METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

March 27, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Second Vice Chair Larry Cooper, Charles Becker, Nathalie Darcy, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Annette Mattson, David Ripma, Jim Zehren

Alternates Present: Jack Hoffman, Dave Lohman

Also Present: Nick Budnick, Willamette Week, Al Burns, Portland Planning Bureau; Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors; Greg Chew, Parsons Brinkerhoff; Bob Clay, Portland Planning Bureau; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Maggie Collins, City of Wilsonville; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Michael Ogan, Portland Development Commission; Laura Oppenheimer, Oregonian, Lynn Peterson, Tri-Met; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; 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

Metro Staff Present: Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Chris Deffebach, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Michael Morrissey, Lydia Neill, Mark Turpel, Dennis Yee

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Second Vice Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Those present introduced themselves. Second Vice Chair Cooper noted that he would chair the meeting, as both Chair Michael Jordan and Vice Chair Tom Hughes were unable to attend.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were none.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

March 13, 2002, Meeting Minutes

No action was taken due to lack of quorum.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Presiding Officer Hosticka noted that a couple of weeks ago, the Council directed Metro to send a petition to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for a declaratory ruling regarding subregional analysis. At its last meeting, LCDC declined to issue a declaratory ruling and invited Metro to submit a petition for LCDC to adopt rules regarding subregional analysis. At its meeting tomorrow, Council will consider a resolution to send a petition to LCDC to adopt a rule, and suggest a potential rule. If LCDC accepts Metro’s petition, interested parties will be welcome to submit comments and recommendations as LCDC progresses through its rule making process. Presiding Officer Hosticka distributed Exhibit A to Resolution No. 02-3179, Petition to Adopt a Rule. A copy is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Cooper said LCDC, on the advice of the State Attorney General’s Office, voted to deny Metro’s petition for the declaratory ruling and invited Metro to submit a petition for rule making. The rule making has been tentatively scheduled for the Commission’s meeting on April 25-26, 2002. LCDC has invited comment on whether Metro’s petition for rule making should be accepted. He noted that Metro has received recommendations for changes to Exhibit A from parties on three sides of the issue. General Counsel will present those changes to the Metro Council tomorrow, and Council can vote to amend the current version. LCDC is not bound to accept the rule as submitted by Metro – should LCDC decide to enter into a rule making process, the proposed rule is used as a first draft for public hearing notices.

Mr. Gronke asked what the timeline is for LCDC to reach a final decision.

Mr. Cooper said if LCDC fast tracks the item, it should have a decision by early Fall.

Mayor Becker said while he understood the rush, he was concerned that the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee had not had an opportunity to study or comment on the petition.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said the Subregional Subcommittee can suggest an alternate form of the petition, as can Metro. The purpose of Resolution No. 02-3179 is to get the issue on the Commission’s agenda so the process can begin.

Councilor Park said the petition in consistent with the earlier request for a declaratory ruling, it is simply in a different format. He noted that if LCDC does not make its decision until early Fall, and Executive Officer Mike Burton submits his recommendation to the Council on August 1, then it is safe to assume that the Executive Officer’s recommendation will not include subregions.

Councilor Hoffman asked Mr. Cooper which three sides had commented on the petition.

Mr. Cooper said written comments have been submitted by staff, the City of Hillsboro, the City of Portland and 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Councilor Hoffman said from the perspective of the City of Lake Oswego, it is one thing to ask certain generalized questions, it is another thing to actually ask for a rule. He asked when MPAC and local governments will have the opportunity to state their support or opposition.

Mr. Cooper said LCDC made it clear that it will not vote on whether or not to accept Metro’s petition until it has received testimony.

Councilor Hoffman said he understands the rush, but the petition for rule making is a little unnerving because it seems like the die has been cast on subregional analysis without MPAC’s participation.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said there are two questions: 1) can Metro do subregions and go away from the hierarchy of lands, and 2) does Metro want to? Metro has never decided whether or not it wants to move the urban growth boundary (UGB) based on subregional analysis. The first question can only be answered by LCDC; the second question needs to be addressed by MPAC. The Council is trying to discuss both questions simultaneously.

