METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

May 22, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Larry Cooper, Paul Curcio, Nathalie Darcy, Bernie Giusto, John Hartsock, Tom Hughes, Mark Knudsen, Doug Neeley, David Ripma, Jim Zehren

Alternates Present: Jack Hoffman, Chris Lassen, Dave Lohman, Mike McFarland

Also Present: Linda Bauer, Citizen; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Al Burns, City of Portland; Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Danielle Cowan, City of Wilsonville; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Michael Dennis, Tri-Met; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Greg Jenks, Clackamas County; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Charlotte Lehan, City of Wilsonville; Patricia McCaig, Davis, Hibbits, and McCaig; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Lynn Peterson, Tri-Met; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Grafton Sterling, John L. Scott Real Estate; John Tapogna, ECONorthwest; Tom Vanderzanden, Citizen

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer, Rod Park, Council
District 1; David Bragdon, Council District 7

Metro Staff Present: Brenda Bernards, Kelley Canode, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Heather Nelson Kent, Mark Turpel, Kim White, Dennis Yee

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commission, called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were none.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Council Presiding Officer, said Metro won the primary election; the next step is to implement Measure 26-29. He said Council is moving forward with periodic review, the riparian corridor and wildlife habitat inventories, and the economic, social, energy and environmental (ESEE) analysis.

Rod Park, Metro Council, thanked Charlotte Lehan, Mayor, City of Wilsonville, for her work. He said June 12 will be an important meeting at which they will look at the urban growth report need numbers and discuss capture rate. The Community Planning Committee has begun looking at some of the employment issues, which will then be sent to the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and forwarded to MPAC.

6.  SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, said the Housing Subcommittee has met twice and worked through the demand side of the housing analysis. They are fairly comfortable overall with the forecast. The biggest swing issue is the capture rate. He said the Demand Forecast Subcommittee has met once, and expects to meet one more time. The subcommittee is comfortable with the economic forecast.

Mike Hoglund, Regional Planning Director, said the Jobs Subcommittee will meet again tonight to talk about centers and take a first look at the numbers on the demand side of the jobs forecast.

Chair Jordan said the subcommittees’ work is almost done; the results will be presented to MPAC beginning next month.

7.  MTIP FUNDING CRITERIA ISSUES AND SURVEY

Mr. Hoglund introduced the item and asked for comments from MPAC on the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) program objectives, how to define the key connections to land use, whether any of the categories should be consolidated, eliminated or added, and the technical rankings. He reviewed a memo from Ted Leybold to MPAC regarding the MTIP Questionnaire, which summarized the comments made at MTAC at its May 15^th meeting. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting packet.

Chair Jordan said MPAC discussed this briefly at a previous meeting and agreed that the committee wanted to comment on the process. Some MPAC members, or their jurisdictions, had already completed the questionnaire. While the questionnaire represented a framework for the discussion at the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT), Chair Jordan did not want it to constrain MPAC’s comments.

Doug Neeley, Commissioner, City of Oregon City, recommended giving consideration to areas adjacent to or between regional centers that have the potential to redevelop.

Tom Hughes, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, recommended consolidating and clarifying the many categories to make it less confusing. He recommended judicious or no use of the administrative criteria, because it tends to lead away from the 2040 objectives. He would like to see criteria that give incentives for multi-modal projects. He noted that Hillsboro planning staff is writing a letter to Metro outlining these comments.

Mr. Hoglund encouraged jurisdictions to send letters noting their key thoughts if they wished, as the questionnaire was rather bulky.

Bernie Giusto, Tri-Met Board of Directors, recommended requiring applicants to provide more detail on how the projects will promote land use goals, such as connecting corridors and centers, in order to earn the land use points.

Mark Knudsen, Washington County Special Districts, agreed with Mayor Hughes’s comments, but recommended more consideration for local match. The willingness of local governments to participate in a project, and the degree to which they will participate, gives Metro an idea of which projects are considered important locally.

Chair Jordan said Clackamas County is especially concerned that areas added to the urban growth boundary (UGB) be given equal footing with the 2040 land use types, especially if significant infrastructure is needed. The concern is that moving the UGB without appropriate infrastructure provision is not really moving the UGB. The Commission also discussed the importance of leveraging. Third, while the Commission did not oppose administrative factors, they recommended limiting to 10% or 20% the amount of money that can be moved in the ranking using administrative factors.

