PLEASE NOTE: MEETING STARTS PROMPTLY AT 5:00 PM

AGENDA

MEETING:  METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DATE:    February 27, 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:

March 13, 27; April 10, 24

For agenda and schedule information, call Suzanne Myers Harold at 503-797-1501.

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.

i:mpac/2002 agendas/022702 agenda.doc

 Metro Policy Advisory Committee

 February 27, 2002

 Item 4.1 – Consent Agenda

METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

February 13, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Vice Chair Tom Hughes, Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Paul Curcio, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Bernie Giusto, Eugene Grant, Judie Hammerstad, John Hartsock, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, David Ripma, Dan Saltzman, Jim Zehren

Alternates Present: Meg Fernekees, Jack Hoffman, Chris Lassen, Dave Lohman

Also Present: Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Ron Bunch, City of Gresham; Greg Chew, Parsons Brinkerhoff; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Cindy Catto, AGC; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Michael Dennis, Tri-Met; Chris Eaton, Angelo Eaton and Assoc.; Mary Gibson, Port of Portland; Matt Grumm, City of Portland; Gregory Jenks, Clackamas County; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Richard Meyer, City of Cornelius; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Matthew Udziela, Cogan Owens Cogan

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: Brenda Bernards, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Marci LaBerge, Michael Morrissey, Tim O’Brien, Mark Turpel, Mary Weber, Dennis Yee

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  Meeting minutes for January 23, 2002

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Councilor McLain said on February 20, 2002, the Natural Resources Committee will address developed floodplains mapping, uplands and wildlife, and waters of the state, and consider the request for proposals (RFP) for the regional economic, social, energy and environmental (ESEE) analysis of fish and wildlife habitat protection. She clarified that Metro is submitting an RFP for assistance on the economic aspect of the analysis.

Councilor Park noted three upcoming issues in Community Planning Committee: map corrections, requests for exceptions to the Functional Plan, and the very tight timeline for defining subregional methodology.

Presiding Officer Hosticka presented Resolution No. 02-3163, which will go before the full Council on Thursday, February 14, 2002. The resolution would place on the May 2002 ballot a alternative to ballot measure 26-11, the Neighborhood Preservation Act of 2000. A copy of Resolution No. 02-3163 and the Neighborhood Preservation Act of 2000 is included in the meeting record. Resolution No. 02-3163 is intended to achieve measure 26-11’s goal of protecting existing single family neighborhoods from Metro-mandated density increases, without the legal problems inherent in measure 26-11. He said the timeline was very short in order to ensure that the item is on the May ballot. He asked for reactions from MPAC.

Mr. Dan Cooper reviewed measure 26-11 and Resolution No. 02-3163, details of which are included in the staff report to Resolution No. 02-3163.

Mayor Drake said measure 26-11 would create significant duplication of effort and cost to notify affected neighborhoods of land use decisions, by requiring Metro to conduct a parallel process with cities and counties.

Presiding Officer Hosticka asked if, under measure 26-11, Metro would be guilty of “indirectly” requiring a city or county to increase density if Metro does not expand the urban growth boundary enough to maintain current, average levels of density.

Mr. Dan Cooper said he did not know.

Mr. Zehren said he supported the resolution, although he noted concern about specific language in the bill. In particular, he said that Exhibit A, Section 1(4)(a), “Livability Protection,” is a plaintiff lawyer’s dream. Anyone who disagreed with a Metro action could file suit under one of the provisions.

Councilor Burkholder, who introduced Resolution No. 02-3163, said it was the intent of Section 1(4)(a) to restate Metro’s mission to create livable communities.

Councilor Ripma asked if there was a legal precedent to the final paragraph of Exhibit B, that if both Metro’s ballot measure and measure 26-11 pass, whichever measure receives the greater number of affirmative votes will become effective.

Mr. Dan Cooper said he had researched the issue and believed the language was consistent with state law and would hold up in court.

Chair Jordan apologized for the last-minute nature of the item. He recommended that any comments be directed to Mr. Dan Cooper or the Council by the morning of Thursday, February 14, 2002.

7.  METROSCOPE

Mr. Cotugno presented the periodic review case study results. A copy of the presentation slides is included in the meeting record.

Mayor Hughes asked about residential population capture rate and sprawl. At what point should the region become concerned that the capture rate is too low?

Mr. Cotugno said he believed the base case assumption of 66% capture rate was realistic, and that anything below 59% should cause concern.

Mr. Neeley asked why MetroScope found that focusing growth in centers would result in longer vehicle trips. He said it was counterintuitive.

Mr. Cotugno said he did not know yet and was looking into it.

6.  SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES

Due to time, agenda item six was omitted.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2002

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

Metro Policy Advisory Committee

 February 27, 2002

 Item 4.2 – Appointment of MTAC members

DATE:  February 20, 2002

TO:  Chair Michael Jordan

 Metro Policy Advisory Committee

FROM:  Andy Cotugno, Planning Dept. Director

RE:  MPAC CONFIRMATION/APPOINTMENT OF MTAC MEMBERS FOR 2002 AND TO FILL VACANCIES

Per the MPAC Bylaws:

Each jurisdiction or organization named [to MTAC] shall annually notify MPAC of their nomination. MPAC may approve or reject any nomination. Revision of the membership of MTAC may occur consistent with MPAC bylaw amendment procedures…

We have received additional letters for annual appointment to MTAC since your consideration and approval of MTAC’s membership for 2002 at the January 23, 2002 MPAC meeting:

•  Clark County has nominated Richard Carson and Bob Higbie to serve as member and alternate respectively for 2002.