Councilor Hoffman said assuming LCDC passes this rule, or something close to it, will Metro involve MPAC in the decision of whether to use the rule?

Councilor Park said he assumes that in the year 2007, when the next UGB expansion is scheduled, Metro will involve MPAC in the policy decision. He said subregional analysis is not available to Metro for 2002 because LCDC will not finish the rule in time.

Mayor Katz asked why the rush then?

Councilor Park said a declaratory ruling could have potentially been used in this year’s decision. When the Commission directed Metro to submit a petition for rule writing, it signaled that a decision would not be made until the end of the year, which is about four or five months after Executive Officer Burton makes his recommendation on where to expand.

Mr. Cooper added that Metro is required to examine whether to move the UGB no less frequently than every five years. There is discretion to do it more often. Should the rule be adopted, it is a political question whether the Council will consider moving the UGB sooner than 2007.

Councilor Hoffman asked if the Council could get an extension and move the UGB in 2003.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said there is a political question of whether the forces that are interested in the resolution of the subregional question will decide to have it resolved during the next legislative session rather than through the LCDC rule making process. As Metro and LCDC would prefer to control the process, this also dictates the timing.

Mayor Katz said this is a serious policy issue in terms of housing and employment, which MPAC has not discussed. She said the research clearly points out that this is not the policy direction the region wants to take. There is no rush – she said she recognizes the political aspect of it, but she agrees with Councilor Hoffman that this issue is sufficiently important for MPAC to discuss before Council submits a rule request to jump over priority lands and use this as a reason for the expansion of the UGB.

Councilor Park said this is a request to see if a rule can be written; the decision to do subregions has not yet been made. First Metro has to find that subregions exist, then find an imbalance in those subregions, then find that somehow, by addressing the imbalances in the subregions, the whole region will be better. By first asking LCDC whether or not subregional analysis is allowed under state law, the region will not dedicate time to working through all those questions only to learn that subregions cannot be used.

Mr. Zehren said he is unclear about the sense of urgency. At first he thought the petition was a substitute for the first action, and therefore equally urgent. The decision to send a legal question to LCDC to be decided through a declaratory judgment is very different from proposing a specific rule. Metro can say that it is just proposing the question so that the process can begin, but the perception will be that the region wants to go in this direction. Most entities that propose rules want them adopted. How could Metro communicate sometime in the future that this is not the case? At a minimum, MPAC should delay action until its next meeting when more members will be present. He asked what kind of action Council wanted from MPAC.

Mayor Katz pointed out that the item was not on the agenda for tonight.

Second Vice Chair Cooper noted that even if MPAC wished to take action, there was no quorum.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said it would be useful for MPAC at some point to grapple with the fundamental questions of why to do subregions, what kind of regional objectives Metro would try to achieve with subregions, what the State’s objectives are in setting up a hierarchy of land in the first place, and whether those objectives are compatible with Metro’s objectives. He appreciated that this is not on the agenda, but it should be at some point.

Councilor Park said in his perception, MPAC voted 11 to 6 to move ahead on subregions two meetings ago. The Council sent the question down to LCDC, and LCDC responded by telling Metro to bring the question back in this form. Metro Legal Counsel incorporated the original questions into the petition format. He did not see any inconsistency.

Mayor Becker said he thought the urgency was because of the time schedule for LCDC’s meetings, but if it meets monthly, what is the concern?

Councilor Park said LCDC wants to conclude the rule making process prior to the legislative session. If it is not addressed quickly, there is a greater chance of the legislature – which may have different purposes than Metro and LCDC – making the decision.

Mayor Katz said that could happen anyway.

Second Vice Chair Cooper recommended that members speak with Chair Jordan if they would like to have the item placed on a future MPAC agenda.

Councilor Park invited comments at tomorrow’s Council meeting.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said he can communicate to Council that this is a lot of angst over this.

Mayor Grant said the angst is not unanimous. MPAC needs to have the debate, vote and get it over with. He said it is foot-dragging, not angst. He is tired of people trying to avoid getting to the question of how to do subregions because they are scared of the answer that will come out of the debate.

Mr. Zehren asked to make a motion.