Mr. Hoglund said staff will write a report summarizing the comments received and make recommendations on what to do. The recommendations will then go to MTAC, JPACT, MPAC, and the Council. He expected it to return to MPAC for comment in July.

Dave Lohman, Port of Portland, said he has been through the MTIP allocation process many times, and the process is exceedingly difficult. The fact that any criteria exist that moves the process beyond pure politics is commendable. He cautioned against tinkering too much and making the process so complex that it is forced it to become even more political. To some degree, the administrative factors and overmatch have been ways to help contain the political pressure.

8.  OPEN SPACE INCENTIVES REPORT

Heather Nelson Kent, Planning and Education Manager, Parks and Greenspaces Department, introduced the item. The project was funded jointly by Metro Parks, Oregon City, Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District and the City of Portland Endangered Species Act Program. The study’s purpose was to look at conservation incentives that could be used for open space protection within the metropolitan area. Metro’s greenspaces master plan was adopted in 1992; it looked at natural area protection on a regional basis and identified key tools, included acquisition, education and stewardship programs, and a regulatory program. The open space incentives report builds on both the 1992 greenspaces master plan and the current fish and wildlife habitat protection (Goal 5) efforts.

John Tapogna, ECONorthwest, noted that his agency subcontracted with Davis, Hibbits and McCaig, Inc., and Winterbrook Planning. In 1999, Winterbrook Planning and Adolfson Associates studied a variety of incentives, financing tools and education-related tools to help local jurisdictions conserve sensitive lands. The goal of the current project was to take the 1999 study, apply it more specifically to Portland, and identify tools most likely to succeed. He walked through the Natural Area Protection presentation notes, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Patricia McCaig, Davis, Hibbits and McCaig, Inc., said her organization interviewed twenty-four people in five areas who own property with natural resources and who are not affiliated with any property rights, environmental, or neighborhood organizations. The conclusion drawn from the interviews is that any program must be personal and simple, and government should buy any land that is valuable.

Councilor Park asked if during the interviews the idea came up of giving landowners a goal and allowing them to find ways to achieve that goal.

Ms. McCaig said only to the extent that everyone interviewed reacted to the need for both simplicity and some respect. You could extrapolate that if you had confidence in their ability, once they understood the goal, that they would try to achieve it because they love their properties.

Mr. Giusto noted that the amount of a partition “fee” must be tied directly to the cost of doing a partition. If in fact it is a tax, it needs be called a tax rather than a fee.

Ms. McCaig said they learned from their study that if governments are interested in protecting natural resource areas, the tools available are pretty limited in the future. It is possible to protect areas on a local, project-by-project basis. The opportunities for any large-scale efforts to protect more than a few acres are tied to the ability to find funding. As consultants, they pushed to look for ways that may be helpful to governments over the next decade. While none of the funding proposals are politically viable right now, they are intended to give governments a goal to work toward.

Ms. Kent said staff is now presenting the results of the study to Metro’s various technical and policy advisory committees and stakeholder groups. She said the Goal 5 program incentives are part of Metro’s protection program, therefore this will continue to be an important topic at Metro. She noted that there is strong local interest in protecting natural resource areas in Happy Valley and Damascus.

Chair Jordan asked if, under the value capture concept, the consultants looked at the potential for capital gains income tax.

Mr. Tapogna said no, they did not.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

4.1  Meeting Summary: May 8, 2002

9.  REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENTS

Tom Kloster, Transportation Program Supervisor, reviewed his memo to MPAC regarding Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) post-acknowledgement amendments, which is included in the meeting packet. Staff will return to MPAC in about a month with a set of RTP amendments intended to reconcile a number of changes directed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) during the RTP acknowledgement process. He discussed the Green Street Amendments; a copy of the presentation materials is included in the meeting record.

10.  RIPARIAN CORRIDORS: INTRODUCTION

Mark Turpel, Long-Range Planning Manager, reviewed the staff report to Resolution No. 02-3176 and the riparian corridor and wildlife habitat inventory schedule, both of which are included in the meeting packet. The item will go to MTAC on June 5, and return to MPAC on June 12 for a recommendation to the Metro Council. The maps are available on Metro’s FTP site: ftp.metro-region.org/dist/gm/goal5/.

Chair Jordan noted that the wildlife habitat inventory will be presented to MPAC on June 12, with a final recommendation scheduled for June 26. There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR MAY 22, 2002

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