lot issues.

•  April 24

•  Look at centers information.

•  May 8

•  Wrap up centers information, recommendation to MPAC.

•  Recognition by entire group that there is lots to do and little time to achieve it.

•  Mail information prior to meeting (members need to be prepared when they come to the meeting).

•  Presentations of information should be given to the larger MPAC committee so as not to take time away from the subcommittees.

•  Presentations made to the subcommittee should be brief and to the point.

•  Staff can lay out questions that need to be asked.

•  Peer pressure should keep members focused and not allow for digressions that eat up valuable time.

•  Look for efficiencies, save members from hearing presentations twice.

•  This is the forum for discussion, not presentations.

•  Next Meeting: UGR preliminary growth numbers, supply assumptions, MetroScope Case Studies, beginning of Industrial discussions.

MPAC Subcommittee on

Parks and Open Spaces

January 23, 2002

Time: 6-7:30 p.m., Location: Room 274, Recorder: Mark Turpel

1. Agenda - see attached

2. Brief Summary

- Although Mayor Hammerstad was out of town and unable to attend the meeting, members asked that she be contacted and asked to chair the subcommittee.

- Members generally agreed with the work elements listed in the memo from Andy Cotugno. One comment was that there seem to be three “worlds” - local park efforts, regional park efforts and Goal 5. It was stated that there inevitably would be overlaps among these efforts and coordination of these was important to keep in mind as products were reviewed.

- With regard to the work element on the Regional Parks and Greenspaces System Plan, members asked that Charlie Ciecko come to the next meeting and talk more about the draft plan, its elements, timing and what is the region to do or not do in the future.

- With regard to the estimate of future parks on the UGB capacity estimate, members asked that additional information be made available including:

1)  information about the total number of acres within the region (not just the overall ratio of park acres to people;

2)  that the table of possible additional parkland additions from the MPAC parks report be provided to the committee as an informational piece;

3)  that staff present possible future park estimation methods to GTAC for their review and comment and to bring their comments back to the committee;

4)  that any information about the amount of park acquisition within the region by local jurisdictions over the past 20 years be provided;

- With regard to the estimate of capacity implications of the Goal 5 program on the UGB that this information should be developed as soon as possible for subcommittee review keeping in mind:

1)  that development of any regional fish and wildlife program needed to be coordinated with the efforts being made with the Regional System Plan;

2)  that estimates of future lands must consider that unless acquisition funds are available there may be substantial differences between aspirations and actual acquisitions;

3)  that updates on the regional fish and wildlife program should be made along the way so that when the subcommittee was considering the capacity implications, they understood the underlying concepts, assumptions, data, etc.

Next Meeting Date: February 13, 2002

Signature of Recorder: _______________________________

M E M O R A N D U M

TO:    MPAC Parks and Open Space Subcommittee

FROM:    Charlie Ciecko, Director, Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department

   Andy Cotugno, Director, Planning Department

DATE:    January 22, 2002

SUBJECT:  List of possible Subcommittee work tasks

__________________________________________________________________________________________

We are pleased that you have agreed to serve on the MPAC Parks and Open Space Subcommittee and look forward to your help with a variety of policy issues. There are several items that we would like to suggest for subcommittee review prior to full MPAC consideration.

From Regional Parks and Greenspaces, we propose the following products be reviewed:

•  Regional Parks and Greenspaces System Plan, including;

- Regional Greenspaces Draft Map

- Regional Trails Plan Map Update

- Management guidelines for public lands included within the regional system

With regard to the Planning Department, we propose that the Subcommittee:

•  Review alternative methods of estimating future park and open space acquisitions and recommend a preferred option in order to update Metro’s estimate of the capacity within the current urban growth boundary to accommodate future growth; and

•  Review a draft methodology and a draft map showing areas to prohibit or limit conflicting uses in order to assess the capacity implications of regional significant fish and wildlife habitat protection plans on Metro’s capacity to accommodate additional jobs and housing within the current Metro urban growth boundary. (these work products to be developed)

We look forward to the Subcommittee’s discussion of these possible work items and timing and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

cc:  Michael Jordan, MPAC Chair

Mike Burton, Executive Officer

Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer

Susan McLain, Natural Resource Committee Chair

Rod Park, Community Planning Committee Chair

Committee Name: Subregional Issues

Date: 1/23/02, Time: 6 -7:30 p.m., Location: Council Chamber

Recorder: Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner

1.  Agenda (see attached). Begin a discussion of subregional issues.

2.  Brief Summary of topics, decisions or conclusions and next steps.

Chair: Michael Jordan

Goals of the group: define subregions (how and where), provide policy direction (how important is it for the region to examine subregions) and formulate and evaluate measures to address subregions.

Questions:

-  Why are we examining subregions?

-  What kind of decisions should be made on the basis of subregions (exceeding the 20-year land supply, moving to a lower tier of lands…)?

-  How do subregions implement the 2040 Growth Concept?

-  Could subregional decisions create negative impacts on the region as a whole?

-  Would there be a reason to make one part of the region worse in order to improve another part of the region?

-  Are there higher infrastructure costs in one area versus another?

-  Are there concentrations of low income households, free/reduced lunch programs or escalating housing prices in one part of the region versus another?

-  Is there an ability to accommodate a special need, i.e. school?

-  Are there areas that deviate from the median regional income level?

Next meeting: discuss a methodology, how this fits with Periodic Review (schedule and process), analyze data on four MetroScope case studies.

3.  Futures file: items for future consideration, but not for next meeting.

 Not discussed

Next meeting date: February 13, 2002

Signature of Recorder: _________________________________________