•  The Port of Portland has nominated Brian Campbell and Mary Gibson to serve as member and the alternate respectively for 2002.

•  The American Institute of Architects/Portland has nominated Paddy Tillett and Hussain Mirza to serve as member and alternate respectively for 2002.

•  The City of Beaverton has nominated Greg Jenks, Business and Economic Development Coordinator, Clackamas County, to replace Janet Young, Beaverton Economic Development, as the alternate for the “Public Economic Development Organization” seat.

•  The City of Milwaukie has nominated John Gessner, Interim Planning Director, to replace Alice Rouyer, former Planning Director, as First Alternate for the “Other Cities in Clackamas County” seat. Dan Drentlaw remains the primary member and Maggie Collins, Wilsonville, remains the Second Alternate.

•  Qwest has nominated Bill Prows to the “Telecommunication Utilities” seat and he will replace Greg Peden and James Chin, former member and alternate.

•  WRPAC made its appointments to MTAC at their January 28, 2002 meeting: Lorna Stickel and Rebecca Geisen will serve as member and alternate respectively for the “Municipal Water Provider Representative (via WRPAC)” seat; and

•  WRPAC also nominated Craig Dye, Clean Water Services, and Carrie Pak, City of Gresham Stormwater Division Manager, to the “Sanitary Sewer and/or Sanitary Drainage Agency (via WRPAC)” seat.

Please consider the names submitted above for membership on MTAC in 2002. Do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or comments at 503-797-1763.

Thank you.

I:\gm\gmadm\staff\paulette\old_I\PAULETTE\MTAC\022002 Memo to MPAC Re MTAC Appts to Fill Vacancies.doc

Metro Policy Advisory Committee

 February 27, 2002

 Item 6 – Subcommittee Updates

MPAC Subcommittee on

Parks and Open Spaces

February 13, 2002

Time: 6-7:30 pm  Location: Room 274    Recorder: Mark Turpel

1. Agenda - see attached

2. Brief Summary

1. Mayor Hammerstad, who was unable to attend the first subcommittee meeting, but was elected chair, accepted the chair of the subcommittee.

2. Charlie Ciecko and Heather Nelson Kent presented a summary of the Regional Parks and Greenspaces System Plan. Member Jim Zehren asked about how non-regionally owned lands, such as Tom McCall Park would be addressed. He asked whether this would be approached as suggested in the original MPAC Parks Subcommitee report.

3. With regard to the estimate of future parks on the UGB capacity estimate, additional information requested by the subcommittee members was distributed and discussed. (see attached). Members made the following comments:

 - It was noted that a fundamental question was raised by the materials. Should parks and

open space be counted on a per person basis or on a dwelling unit basis.

- How were lands voluntarily taken out of the inventory of buildable lands for open space purposes be addressed.

- System Development Charges (SDC’s) were seen as providing only the illusion of

funding as they did not provide sufficient funds to keep up with park and open space needs.

- An inventory of existing open space and parks by jurisdiction was requested.

- After considering the memo summarizing the Greenspaces Technical Advisory Committee, (GTAC), it was concluded that the best approach was to consider all three approaches and to send out a survey to all cities, counties and park special districts to find out

a) what parks and open spaces (total acreage) they have acquired since 1998,

b) what resources (SDC’s, bond measures, etc. general fund, grants, etc.) they forecast they will have in the foreseeable future to acquire additional parks and open space and

c) acquisition goals and objectives their agency has adopted.

- As the Chair of the Subcommittee could not attend the February 27 meeting, and the survey would take time for response, the subcommittee agreed to next meet on March 13.

.

Next Meeting Date: March 13

Signature of Recorder: ________________________________

Committee Name: Jobs Subcommittee

Date: January 13, 2002 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Metro Regional Center Room 370

Recorder: Marci La Berge and Brenda Bernards

1.  Agenda (no agenda was prepared for this meeting)

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

•  Review of Dave Lohman’s February 13 memo – subcommittee agreed to use the seven propositions as a starting point for discussion on jobs/lands policies.

•  Subcommittee discussed issues associated with proposition one.

•   Agreement that proposition one be restated as – “Metro should support a balanced variety of job growth throughout the region including Clark County.”

•  Next meeting: Review the charge of the subcommittee. Resume discussion of amended proposition one, begin discussion of proposition two and review staff work.

See attached meeting notes for more details.

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

Next meeting date: February 27, 2002

Signature of Recorder: ________________________________________________

MPAC Jobs Subcommittee

Meeting Notes

February 13, 2002

7:00 PM

Metro Regional Center, Room 370

Subcommitte members present

MPAC Members: Doug Neeley, Oregon City; David Lohman, Port of Portland; Chuck Becker, Gresham. MTAC Members: Hal Bergsma, Beaverton; Valerie Counts (for Wink Brooks), Hillsboro, Cindy Catto, AGC; Gil Kelly, Portland; Michael Dennis, Tri-Met; Richard Ross, Gresham; Doug McClain, Clackamas County.

Also present

Mary Gibson, Port of Portland; Jim Jacks, Tualatin; Greg Jenks, Clackamas County; Greg Chew, Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Metro Staff

Brenda Bernards, Mike Hoglund, Marci La Berge, Mary Weber, Dennis Yee

General discussion

Dave Lohman presented his February 13 memo, a proposal consisting of seven “strawman” propositions intended as a starting point for guiding subcommittee discussion on jobs/lands policies. The committee agreed with this approach, and as such will discus and rework the seven statements over the coming weeks so that they ultimately reflect the views of the group. The subcommittee will perform its work in light of the charge and guiding principles in Michael Jordan’s January 23, 2002 memo, which stated:

•  Recommend whether or not Metro should expand the UGB for industrial users (especially large lot) and where.

