METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

May 14, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Alan Hipolito, Laura Hudson, Richard Kidd, Cheryl Perrin

Alternates Present: Shane Bemis, Rich Carson, Bernie Guisto, Jack Hoffman, John Leeper, Karen McKinney, David Ripma, Maria Rojo de Steffey, Larry Sowa

Also Present: Pam Beery, Attorney; Steve Bosak, THPRD; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Rob DeGraff, Portland Business Alliance; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Bernie Giusto, TriMet; Norm King, City of West Linn; Len Edwards, City of Fairview; Len Huff, ODOT; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Hannah Kuhn, City of Portland; Stephen Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Richard Meyer, City of Cornelius; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Amy Scheckla-Cox, City of Cornelius

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, Chris Deffebach, Kim Ellis, Gerry Uba

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Larry Cooper, acting MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

No announcements were made.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

Steve Bosak spoke to the MTIP project list pertaining to the Beaverton Powerline Multi-Use Regional Trail Project. He handed out a letter to David Bragdon from Terry Moore outlining his comments. That letter is attached and forms part of the record.

Andy Cotugno commented that when MPAC had the retreat in January, they had decided that they wanted to touch base on MTIP, but not spend a lot of time on it. At the last meeting, they had reviewed a conceptual statement about the kinds of things that should be a priority and that conceptual statement was recommended by MTAC. JPACT would have a special meeting the following day to discuss three different policy options for how that money might be allocated. The policy options emphasized a certain theme. He said that they would review those policy options when they reached agenda item # 6 Metro Transportation Improvement Program. He said that it was his understanding that MPAC did not want to get involved with specific project recommendations but rather policy emphasis for those funds.

Rod Park said that the special JPACT meeting was scheduled for 5/15/03 at 7:15. There would be a public hearing on June 5^th, 2003 at the Council and citizens could make comments at that meeting. He said that he hoped that MPAC would focus on policy questions because JPACT would focus on that first, and then later move on to specific projects.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for April 23, 2003.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President Bragdon said that the second reading for the ordinance that deals with some provisions of measure 26-29 was coming up at Council. Other items included the industrial land surface methodology to assess the need in different sectors in the economy as well as the study on commercial encroachment into industrial areas. The first reading of the ordinance for Title 7 - Affordable Housing Changes was scheduled for the Council meeting the following day. He did not anticipate that action would be taken on it until late June.

Rod Park said that LCDC had had hearings at Metro the previous Thursday and Friday. LCDC had tentatively approved about 99.9% of Metro Council’s decision. The area that was still in question was approximately 21 acres around King City, creating a little island that would have zero effect on dwelling and commercial units. He thanked everyone involved in the process.

Gene Grant asked if the ones who filed objections were going to appeal the decision.

Dan Cooper said that was uncertain at this point. He said that there was still an outstanding statutory interpretation issue that was applicable to the Bethany portion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

6.  METRO TRANSPORTATION IMPOROVEMENT PROGRAM

Bill Barbur gave a presentation on the Regional Transportation Options program. The presentation slides were distributed with the meeting packet and therefore form a part of this record.

Ted Leybold gave a presentation on the MPAC Recommendation to MTIP Funding. The presentation materials were distributed as part of the meeting packet and therefore form a part of this record. He said that Option B best reflected what MTAC had recommended to MPAC.

Andy Cotugno said that the current list of projects were intended to illustrate what options A, B and C would look like; he emphasized that they were not actual projects. He said that JPACT wanted to focus on the policy direction, then direct TPAC to come back with a specific project recommendation to carry out that policy recommendation. He said that in the resolution that adopted the funding agreement there was an explicit commitment that Metro would fund the Beckman Road project out of the next round of MTIP funds. That resolution also acknowledged that Clackamas County would be seeking Sunnyside road improvements out of the next round of MTIP funds.

Gene Grant asked if the Sunnyside project was getting any special treatment.

Andy Cotugno said no, and explained the criteria and qualitative factors. He then explained the differences between Options A, B and C. He said that Option B best approximated what MTAC had recommended to them. He asked them if they wanted to vote on the recommendation.

Bernie Guisto asked about a time frame for leveraging that money.

Rod Park answered that there were different options. He said that Option C was a little bit of a gamble. The Metro task force had recommended looking at a local ballot measure. There was also a commitment to the second phase of the South Corridor Light Rail. He said that even if funds became available – was anyone ready to accept them and move on with the project? He summarized the three options as A) focusing dollars, B) spreading dollars, or C) getting more dollars in the region.

Gene Grant asked if Option C was reviewed by MTAC before they had made their recommendation.

Andy Cotugno said no. MTAC made their recommendation and then the three options were designed.

John Leeper said that a combination of Option B and C would be the best way to get things underway.

Susan McLain said she supported the idea of a combination.

Andy Cotugno said that they could be combined, if that is what the majority of members wanted. He said that the next list would be compiled of actual projects and not just sample projects.

John Leeper made another plea to change the motion to include some components of Option C.

Rod Park talked about current transportation fund commitments for the region.

Brian Newman talked about transportation projects throughout the region that he did not feel confident the legislature would be able to fund. Therefore, the council wanted to create a regional package that allowed them to seed a lot of projects, and to strategically work with local jurisdictions to prepare a ballot measure. He said he felt it could be done with a hybrid between Options B and C.

Jack Hoffman said there was no downside to doing that with Option C because there were still projects listed.

Bernie Guisto said that in that case the 100% list would become a 50% list. He said that they would have to consider how they would pare 100 projects to 50 when making the decision.

