METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

April 9, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Bernie Giusto, Eugene Grant, John Hartsock, Laura Hudson, Tom Hughes, Michael Jordan, Mark Knudson, Doug Neeley,

Alternates Present: Jack Hoffman, John Leeper, Karen McKinney, David Ripma

Also Present: Jeff Bachrach, RCCB; Pamela Beery, Beery and Elsner; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Beverly Bookin, Columbia Corridor Assoc.; Al Burns, Portland Planning; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Bob Durgan, Anderson Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Jon Holan, City of Forest Grove; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Holly Iburg, Newland Communities; Linda Louer, Citizen; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Doug McClain, Clackamas County Planning; Lisa Naito, Multnomah County; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Dara Rudzinski, Citizen; Mike Saba, City of Portland; Jeff Salvon, City of Beaverton; Amy Scheckla-Cox, Cornelius City Councilor; Andree Tremoulet, City of Gresham; Alan Whitworth, City of Beaverton

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – David Bragdon, Council President; Brian Newman, Council District 2; Rod Park, Council District 1. Other: Susan McLain, Council District 4.

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Gerry Uba, and Mary Weber.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Tom Hughes, Mayor of Hillsboro and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

Gussie McRobert spoke about proposed legislation to change periodic review schedules and items. She passed out a sheet of paper summarizing her request for support of language clarification on the bill. This document is attached and forms part of the record.

Dan Cooper said that all cities over 2,500 were now required to go through periodic review on a 7-10 year schedule. He explained that the proposal being discussed was for any city or county with territory inside the metro boundary not to be subject to a periodic review period. Metro would be required to go through a process that would be reviewed by the commission on a regular basis to make sure the Metro functional plan and framework plan were updated. The expectation was that Metro would continue to have an overall plan similar to periodic review. He said he understood that 98% of the specific requirements in the functional plans, as they were added up, have been complied with.

Mayor Hammerstad asked if there was anything detrimental to the quality of life and state land use goals in the functional/framework plan.

Dan Cooper said that there was nothing in the proposal that would preclude a city from changing its own plans. It would have to continue to comply with the Metro requirements. Dan Cooper said an appeal goes to LUBA under current law, unless they were in periodic review. If not appealed – then they were done.

Mayor Drake asked about the notification process for LCDC.

Dan Cooper said that currently the requirement was to give notice of 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing for both Metro and LCDC. Discussion followed.

David Ripma said he was hesitant to endorse the bill without actually seeing the final copy.

Gene Grant announced that House Bill 32-11 on Urban Service Provider Annexation was resurrected for a hearing on April 10, 2003 at 8:30 in hearing Room E. He said he felt that the bill was detrimental to cities, counties, and local governments. He urged the members to try to attend the meeting.

Doug Neeley requested that House Bill 32-11 be added to an agenda for a later MPAC meeting. He suggested that any important items that came before MPAC for endorsement deserved to have general discussion before being voted on.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for March 26, 2003.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President Bragdon said that the MTIP 150% Cut List was on the Council agenda for April 10, 2003 for consideration. He said that the Council was moving forward with the functional compliance findings. He added that the Damascus work plan was coming together. He advised that South Corridor Recommendation was on the agenda for the following week.

6.  TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES 2004-07

Andy Cotugno introduced the Transportation Priorities material and Ted Leybold.

Ted Leybold presented material pertaining to the Transportation Priorities for 2004-07. Those materials are attached and form part of this record.

Andy Cotugno asked the members to consider which projects or categories they wanted to weigh-in on.

Doug Neeley asked if total monies were assigned to the categories before submissions were made?

Andy Cotugno said that there were two categories of funds - STP funds (State Transportation Program Funds), which could be used for almost any transportation purpose, and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds (CMAQ funds), which could only be spent on alternative mode projects. Everything, except the road modernization and freight category as road expansion projects, was eligible for CMAQ funds. Therefore, at least 8 million dollars must go towards alternatives, whereas the other 15 million could go to alternatives or road expansion. He said that the 150% list was to be released for public comment on the next day. A final decision was slated for June. Mr. Cotugno also laid out the process: the 150% list would go JPACT, JPACT would review it, then it would go through the public hearing process, and then the recommendation for a 100% list would come back to MPAC. Therefore, one-third of the list was subject to being cut. He asked the members to weigh the 150% list to determine which projects were most pertinent from a land-use perspective.

Councilor Park said that the members needed flexibility with the process since the legislature was working on transportation options. They were working on a transportation plan that focused on bridges and road modernization. There was also the potential that the Metro task force would try to generate money regionally to match up with what Metro was trying to get at the state.

Chair Hughes said that the request was to have the MPAC members take the list and review it before the next meeting.

7.  AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Gerry Uba presented material pertaining to affordable housing.

Doug McClain, Planning Director for Clackamas County, gave a presentation on affordable housing. His materials were included in the packet and form a part of this record.

Doug Neeley asked if the Mobile Homes Relocation Plan policy had been used. He wanted to know if Clackamas County had a mechanism for housing that was affordable whether manufactured, mobile, or other.

Mr. McClain said yes to the first part of his question and no to the second part. He said that the standard in the Clackamas County code was nebulous. There was not a lot of criteria for what constituted an approvable, legal case.

Mike Saba, Senior Planner at the Portland Planning Bureau, gave a presentation on affordable housing. His materials were included in the packet and form a part of this record.

Doug Neeley asked how they dealt with SDC waivers.

Mr. Saba said that they were governed by state law that either allowed them to exempt or not exempt all the SCD waivers. The sewer, water, and transportation SDC’s for new development was considerable. They were provided for rental housing that was affordable at 60% or less, and for profit and non-profit facilities. Home-ownership for new units was affordable at 60% of median income. There was an allotment of money set aside for first-come, first-serve situations.

Andree Tremoulet, Planner for the City of Gresham, gave a presentation on affordable housing. Her materials were included in the packet and form a part of this record.

Jon Holan, Community Development Director for the City of Forest Grove, gave a presentation on affordable housing. His materials were included in the packet and form a part of this record.

Doug Neeley asked about inclusionary housing.

Jon Holan defined inclusionary housing to mean that you have a certain percentage of housing which might be affordable for incomes with less than a certain percentage.

There being no further business, Chair Hughes adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR APRIL 9, 2003

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