•  Review and comment on Metro proposals for increasing jobs in centers.

•  Recommend possible changes/additions to the Regional Framework Plan and /or functional plan.

•  Recommend whether there is a need for UGB expansion for non-industrial purposes.

There was discussion that information generated from other subcommittees may overlap with this one, and that products from the sub regional subcommittee in particular may prove useful to this group. Members expressed an interest in devoting more time to discussing Centers.

Subcommittee members agreed to begin discussion of proposition one at this meeting, and as homework, would review the seven propositions for completeness. Members will identify issues they believe were missed or need to be added to provide a comprehensive look at the subject, and will email this information to [email protected]. Staff will flesh this out for the next meeting.

Discussion of proposition one

Members began the discussion around the regional and subregional issues associated with proposition one.

•  East Multnomah County has not been covered.

•  Implication of distribution of jobs in the future and tax base

•  Take care of those inside the region to help meet 2040

•  The jobs issue is tied to transportation. Clark County residents are straining the region’s transportation system

•  How can we influence Clark County? Intergovernmental agreements, I-5 trade partnership, encourage Clark County to its increase job base

•  How does encouraging jobs in Clark County improve regional economic prosperity and limit growth of congestion?

•  More jobs in Clark County, means less residents have to come to Oregon for work

•  Policy should be broad based, tied to issues of capture rate and include neighboring cities

At the conclusion of the meeting, members agreed that proposition one should be restated as follows: “Metro should support a balanced variety of job growth throughout the region including Clark County.”

Next meeting

Review the charge of the subcommittee. Resume discussion of amended proposition one, begin discussion of proposition two and review staff work.

Committee Name: Subregional

Date: _02/13/02_____ Time: _6:30-8:00______ Location: Metro Chambers_________

Recorder:_Tim O’Brien____________________________________________

1.  Agenda (see attached)

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

•  Discussion of February 5, 2002 Andy Cotugno memo on Policy Analysis of Subregional Issues- Proposed Methodology

•  Noted urgency of decision on methodology if Metro is to present methodology to LCDC in April

Major Questions/Comments

•  What is the subregional policy question that we are trying to develop- complete communities or jobs-housing balance?

•  Does a regional decision of subregions create great disparity in the region?

•  How do you define disparity?

•  Define subregions around the identified centers of the 2040 Growth Concept

•  A subregion center study must be based on location/geography of the centers and the hierarchy of the centers (Central City, Regional Center, Town Center)

•  Next meeting: staff will provide a proposed methodology for defining subregions based on the centers of the 2040 Growth Concept

•  Comments/amendments on the proposed methodology to be presented to LCDC in April.

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

There may be a break in the subcommittee meeting schedule that will allow members to attend other subcommittee meetings.

Next meeting date: ____02/28/02____

Signature of Recorder: ___________________________________________________

Committee Name: Subregional

Sign Up Sheet

Committee Name: Subregional

MPAC Subregional Sub-committee

Meeting Notes

February 13, 2002

6:30 PM

Council Chambers, Metro Regional Center

Members present: see attached sheet

•  Self introductions

•  Memo of February 5, 2002 on a proposed methodology for a policy analysis of the subregional issue was reviwed. Highlights included:

•  Goal 14 and statutory references (page 2) for analyzing subregions is provided by the draft rule changes for Goal 14 that the state has proposed, but not adopted due to legislative session.

•  School facility needs based on HB 3045 (page 3).

•  Identification of existing policies in the Metro Framework Plan that may guide a subregional policy (page 4-5).

•  What information on subregions can be extracted from Metroscope that indicates a subregion is doing better or worse than other areas.

•  Question: Is this a sensible approach and what is the criteria?

•  The specific issues facing Forest Grove and Cornelius, in respect to the priority of lands under ORS 197.298 and the definition of the size of a subregion was provided.

•  Overall question -what is the policy we are trying to develop? How big of an area do you need for jobs?

•  The question needs to be defined, are we mixing complete communities with market areas. If the policy basis is complete communities then the size will be different.

•  A complete community doesn’t mean that you add land or not. Complete communities can be made through a number of factors.

•  Factors that may define a market balanced effort include a jobs/housing balance, employment density, assessed value, housing conditions related to socio-economic situation and broad social economic issue.

•  Economic based models can only do so much- never a perfect indicator

•  Does a regional decision create a great disparity in the region?

•  How would the model define the disparity?

•  The results of the model would be the beginning of the discussion on subregions.

•  The results of the model will need to be evaluated for influencing other adopted policies of the region.

•  Propose a methodology for the evaluation of subregions based on the centers identified in the 2040 Growth Concept.

•  Indicators of the model need to be set on the hierarchy of centers.

•  The location/geography of the centers needs to be included in the analysis.

•  Subregional boundaries, based on the identified centers, are a defined distance from the center.

•  A subregional analysis based on centers is different than the other centers Metroscope model case where development is focused to the centers.

•  Results will be used to determine if there is any disparity between the subregions.

•  Next meeting.

•  Review proposed criteria and methodology for analyzing subregions based on centers of the 2040 Growth Concept.

•  Decision is needed at the next meeting for Metro to present the criteria and methodology to LCDC in April 2002.

•  Proposed criteria and methodology must be distributed to members of MPAC ASAP.