Second Vice Chair Cooper reminded Mr. Zehren that MPAC lacked a quorum.

At the suggestion of Mayor Katz, Mr. Zehren asked if he could make an advisory motion. He suggested that MPAC recommend to the Metro Council that, should it decide to submit the petition, it communicate to LCDC that MPAC has not taken a position on whether or not Metro ought to do this.

Mayor Katz said the argument that Council wants to submit the petition now to preempt the politics of the next legislative session does not cut it, because there will be the politics of the next legislative session anyway. She said the discussion should occur at MPAC first. There is enough data about subregional analysis or the balance between housing and jobs for MPAC to make an intelligent decision. Underlying all of this is the desire by some parts of this region to get around the whole issue of hierarchy of lands.

Councilor Park said subregional analysis would affect where the boundary is moved, not how much it is moved.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said he will work to get the debate placed on the MPAC agenda. In the end, the real question is the will of the region. These are legal questions about whether and how the region’s will can be exercised.

Councilor Ripma said in all his years on MPAC, he could not think of a more important policy decision than this. MPAC needs to debate whether to pursue subregional analysis.

Councilor Hoffman agreed. In terms of the big picture, MPAC is talking about why Oregon has Senate Bill (SB) 100 to protect prime farmland. Subregional analysis takes a serious look at whether farmland will always trump every other issue, in terms of urban growth boundary movement. Metro’s petition for a rule says in a lot of respects that the region wants to re-look at the big picture, because it will affect not only Metro but every other city in the state. He did not know how the City of Lake Oswego will vote on this issue, but he would like to know the mechanism for having this debate – whether it will be debated by MPAC, or if each city will need to travel to Salem to testify before LCDC.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said he hopes LCDC, in the process of answering the questions Metro has posed, will give its thoughts on Councilor Hoffman’s questions.

Mayor Katz said she could probably argue today without many facts that there are imbalances in certain parts of the region. But to think that it is possible to correct those imbalances by expansion of the urban growth boundary is a fallacy. MPAC began this discussion about a year ago, and some people brought in data from San Francisco and other communities showing that it does not work – you cannot fix that imbalance for a variety of social and economic reasons. She had thought MPAC was going to have that conversation before it even went this route.

6.  SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES

Mr. Lohman updated MPAC on the progress of the Jobs Subcommittee, as reflected in the meeting notes in the meeting packet. He added that the subcommittee is trying to find a balance between being too general to be helpful and getting bogged down with word-smithing. He noted that the subcommittee is running out of time, and will need to schedule additional meetings in order to meet its deadline of May 8.

7.  DRAFT REGIONAL ECONOMIC FORECAST

Mr. Cotugno introduced the Draft Economic Report, which is the first official step of the urban growth boundary periodic review. The economic report is the basis for adopting the demand number for land for housing and jobs, which is in turn the basis for evaluating whether or not there is a twenty-year land supply. Ultimately, the report will need to adopted as the basis for finishing the periodic review. The economic forecast includes the five-county economic region; it will be a judgment call how much is relevant to Metro’s UGB. He noted that the MPAC Demand Forecast Subcommittee will begin meeting soon to review the report.

Mr. Yee presented the Draft Economic Report to the Metro Council. A copy of the report and of Mr. Yee’s presentation slides are included in the meeting record. He noted one surprise in the report: household size stabilized at 2.57, rather than decreasing as expected. As a result, the new forecast predicts 30,000 less households in 2020 than was predicted in the old forecast.

Mr. Cotugno said this is the bottom line that gets to the demand versus supply calculation.

The committee discussed possible reasons for the increase in household size. Ms. Mattson said in her school district, twenty-five percent of students are English-language learners. There is a large immigrant population in her community, and their households are larger.

Mr. Zehren asked if the forecast assumes that Metro’s actions will not affect the region’s economy.

Mr. Cotugno said that is correct, the report assumes current conditions and continuation of the status quo.

Mr. Zehren said, for example, a number of people believe strongly that the region needs more large lot industrial land. If the region fails to provide more large lot industrial land, which is needed by high tech companies and warehouses, how will that affect the growth of high tech or warehousing jobs?