Gene Grant wanted to know if there were enough projects already engineered and ready to go that would fit under Option B.

Andy Cotugno said that there were plenty of projects for the 2006 – 2007 money, which was what these options represented.

Gene Grant said that Option C would be taking money for bigger, longer-term projects, at the expense of Option B projects.

Brian Newman said that Option C was a leap of faith. He said that he felt that a hybridization of Option C and B was warranted.

Rob Drake said that he felt that Option B provided Metro staff and JPACT flexibility. He said that he supported Option B with a note that there was keen interest in keeping components of Option C wherever it made sense.

John Leeper said he wanted assurance that there was enough flexibility in Option B that some Option C projects could get consideration at the JPACT meeting the following day.

Richard Kidd said that he felt that Option B had that flexibility.

7.  POLICY ON INTERCHANGE MANAGEMENT

Andy Cotugno introduced the materials that had been included in the packet and forms a part of this record. He also introduced commissioner John Russell from Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC).

John Russell said that because the proposed Jackson School Interchange was adjacent to an urban area, it would have heavy usage. He said that besides the existence of boundary issues, the question was how to prevent unwanted development once demand was created by putting in the interchange.

Susan McLain thanked the commission and staff for their work on the issue. She spoke about other issues related to access and safety. She said that it was future uses of the surrounding areas on the interchange that was of concern to the locals.

John Russell said that the Transportation Commission had made it easy for LCDC by saying that they would supply the personnel and money.

Karen McKinney asked if they would be operating under current rules for an interchange or would they have to wait for something to be adopted by OTC and delay progress.

John Russell said that was a big concern of theirs. He said that construction was slated to start in less than a year. He said he believed that the rule making had to happen before the work started, but it should also be done expeditiously.

Karen McKinney said that Hillsboro wanted to work together to make sure that there was a greenspace in that area. She asked that the interchange design would not adversely affect the safety of the area or hinder access to other roadways. She expressed a hope that those factors would not add to the overall cost of the project. She said that another concern for the City of Hillsboro was that construction/design of the interchange maintained the urban and rural separation.

John Russell said they had received very powerful testimony regarding design issues.

John Leeper said his big concern about the Jackson School Interchange was the serious transportation problem it posed and keeping the project on schedule. He expressed a desire to see the number of rules pertaining to this project kept to a minimum.

Susan McLain explained how Jackson School Road worked with the nearby road systems.

John Russell said there were two issues to focus on. One was the design and the other was the process used to handle those type of near urban interchanges.

Cheryl Perrin asked if the rule was statewide and what they had done previously in this type of situation.

John Russell said it was statewide and that those things just shouldn’t happen and yet they repeatedly did. He commented that the commission did not have purview over land use. They did, however, invest in the things that created demand for a change in land use.

8.  ORDINANCE 03-1005, AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN TO CLARIFY AND REVISE CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES

Andy Cotugno introduced the ordinance and then introduced Gerry Uba. He said that the ordinance would be introduced and that MPAC would make a decision on it in two weeks.

Gerry Uba referred to the updated compliance report list for Title 7, which is attached and forms a part of this record. He went over the materials provided in the meeting packet, which forms part of this record. He also said that it was his hope that at the next meeting MPAC would make a recommendation for the council.

Ed Gronke asked if extending that deadline to next month would get them 2002 first report compliance by all the jurisdictions? He also wanted to know what value and result all this work would provide.

Gerry Uba said that he hoped to have full compliance on the first report soon. He said that in 2004 they would assess the progress that had been made throughout the region by evaluating the land use strategies implemented by jurisdictions. The hope was to see an increase of affordable housing units in all jurisdictions.

Jack Hoffman asked if it was supposed to be affordable or available to defined income groups.

Andy Cotugno said that it was a unit that was of an affordable price for those defined income groups.

Jack Hoffman asked for an explanation of the requirement to “consider” in subsection 3.07.730.B and the definition of the requirement to consider in subsection 3.07.730.C

Dan Cooper said that it was a technical error, and that subsection 3.07.730.C would be removed.

Jack Hoffman suggested that Gerry Uba update the 2002 first report list to indicate those jurisdictions that had requested an extension.

Karen McKinney had concerns about the creation and makeup of the ad hoc Affordable Housing committee. She said that MPAC and MTAC representatives should be included in the committee and that MPAC should participate in the selection of committee members.

Mayor Drake said that her concerns would be addressed by that ad hoc committee.

Dan Cooper said that any changes to the framework plan or function plan must come back to MPAC for review per Metro code.

9.  MPAC REVIEW OF HB 2909 – PERIODIC REVIEW

Dan Cooper reviewed the materials provided in the packet and on the updated HB 2909 version provided at the meeting. These materials are attached and form part of the record. He cautioned that there would continue to be changes to the bill. He focused on the current version.

Jack Hoffman asked if the present version excluded cities and counties from going to periodic review for the next three to four years.

Dan Cooper said that was not in the current version of the bill, but that was the concept they had talked about.

Jack Hoffman asked if they would be able to go through periodic review if they wanted to.

Dan Cooper said probably not but they could make all the plan amendments that they wanted. He said that no one would be prohibited from amending the plan, it was the access to the commission and the state resources that would be limited.

10.  MPAC REVIEW OF HB 3211 – URBAN SERVICE PROVIDER ANNEXATION

Dan Cooper said that this bill had come out, then it was re-referred and no action had been taken on it since then. He said he thought that the bill might now be dead.

There being no further business, acting Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR May 14, 2003

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