Agenda

MPAC Subregional Subcommittee

February 13, 2002

Council Chambers

1.  Discuss Subregional methodology paper dated 2/5/02

2.  Discuss how MetroScope can be used to test subregional policy concepts.

3.  Discuss Periodic Review timeframes and LCDC review schedule

4.  Set next meeting date and agenda

I:\gm\community_development\staff\neill\memos and letters\Agendasub.doc

 Metro Policy Advisory Committee

 February 27, 2002

 Item 7 – Subregional Issues – Proposed Methodology

Date:    February 20, 2002

To:    Rod Park, Chair

   Community Planning Committee

From:    Andy Cotugno, Director

   Planning Department

Re:  Policy Analysis of Subregional Issues – Proposed Methodology (with MPAC Subcommittee Comments, 02/13/02)

Background

The Metro approved Periodic Review work program Task 2, subtask 8 requires the assessment of subregions. Stated in the work program is: “Metro may request clarification from the Land Conservation and Development Commission on several issues related to Task 2. The first issue is clarification of the policy dealing with the 20-year regional land supply and whether Metro can consider bringing into the UGB more land than is needed for a 20-year regional supply to achieve “complete communities” in each subregion as envisioned in the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives and in the acknowledged 2040 Growth Concept. The second issue, that Metro may request clarification from the Land Conservation and Development Commission, the application of Goal 14 and ORS 197.298 to the allocation of housing and employment need by subregion (“Priority of land be included in the urban growth boundary”). In assessing the subregional deficiencies and potential of an area in Task 2, Metro may need to consider including lower priority lands into the UGB to establish a “complete community” consistent with Goal 14 and ORS 197.298.

The courts (Court of Appeals and LUBA) have spoken on the subregional issue and concluded that subregional need is not a specific need under ORS 197.298 (3)(a).

Developing and identifying a policy basis for examining subregional issues is essential prior to considering land additions to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The primary goal in measuring subregions is to determine whether allocation of regional land need to a particular area meets Regional Framework Plan policies or regional goals. A basis for defining what areas and how large these areas should be can be found in the Regional Framework Plan. There are numerous references found in the Growth Concept, Built Environment and Transportation sections of the Regional Framework Plan. Along with references to subregional concepts there is recognition that a balance of jobs and housing needs to be pursued throughout the region. The Regional Framework Plan states:

Planning for all centers will seek a balance between jobs and housing. Jobs/housing balance by regional subarea can and should be a goal. This would account for housing and employment outside of the centers and direct policy to adjust for better jobs/housing ratios around the region.

Memorandum

February 20, 2002

Page 2

Schools, water storage facilities and other public facilities can be sited on lower priority lands without subregional allocation of general housing and employment need.

The Regional Framework Plan divides the region into four market areas besides downtown Portland. The areas represented are located in the vicinity of Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro and Oregon City.

Staff Proposal

Staff is proposing to map public facility providers service territories for sanitary sewer, domestic water and schools to identify possible areas that may require land to meet service needs outside of the UGB and to recommend Metro Code language establishing the criteria for such amendments. In addition, various subregional areas, including the four subregions identified in the Regional Framework Plan, will be evaluated to determine if regional land use and transportation decisions result in inefficiencies in particular subregions. A MetroScope case study is proposed to be developed to evaluate the efficacy of correcting imbalances in jobs and housing prices, tax equity and commuting patterns.

Staff is proposing that MetroScope be used to test a strategy to improve the efficiency of subregions by seeking an optimal balance of jobs and housing thereby supporting “complete communities.” This is proposed in terms of location, land/real estate prices, tax equity by jurisdiction while minimizing travel time and distance, to evaluate the success of selected regional centers. The three model inputs that can be varied in this study to optimize the measures discussed, are transportation improvements, zoning changes or incentives and adding land to the UGB in selected locations. Data from the MetroScope Base Case, Damascus, I-5 Trade Corridor and 2040 Centers case studies would be used as a comparison to design the parameters for a subregional case study.

Action Requested

Provide direction to staff on the use of MetroScope to develop a subregional case study to optimize the efficiency of subregions throughout the Metro region. Direct staff to present this methodology to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for review and approval according to the approved Periodic Review work program, Number 1243 in Task 2, subtask 8.

LN/srb

I:\gm\community_development\share\subregionalmemo.doc

Attachment

Subregional Assessment Paper

Introduction

Our economic region is composed of 24 cities, 3 counties and a number of cities located in Clark County. The region can be stratified according to any number of economic markets; political boundaries, utility/service providers or travel-sheds or destinations. This memorandum provides background information defining a methodology for examining the region based on various subregional areas.

Stratifying the region according to subregions provides a means of identifying current conditions:

•  the possibly correcting imbalances with future changes

•  minimizing impacts on areas outside of the region

•  and optimizing the 2040 Growth Concept Plan

What follows is the identification of technical and policy issues related to subregional research, a synthesis of State law and the policies contained in Metro’s Regional Framework Plan (Framework Plan). A discussion of the use of the MetroScope model to examine this issue also provides a basis to define and evaluate the performance of subregions and to introduce recommendations for a research agenda and new policy development.

Technical, Legal and Policy Issues

In order to identify and begin comparing various subregions a number of questions must be answered. The issues are as follows:

•  What are the appropriate entities that make up subregions within our region?

•  How does subregional allocation of general housing and employment need fit into the priority scheme in ORS 197.298?

•  What policies are currently in place to guide the identification of subregions?

•  How important are subregions to the functionality and implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept?

•  What policies are necessary to implement to correct imbalances within the region?

•  What are the appropriate measures of a subregion in balance?

•  How large or small should a subregion be considered? Why?

