METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

January 8, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Chair Tom Hughes, Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Bernie Giusto, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, Judie Hammerstad, John Hartsock, Alan Hipolito, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Mark Knudsen, Susan McLain, Lisa Naito, Cheryl Perrin, David Ripma

Alternates Present: Jim Griffith, Alice Norris

Also Present: Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Al Burns, Portland Planning; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Michael Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Sean Green, City of Lake Oswego; Jack Hoffman, Lake Oswego City Council; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Dan Hoyt, City of Wilsonville; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Ron Thompson, City Council – Forest Grove

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – David Bragdon, Council President; Brian Newman, Council District 2. Other: Susan McLain, Council District 4; Carl Hosticka, Council District 3.

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dick Benner, Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill, Mark Turpel.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commissioner and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at
5:05 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2003

Chair Jordan asked for nominations for the chair.

3.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Vera Katz thanked Michael Jordan for his leadership over the past year.

Chair Hughes also thanked him for his hard work. He also thanked the committee for making him chair. He mentioned that MPAC customarily elects a slate of officers: chairman, vice-chairman, and another vice-chairman. He therefore appointed a nominating committee of Mayor Hammerstad, chair, and Mayor Becker and Mayor Becker to serve on the nominating committee. He also informed the committee that he wanted to hold an MPAC retreat and that at the end of the meeting he would pass out a survey that would gather information on what they wanted to talk about.

4.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were no citizen communications.

5.  CONSENT AGENDA

5.1  Meeting summary for November 25, 2003.

6.  COUNCIL UPDATE

David Bragdon said that the Council had met briefly for the first time in 2003 on Monday to cover organizational matters. He said the Metro President and Council were scheduled for a work session and retreat on January 15, 2003. They would be discussing their work plans for the year, which they would share with MPAC. Industrial lands need, the new initiative on centers, the economic, social, energy and environmental consequences of the fish and wildlife plan, and other topics would be on the work plan. He said they would work with Mayor Hughes to bring those items to MPAC in a timely way. He welcomed all the new members and he introduced Councilor Newman. He said that Councilor Newman added a great perspective to the Council body because he had local government experience having served on a city council. He mentioned that they had changed Dan Cooper’s title to Metro Attorney.

7.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORT

Andy Cotugno explained the Performance Measures report and introduced Gerry Uba. He said that it was not an action item for this meeting. He thanked MTAC for the assistance they provided in terms of defining what should be measured and for analyzing and collecting some of the data.

Gerry Uba gave his presentation, of which the documents handed out and copies of the over-head slides are attached and form part of this record.

Mayor Katz said that creating vibrant places to work and live was critical. She said that it was more difficult to identify the indicators. She said she hoped that Metro would spend time identifying the indicators for MPAC to make a decision and recommendation to the Council. She said that parks was an important piece, but just a small part of the big picture. The Portland Multnomah County Progress Board had some indicators and she hoped that a collaborative effort would be helpful to both parties.

Lisa Naito referenced the information of neighborhood density and asked if they had looked at all the neighborhoods or if they just took a sample. Gerry Uba said that they had just taken a sample. Lisa Naito said that he only used inner neighborhoods, which have not been so concerned with density and recommended Metro should include the outer neighborhoods. She said she would like more southeast Portland or more low-income areas to be looked at as well.

Councilor McLain said that the report had been isolated to a particular set of performance measures on a particular issue that relates to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and land use. She said that the Progress Board had made a great presentation and they said there were many years of work that would be involved. She said that she felt that they had already started to integrate some of those areas. She said it was a big job and they had just touched on a tiny part of it with this work today.

Mayor Katz said she had recently viewed something that showed the demographic picture of the spread of poverty. She said that the demographic included areas mentioned by Lisa Naito and areas that most people would not think to find on it. She said that it was a land-use issue, housing issue, and a jobs issue, and they should spend some time thinking about this issue.

Mayor Hughes said that the Portland metropolitan area was unique in terms of the pattern in which poverty was spread. Usually the inner city had the concentration of poverty and the outer ring was affluent.

Michael Jordan commented on page 17 of the “Metro land use and transportation goals - snapshot” document that mentioned maintaining separation with Metro, he wanted to point out that Metro did encroach on that area with the UGB. He said it was a minor encroachment, but that it was not an accurate statement and it was an important issue for the City of Sandy.

Mayor Hughes said that the other interesting issue about maintaining separation was that it was not a one-way relationship.

Lisa Naito said that the document should be really accurate and include the good as well as the not so good.

Nathalie Darcy referred to page 5 with a question about neighborhood density. She wanted more clarification on the numbers in the next iteration of the document, as some of them seemed unrealistic. Others agreed.

Andy Cotugno said there would be actions on this information at a later date.

8.  PERIODIC REVIEW TASK 3 WORK PROGRAM OPTIONS

Andy Cotugno asked for an open-ended discussion on the issues that should be addressed in Task 3. He said that in order to proceed they would need a specific work program recommended by MPAC and adopted by the Metro Council and submitted to LCDC for approval. At that point, provided LCDC approved, it was then open to appeal by groups/people who may not agree. He said that they were at the point where Metro had finished Task 2. Metro Council concluded that a need for industrial land had not been fully met. So, at a minimum, Metro would have to address that. What should be part of the work program and what should be the LCDC periodic review portion? Anything adopted under periodic review was still subject to LCDC decision/approval and not an appealable action. Once LCDC approved it, then it could be appealed. He said that there were advantages to being within periodic review, particularly if there was a question about the state law.

Mayor Hughes said all of that starts with Metro’s request for Task 3. That would start with MPAC’s recommendation to Metro as a consideration. So, MPAC would have to start the process. Therefore, the question before them was what items ought to be considered?