Mr. Cotugno said the projection assumes that the demand for employment growth will be able to find land. Metro has to make a judgment call on whether large lot industrial land is needed for employment growth. If Metro guesses incorrectly and does not provide additional large lot industrial land, then there would be a dampening effect on employment growth. Vice versa, if Metro assumes that more large lot industrial land is needed and it is not, there will be a surplus of land.

Mr. Zehren asked if legally, Metro needs to accommodate the projected employment growth.

Councilor Park said the statutory requirement is to provide a twenty-year land supply for housing, not jobs.

Mr. Zehren said the employment feedback loop is a significant question. What is the purpose of MPAC and Metro if the region is just going to accommodate whatever the growth would be if Metro did not exist?

Councilor Hoffman asked how the economic forecast relates to the 1997 Urban Growth Report, which forecasted an increase of about 32,000 dwelling units.

Mr. Cotugno said the population and employment forecast for 2020 is higher in the new forecast than in the prior forecast, but the household number is lower by 30,000 because of the increase in household size. He said the 2022 forecast number will become the number that drives the urban growth report for UGB purposes. It is part of the findings for the need number.

Mayor Kidd noted that household size in some areas of the region is significantly less than 2.5. In Forest Grove, for example, the average is less than two per household due to a large number of apartments and senior residential units.

Mr. Cotugno said a copy of the presentation slides will be sent to all MPAC members.

8.  I-5 BI-STATE COORDINATION ACCORD

Mr. Cotugno introduced the I-5 Bi-State Coordination Accord. He said the transportation function of the I-5 corridor is jeopardized by the land use patterns being produced. Transportation investments need to occur in the corridor both to I-5 and to the transit and light rail system, with the recognition that those investments will have ripple effects on the land use patterns for the area. In the long-term, the I-5 Partnership work will lead to steps to integrate UGB decisions on each side of the Columbia River, relative to transportation accessibility. There are also big questions about financing to address.

Ms. Deffebach presented the draft recommendations of the I-5 Partnership task force. A copy of her presentation slides is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Cotugno asked MPAC how it wished to comment on the recommendations. Did the committee wish to comment now, or wait to comment until after the final recommendations are produced in June?

Mayor Becker noted that the interstate system was designed to move vehicular and freight traffic between states, not for commuting. He suggested charging a surtax on people who reside in Clark County and work in Oregon, and use the revenue to improve transportation.

Mr. Cotugno said it is called a toll, and it is under discussion by the task force.

Councilor Park said part of the problem is that the tax structure in Washington does not spur industrial growth.

Mr. Lohman said the general views of MPAC members are well represented on the I-5 task force. Due to the amount of work MPAC needs to complete before June, he recommended that the committee wait and react to the final recommendations.

Councilor Hoffman and Mayor Becker agreed.

Councilor Park asked if it would be too late in June to comment, should the task force come up with a recommendation that is unacceptable to MPAC?

Mayor Grant said the implication he gathered from the presentation is that the task force may tell Metro to expand its UGB and quit shoving all the housing onto Clark County if it wants to solve the I-5 corridor problem. MPAC should discuss this possibility before the I-5 task force reaches its conclusion.

Mayor Becker said he does not think that the region is pushing housing into Clark County. Clark County is creating the housing.

Mayor Grant said MPAC needs to talk more about these things. There is a lot of overlap between the work of MPAC and the I-5 task force. The issue needs to be woven into MPAC’s agenda so that when a decision is needed in June, there is no major discrepancy between the two groups.

Councilor Park suggested that the MPAC representatives from Clark County and the City of Vancouver attend MPAC meetings.

Mr. Cotugno said to illustrate Mayor Grant’s comments, Clark County has already adopted a population forecast of 1.5% a year, upon which it will base its UGB decision. Metro just introduced a growth rate of 1.6% per year for the five-county region. Historically, if there is a 1.6% for the whole five-county region, it is more typically 2.5 to 4% in Washington, Clackamas and Clark Counties. What that means is that Clark County does not want to do its three percent share, it wants to do a 1.5% share, and the additional growth will have to go somewhere else.

There being no further business, Second Vice Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR MARCH 27, 2002

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