Entities that Operate within Subregions of Our Economic Region

A number of organizations have been formed to address the provision of services to various parts of the region. The geographic boundaries of these areas have been drawn to take advantage of geographic features and to maximize delivery of services. Other service entities rely less on concrete boundaries related to topographic features such as cities and counties, planning or social organizations. Finally, market areas are defined by businesses and are based on demographic and economic profiles or agglomeration of similar industry types. Examples of some of these districts are shown on Maps 2 through 3. The following entities function as subregional providers of services within the region:

•  Special Districts: School, Water, Sewer, Parks and Fire

•  Cities and Counties

•  Market based areas: clustered around economic centers

•  Various community organizations – newspaper, postal service, geopolitical entities such as community planning organizations, business organizations, granges, neighborhood associations, etc.

All of these types of providers operate in specific areas and may have land needs associated with them to provide services or optimize economic activity.

Goal 14 Guidance for Allocation of Need by Subregion

Goal 14 provides a framework for evaluating land needed to serve a subregion. State Goal 14 lists two factors, 3 and 4, that relate to the subregional discussion. Factor 3, orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services and Factor 4 maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area provide some guidance on how a subregion might be defined and measured.

In proposed amendments to Goal 14, OAR section 660-024-0070 (published in June 2000, but not adopted), the State expressed some of its ideas about how to perform a subregional analysis:

•  subregional need may not exceed needs for the whole region;

•  form a policy basis for establishment of subregions;

•  establish boundaries and policy objectives for each subregion;

•  demonstrate that the boundaries and policy objectives are consistent with and help achieve framework and functional plans for the whole region; and

•  demonstrate that the subregions and boundaries of the subregions are necessary to achieve one or more of the Goal 14 locational factors.

Additionally, proposed language states:

•  Regional governments that have identified subregions of a regional UGB shall follow the requirement in Sections (1) (alternative lands analysis) of this rule for lands adjacent to a segment of the UGB that borders a particular subregion rather than for the entire UGB, provided that segment is coterminous with the urban growth boundary for at least 30 miles.

Based on the tenor of the proposed changes to the rule, the size of subregions and the application of Goal 14 hierarchy of lands are issues that must be taken into consideration when addressing the subregional assessment. Drawing subregional boundaries too small is counter-productive to the formulation and implementation of regional planning policies and circumvents the hierarchical land system in the statute. Conversely, drawing boundaries too large fails to recognize that there may be instances where there are localized land needs that cannot be met outside that localized area. A third point to consider is that all subregions operate within the confines of one economic region that is subject to market equilibrium forces. The market will respond to counter balancing pressures that ultimately seek an equilibrium solution.

ORS 197.298 Guidance for Allocation of Need by Subregion

“ORS 197.298(1) establishes priorities for land that may be included within an urban growth boundary. The subsection requires Metro to include “exception” land (higher priority) before it includes farmland (lower priority), for example.  Attachment 1 provides a graphic representation of how the priorities apply to expansion of the UGB. To include farmland, Metro must demonstrate that the exception land is “inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed.”

The question raised by a subregional allocation of general housing and employment need is whether Metro may apply the priority of lands to just those lands outside the boundary of a designated subregion or must first exhaust all available higher priority (exception) land, no matter how distant from the subregional need, before including lower priority (farm zoned) land. The statute does not expressly answer this question.

The Court of Appeals and LUBA have offered some guidance, however, in the few cases that have considered subregional allocation of housing need. Both have agreed that nothing in the law prohibits subregional allocation.1 Both say Metro must consider subregional need in the context of overall regional need.2 The Court of Appeals has cautioned that Metro must explain the basis for any determination that an area serves as a subregion. It must also explain why the needs of the area should be viewed in isolation from regional need.³ Language in a LUBA footnote suggests that Metro can identify a subregional need and look to rural land near the subregion to accommodate that need.⁴

In sum, neither the statute nor the cases that interpret it give a clear, unequivocal answer to the question raised by subregional allocation. But the cases offer some support for the proposition that Metro may apply the priority of lands in ORS197.298(1) to just those lands outside the boundary of, but near, a designated subregion.

Schools and Public Facilities

When Metro determines how much land is needed for housing and employment,  it includes land for public facilities and services in its calculations. Hence, when Metro adds land to the UGB, it includes land for those facilities and services. It is possible, however, that the only land that is higher priority for UGB inclusion  under state law is distant from the provider of the service and cannot meet the provider’s need.

State law provides an exemption from the priorities for this situation. The law allows Metro to include lower priority land if it has identified a specific type of need – such as the need for a school or a water storage facility – that “cannot be reasonably  accommodated on higher priority land…” ORS 197.298(3)(a). This exemption involves subregional analysis on a small scale. It involves a specific need, for a school site, for example, not the general need for housing and employment.  Because the need for the school arises in the district, and must likely be met within or near the district, the appropriate subregion is probably the school district and nearby land.

Metro must apply the priorities in state law to its search for appropriate land for the school site, but only to land in the subregion. Thus, if a site is available on exception land near the school district, Metro must take the exception land into the boundary rather than nearby farmland. But Metro is not bound to take in  exception land far from the school district (and the subregion) if that land cannot reasonably accommodate the district’s need for a school. If there is no exception land that can reasonably accommodate the use, Metro can take the farmland into the UGB.

Thus, Metro can apply this exemption in state law without having to undertake the kind of analysis required to allocate the general housing and employment need to subregions.