Andy Cotugno said that a specific action item would be a specific work program that MPAC would be asked to make a recommendation on.

David Bragdon said it would also be scheduled for an informal work session of the Council. He said that Mr. Cotugno had touched on the issue of appeals under the two different scenarios. He said that other issues that the Council was going to look at were the time that any given task takes, the staff resources, and public involvement. He suggested that they weigh these considerations as well.

Andy Cotugno said that he would like to go back to where they had left off on this discussion back in July and August. To further discussion, he read from a list that had been produced back then. Should urban reserves be included in periodic review? Should there be a centers implementation program? Council had adopted a resolution calling for development of a centers program. There were employment issues ahead of MPAC; they had not met all the employment land needs. Should there be a regional economic development strategy? Etc.

Mayor Hughes asked if Task 3 becomes more appealable as more is loaded onto it?

Andy Cotugno asked him if he meant the actual approval of the work program itself? The bigger it is, the more complicated, and the more likely the work program itself gets appealed?

Mayor Hughes said yes.

Mayor Katz asked if the only task that they needed to complete was the employment task?

Andy Cotugno said that was the one that they had to complete.

Rob Drake asked if they could avoid the potential for appeal and yet not be constrained at what they might want to look at? Could they create a 3A, 3B, and 3C version?

Dan Cooper said that the decision to approve the work program, by the commission, was an appealable decision. He said they should recognize that that could happen.

Rob Drake wanted to know if there was any advantage to separating the elements of the work program?

Dan Cooper said that technically the whole thing could be appealed. He said that there were different ways to approach it.

Lisa Naito recommended that they limit it to just what was absolutely necessary to comply with Task 3.

Mayor Hughes said that they were not asking for a final decision on what would go into Task 3 at that time, so that discussion could be continued at the retreat.

Michael Jordan asked Dan Cooper how often you could go into periodic review?

Dan Cooper said every 5 – 10 years.

Michael Jordan said that there were probably other issues where the periodic review decision making process might be advantageous – that they wouldn’t want to wait 5 years before they put a decision into that process verses the other process. He said he was thinking of urban reserves and how they could plan across a current UGB with areas that might be territorial.

David Ripma asked if periodic review requirements foreclosed MPAC from going forward with urban reserves or any other issue – whether or not they took it on in Task 3?

David Bragdon and Michael Jordan said Metro could do work outside Task 3.

Al Burns said that MPAC would need to be mindful of LCDC’s budget cuts to periodic review efforts and the state’s ability to do periodic review for the state as a whole, as part of the decision of how to allocate to periodic review verses other legislative procedures.

Rob Drake said that as LCDC was looking at the issue they were receiving and taking input about periodic review being the toughest issue to deal with and certainly it takes a lot of staff resources. He wanted to know if by cutting it 30% does that mean that it would take longer to do it, or have they streamlined the process?

People said some of both.

Al Burns said that he attended the LCDC meeting and that they held an executive session and he guessed that the attorneys went through what was statutorily required for periodic review and other LCDC work tasks. If they were cutting their budget they couldn’t cut it below statutory mandate.

Mayor Hughes said that this was just the beginning phase of this and it would be good, as they go through preparation for the retreat, to give a lot of thought to this issue. He said that some recommendation would have to go forward soon because they would have to start the work.

Judie Hammerstad asked if the staff would provide the implication of each of those issues as a basis for them to make a decision.

Andy Cotugno said yes.

Lisa Naito said a summary of the retreat would be good.

9.  JANUARY 22^ND MPAC RETREAT

Mayor Hughes said they were trying to have the retreat at the zoo. The meeting would be from 5-9 p.m. He said he saw the retreat as a tool to help shape the agenda for the year. He said he felt it was important for MPAC to set its own agenda. He said that issues seemed to come before MPAC in three categories; the stuff that Metro had to run before them according to the charter, stuff that the Metro Council chose to run by them, and then the things that MPAC felt were important. He said it was important for them to look at what they felt was important region-wide. He said that he had contracted with Growth Caucus to develop some tools to make the retreat as effective as possible. One of those tools was a questionnaire. He explained what he wanted regarding the survey and asked MPAC members to fill it out before leaving. This survey is attached and forms a part of the record.

Mayor Hughes referred to a meeting that took place the day before between some of the larger jurisdictions to talk about some issues. He said that one of the first items of discussion for the retreat would be to talk about some procedures. He said that they had reviewed procedures at that meeting and they decided there were some areas that they wanted to clarify. One of those areas was for MPAC, when dealing with issues referred by Metro Council, to get a clearer idea of where those ideas/issues were coming from. He said that they would work out a procedure that would work out kinks of communication issues. He said that some concern had been raised about clarifying the role of MPAC and MTAC. He said MTAC was a creation of MPAC. It reviews material that MPAC refers to it. So, how they use MTAC would make a good discussion topic. He also said that the issue of how MPAC interacts with the Council was a subject to discuss. He said that they needed a leadership nominating committee to develop a broader base of leadership.

Dave Ripma asked what the Growth Caucus was.

Mayor Hughes said that it was a consulting firm.

David Ripma asked if members funded it.

Mayor Hughes said that dues paid by the members of the Growth Caucus funded its ongoing work. The City of Hillsboro was increasing their dues payment in order to cover the work that would be done for this particular project.

Mayor Drake said that some jurisdictions did not always have staff to help them present their view on issues. The idea was to have an extended resource to take an alternative look at issues.

Mayor Drake asked if they needed to vote on replacing Richard Ross with Rebecca Ocken.

Andy Cotugno said that MPAC approved all of MTAC’s members, so yes they did need to vote on it.

There being no further business, Chair Hughes adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR JANUARY 8, 2003

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