Metro Framework Plan Policies

The following review of Framework Plan serves as an evaluation of which Metro policies will assist in developing and evaluating subregional needs. The Framework Plan is a document that is intended to unite all of Metro’s adopted land use policies and requirements. The Charter directs Metro to address management and amendment of the UGB, evaluate urban design and settlement patterns and monitor housing densities within the region. The Framework Plan contains a lengthy discussion of the 2040 Growth Concept Plan which is intended to serve as an evolving blue print for the region for a period of up to 50 years and states that the preferred form of growth is to be contained within a carefully managed UGB. The introductory section of the Framework Plan provides language that directly states the importance of centers and a subregional examination to evaluate of the functionality of the region as a whole.

The relevant sections are quoted below:

Planning for all centers seek a balance between jobs/housing and unique blends of urban amenities so that more transportation trips are likely to remain local and become more multi-modal.

In keeping with the jobs/housing balance in centers, a jobs/housing balance by subregional areas can and should be a goal. This would account for housing and employment outside of centers, and direct policy to adjust for better jobs/housing ratios around the region.⁵

The Framework Plan divides the region into four market areas besides downtown Portland. The areas represented by these areas in Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro and Oregon City.

This review of the Framework Plan is divided into broad topic areas and includes: Built Environment/ Neighbor Cities, Economic Vitality, Transportation, Schools and Clark County.

Built Environment/ Neighbor Cities

•  Description of 2040 Growth Concept, Neighbor Cities – There should be a strong balance between jobs and housing in the Metro region and in the neighbor cities. The more a balance of jobs and households is retained, the more trips will remain local.

•  
Neighbor Cities – To minimize the generation of new automobile trips, a balance of sufficient number of jobs at wages consistent with housing prices in communities both within the Metro UGB and in neighboring cities should be pursued.

•  1.2 Built Environment – Continued growth of regional economic opportunity, balanced so as to provide an equitable distribution of jobs, income, investment and tax capacity throughout the region and to support other regional goals and objectives.

•  1.3 Housing & Affordable Housing – Balance of jobs and housing within the region and subregions.

Economic Vitality

•  1.4 Economic Opportunity – Encourage a diverse and sufficient supply of jobs, the number and wage level of jobs within each subregion should be balanced with housing cost and availability within the subregion.

•  1.5 Economic Vitality – To support economic vitality throughout the entire region, Metro shall undertake the following steps:

•  Monitor regional and subregional indictors of economic vitality, such as the balance of jobs, job compensation and housing availability.

•  If Metro’s monitoring finds that existing efforts to promote and support economic vitality in all parts of the region are inadequate, Metro shall facilitate collaborative regional approaches that better support economic vitality for all parts of the region.

•  1.141 School Siting – Coordinate to site school in an already developed and urbanizing areas.

•  1.14.2 Schools – Are considered to be public facilities and additions to the UGB may only be approved by Metro following completion of conceptual plans for school facilities.

Transportation

•  Policy Overview – Ensuring efficient access to jobs, housing, cultural and recreational opportunities, shopping in and throughout the region and providing transportation facilities that support a balance of jobs and housing (policy highlights in Overview).

•  System Objectives – In developing new transportation system infrastructure, the highest priority should be providing accessibility and mobility to and from central city, regional centers and industrial areas and intermodal facilities. Specific needs, associated with ensuring access to jobs, housing, cultural and recreational opportunities and shipping within and among the centers, should be assessed and met through a combination of intensifying land uses and increasing transportation system capacity so as to mitigate negative impacts on environmental quality and where and how people live, work and play. The region’s system-wide policies are (among others):

•  Jobs/Housing Balance – Support a balance of jobs and housing in each subarea of the region to reduce the need for additional transportation facilities. Provide housing that is easily accessible to jobs and that is affordable to all members of the workforce.

•  2.7 – Support a balance of jobs and housing in each subarea of the region to reduce the need for additional transportation facilities. Provide housing that is easily accessible to jobs and that is affordable to all members of the workforce.

Clark County

•  6.1.5 – Metro should encourage cooperative efforts to promote business location throughout the region, including Clark County, in order to improve the job/housing balance in the metropolitan area.

What Does All Of This Tell Us? – A Policy Basis for Subregional Analysis

These policy statements from the Regional Framework Plan, together with State law (Goal 14 and the statutes), guide the Metro Council’s decision on how to accommodate the next 20 years’ worth of forecasted growth. Whatever steps Metro chooses to take – expansion of the UGB, measure to increase the capacity  of centers, other steps – Metro must address these Framework Plan policies. The policies, taken together, seek appropriate ratios between housing and employment in various parts of the region in order to accomplish stated objectives: to reduce the number and length of auto trips; to better match wage levels with housing costs; to achieve a higher level of multi-modal transportation; to achieve a more equitable distribution of employment opportunities, investment and tax capacity; and other objectives.

“Metro may choose to allocate housing and employment need to subregions of the region to attain the desired ratios of housing and employment. The Framework Plan identifies subregions – market areas around regional centers – which may prove to be the most effective basis for such an allocation. Testing and measurement (see section on “Measuring the Efficiency of Subregions/MetroScope”) determine which configuration of subregions best achieves the Framework Plan policies.

“If Metro chooses to expand the UGB to accommodate housing and employment need, and to use its selection of expansion land to help accomplish these Framework Plan policies, it must do so in a manner that complies with state law (Goal 14 and the statutes).”

The existing policies that have been highlighted above from the Framework Plan provide some direction for subregional analysis and correcting potential imbalances.

A subregional analysis is proposed to address whether certain geographic areas of the region are expected to be more or less successful than other parts of the region as growth occurs over the next 20 years. If so, are there actions that Metro can take through the land use system to help areas succeed better? With that general objective, what geographic areas, or subregions, are appropriate to examine and what constitutes success?

Two perspectives are recommended for this evaluation:

•  What goals have the region set for certain areas and are we expected to achieve those goals?

•  Can we identify areas that might suffer negative consequences of the region’s growth management goals and are there actions that can be taken to mitigate those consequences?

Are we achieving our goals?

The most appropriate framework for answering this question on a subregional basis is the 2040 Growth Concept and the “2040 Fundamental” established as performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2040 Growth Concept. The key priority land use elements identified in the 2040 Growth Concept are Centers and Industrial Areas.

Centers:

The 2040 Growth Concept establishes a hierarchy of higher density mixed-use centers, each intended to serve different functions, as follows:

•  The Central City is intended to be the employment, government, services, retail, cultural and entertainment center for the entire region. As such, the market area is in excess of one million people to support these retail, services and cultural activities and to provide labor for this job growth. To achieve this, the goal for the Central City is to maintain its regional share of general and retail employment as the region as a whole grows.

•  Regional Centers are intended to be concentrations of employment, services and retail that is supported by a market area of more than 100,000 population to support retail and services and to provide labor for job growth.

•  Town Centers are intended to provide local retail and services. All residential areas of the region are intended to be served by a Town Center within three miles.

Industrial Areas:

Industrial Areas and Intermodal freight terminals are identified in the 2040 Growth Concept to provide essential economic prosperity for the region by maintaining areas for basic industry and trade. Industrial Areas are intended to be restricted from non-industrial development so as to avoid unnecessary traffic congestion hindering truck access and to reserve industrial vacant land inventory for industrial development purposes. Industrial areas also require access to sufficient labor within a reasonable distance.

Measures of Success:

Attachment A are the 2040 Fundamentals which provide a framework for defining measures for a subregional analysis. Presented below are key components relating to Centers and Industrial areas.

1.  Development of Centers

•  Document the level and density of employment growth within the Central City, each Regional Center and each Town Center to determine if they are expected to grow over the next 20 years at the rate and density desired. Determine if the Central City employment growth is expected to keep pace with total regional employment growth. Identify Regional Centers that are lagging behind; determine if there are regional land use policies and actions that can improve their level and density of development. Note: all centers will not develop at the same rate. Centers that are lagging behind may simply be more likely to expand in the next 20-year period.

•  Develop a mixed-use index for each center for current and future conditions to determine the magnitude and degree of job and residential mixed-use diversity (housing x jobs/housing + jobs). This index increases with both size and degree of jobs/household mix within a ½ mile radius. Determine if there are regional land use actions that can improve their magnitude and degree of mix.

•  For the Central City, determine if there is sufficient labor within a reasonable distance to support job growth. Define the market area encompassing at least one million people; in addition, define an eight-mile radius market area. For this area:

•  calculate the ratio of total jobs per household; compare to the regional average

•  percent of workers drawn from within this area

•  average work trip length to jobs within the Central City

•  non-SOV mode share for work trips to the Central City

•  For the Central City, determine if there is sufficient market area to support retail and service job expansion. Define the market area encompassing at least one million people; in addition, define an eight-mile radius market area. For this area:

•  calculate the ratio of retail and services jobs per household; compare to the regional average

•  percent of non-work trips to the Central City drawn from within this area

•  average non-work trip length to the Central City

•  non-SOV mode share for non-work trips to the Central City

•  For the Regional Centers, determine if there is sufficient labor within a reasonable distance to support job growth. Define the market area encompassing at least 100,000 people; in addition, define an eight-mile radius market area. For this area:

•  calculate the ratio of total jobs per household; compare to the average of other Regional Centers

•  percent of work trips to each Regional Center drawn from within this area

•  average work trip length to each Regional Center

•  non-SOV mode share for work trips to each Regional Center

•  For the Regional Centers, determine if there is sufficient market area to support retail and service job expansion. Define the market area encompassing at least 100,000 people; in addition define an eight-mile radius market area. For this area:

•  calculate the ratio of retail and services jobs per household; compare to the average of other Regional Centers

•  percent of non-work trips to each Regional Center drawn from within this area

•  average non-work trip length to each Regional Center

•  non-SOV mode share for non-work trips to each Regional Center

•  For the Town Centers, determine if there is sufficient market area to support retail and service job expansion. Define the market area encompassing at least three miles. For this area:

•  calculate the ratio of retail and services jobs per household; compare to the average of other Town Centers

•  percent of non-work trips to each Town Center drawn from within this area

•  average non-work trip length to each Town Center

•  non-SOV mode share for non-work trips to each Town Center

2.  Development of Industrial Areas

•  For Industrial Areas, determine if there is sufficient labor to support industrial job expansion. Define the market area encompassing at least 100,000 people; in addition define an eight-mile radius market area. For this area:

•  calculate the ratio of total jobs per household; compare to the average of other Industrial Areas

•  percent of work trips to each Industrial Area drawn from within this area

•  average work trip length to each Industrial Area

•  non-SOV mode share for work trips to each Industrial Area

•  For Industrial Areas, determine if key truck access routes are projected to be impaired by excessive commuter traffic congestion.

Are there undue negative consequences on a subregional basis as a result of our land use policies?

Answering this question does not presuppose a particular geographic area. Therefore, this evaluation should be designed to look for areas within the region that have negative consequences that are disproportionately larger than other parts of the region. For example,

•  Identify household incomes throughout the region to determine if there are expected to be concentrations of poverty;

•  Determine if parts of the region now have or are expected to have a development pattern that will not have sufficient market value to generate the tax base required to provide public services;

•  Determine if parts of the region are expected to have a greater housing affordability problem as compared to other parts of the region;

•  Determine if parts of the region have or are expected to have an excessively long commute trip as compared to other parts of the region due to lack of access to jobs;

•  Determine if parts of the region have or are expected to have an excessively long trip to obtain local retail services as compared to other parts of the region;

•  Evaluate key transportation indicators to determine if certain parts of the region perform better than other parts; and

•  Determine if there is an excessive shift of Metro area growth to neighboring cities.

Next Steps/Analysis Approach

Metro proposes to carry out the above referenced evaluation through the use of an integrated land use/transportation forecasting tool called Metroscope. MetroScope⁶ is a tool that is available to test the effectiveness of current policies and changes to policies and the resulting impacts on subregions. It involves forecasting growth patterns taking into account input assumptions on available land for development, redevelopment and the relative accessibility of different areas of the region. The process involves incremental allocation of growth every five years, with each five-year step involving changes to developable and redevelopable lands, changes to the transportation system and assessing the resulting performance. Several of the MetroScope case studies that have been completed, in effect test certain subregional concepts. These case studies will be used to evaluate subregional performance issues to provide the basis for testing and evaluating a case study that attempts to mitigate the identified negative consequences. This final “subregional” case study will allow us to evaluate whether we can reasonably expect this option to perform better than other approaches. Based upon this information, it will be possible to draw conclusions about whether it is appropriate and necessary to take land use actions, including UGB amendments, on a subregional basis. It will also define the policy issues that are to be addressed on a subregional basis and the suitable geographic boundaries.

If there is a conclusion that Metro should proceed with a subregional decision, Metro proposes to introduce code amendments defining the requirements to be addressed for such a decision. If it is concluded that a subregional decision is unnecessary or inappropriate, there will be now further action taken and Metro will complete its Periodic Review on strictly a regional basis.

The following MetroScope case studies have been completed:

1)  Base Case – an application of State law and current Functional Plan policies, includes UGB expansion only on exception areas;

2)  I-5 North Added Capacity – tests the impacts of added capacity improvements to the I-5 Corridor between Portland and Clark County;

3)  2040 Centers – tests the impacts of focused transportation investments and incentive programs on selected Regional and Town Centers with limited UGB expansion;

4)  New Community in Damascus – tests the development of a new community in the Damascus area by focusing UGB expansion in that area;

5)  Hold the UGB – tests holding the UGB constant while trying to provide incentives to centers (model run is in progress).

I:\gm\community_development\share\subregpaper.doc

2040 Fundamentals

Approved by Metro Council Community Planning Committee

June 5, 2001

Reviewed and Recommended by MPAC

June 27, 2001

1.  Encourage efficient use of land within the UGB by focusing on development of 2040 mixed use centers and corridors;

2.  Protect and restore the natural environment through actions such as
protecting and restoring streams and wetlands, improving surface and ground water quality, and reducing air emissions;

3.  Provide a balanced transportation system including safe, attractive
facilities for bicycling, walking and transit as well as for motor vehicles and freight;

4.  Maintain separation between the Metro region and neighboring cities by working actively with these cities and their respective counties;

5.  Enable communities inside the Metro area to preserve their physical sense of place by using, among other tools, greenways, natural areas, and built environment elements;

6.  Ensure availability of diverse housing options for all residents by
providing a mix of housing types as well as affordable homes in every
jurisdiction;

7.  Create a vibrant place to live and work by providing sufficient,
accessible parks and natural areas, improving access to community resources such as schools, community centers and libraries as well as by balancing the distribution of high quality jobs throughout the region, and providing attractive facilities for cultural and artistic performances and supporting arts and cultural organizations; and

8.  Encourage a strong local economy by providing an orderly and efficient use of land, balancing economic growth around the region and supporting high quality education.

[Performance Measures Program]

Table 1 provides a comparison of the various inputs to each case study. Case studies were defined by varying land additions, incentives, transportation improvements and by providing more zoning capacity.

Tables 2 and 3 provide a comparison of the results from the Base Case, I-5 North Added Capacity, Enhanced 2040 Centers, developing a new community in Damascus. All of these case studies have been designed to test policy extremes and are not intended to provide a winning combination to satisfying the region’s 20-year land supply needs. Analyzing these case studies is helpful to identify hot spots in housing and job prices, concentrations or increases of jobs and housing which may be indicative of latent demand in these areas. The effects of different policy choices on land prices, densities, utilization of land and rates of redevelopment are contained in Tables 2 and 3. Tables 4 and 5 highlight the conditions within the transportation system according to the case study. MetroScope allows the reporting of data in a variety of geographic areas from transportation area zones, census tracts, 20 zones and 6 employment zones. Tables 6 and 7 compare per capita tax base changes for the region segregated by 20 zones. A 20-zone comparison of values was used because the model can not precisely approximate jurisdictional boundaries.

We have stratified commute information in Table 8 by RTP based subregions and contains jobs/housing ratios. By contrasting demand and the existing jobs/housing ratios tools can be applied to develop a subregional case study to test influencing these measures or indicators. Table 8 provides a preliminary tabular summary of the subregional area population, a calculation of an existing jobs/housing ratio (employment/population), and deviations from the regional average and commuting patterns. Those subregions that have a negative difference from the regional average are areas that could benefit from strategies to equalize the imbalances between jobs and housing.

Revised 2/5/02

Revised 2/13/02

Revised 2/13/02

Revised 2/5/02

Revised 2/5/02

Revised 2/13/02

Revised 2/13/02

TABLE 8.

Revised 2/5/02