METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

July 10, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Chuck Becker, Paul Curcio, Rob Drake,
Andy Duyck, Bernie Giusto, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Judie Hammerstad,
Alan Hipólito, Richard Kidd, Annette Mattson, Doug Neeley

Alternates Present: Ed Dennis, Jack Hoffman, Dave Lohman, Maria Rojo de Steffey

Also Present: Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Beverly Bookin, CREEC; Al Burns, City of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Sara Cleek, THPRD; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Maggie Collins, City of Wilsonville; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Len Edwards, Fairview City Councilor; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; John Leeper, Washington County Commissioner; Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Lynn Peterson, Tri-Met; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Bob Rindy, DLCD; Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Rod Park, Council District 1; Susan McLain, Council District 4. David Bragdon, Council District 7

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Michael Morrissey, Sherry Oeser

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commission, called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Those present introduced themselves. Chair Jordan welcomed Ed Dennis, Councilor, City of Hillsboro, and Maria Rojo de Steffey, Multnomah County Commissioner, to their first MPAC meeting. He also welcomed Alan Hipólito, Multnomah County Citizen Representative.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Suzanne Myers Harold, MPAC Coordinator, announced that she is expecting her first baby, due in December.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Council Presiding Officer, said the Council is waiting to receive Executive Officer Mike Burton’s recommendation on the urban growth boundary (UGB) on August 1.

Susan McLain, Metro Council, invited everyone to attend one of two public hearings on the wildlife habitat inventory. A postcard regarding the hearings, which will be mailed to everyone who expressed interest or testified on the inventory, is included in the meeting record. She noted that the hearing on Wednesday, July 31, at 6 p.m. does not conflict with any MPAC or subcommittee meetings. The Natural Resources Committee is tying up all the loose ends on the inventory. On July 17, Ken Helm, Senior Assistant Counsel, will review what steps need to be taken to complete the inventory. After the inventory, the Natural Resources Committee will begin the economic, social, energy and environmental (ESEE) analysis. They are continuing to work together with the Tualatin Valley Basin group on Goal 5 issues.

Rod Park, Metro Council, said the Community Planning Committee is setting up the schedule of public hearings in October. Between the Community Planning Committee meetings and public outreach meetings, there will be eleven or twelve hearings at which people may testify.

6.  SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES

Chair Jordan said this is an opportunity to consider all of the recommendations made by all of the MPAC subcommittees. The subcommittee reports have generally been policy recommendations. Those policy recommendations have gone into the underlying assumptions which will be considered in Executive Officer Burton’s UGB recommendation in August. MPAC will then consider the elements of his recommendation in late August, September and October. There will be another opportunity to comment on the subcommittee recommendations at the next MPAC meeting. He said he hopes that after the July 24^th meeting, MPAC will not revisit the underlying policy assumptions.

Andy Cotugno, Director, Planning Department, noted that MPAC has already heard presentations from the Demand Forecast Subcommittee and the Jobs Subcommittee. Tonight the Parks Subcommittee and Housing Subcommittee will make their presentations. He noted that Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, has submitted comments on the Housing Subcommittee report. A copy of Mr. Ross’s memo is included in the meeting record. He said the Housing and Parks Subcommittee reports will be on the agenda again for the next MPAC meeting. If anyone has issues to raise, plan on doing so at that meeting.

Judie Hammerstad, Mayor, City of Lake Oswego, reviewed the Parks Subcommittee recommendation, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. She noted that at the last meeting, she said the subcommittee was standing back from the dartboard aiming, because the numbers are so disparate depending on the technique used. After looking at the different possible approaches, the subcommittee decided that any technique selected must be justifiable. Therefore, the subcommittee recommended an estimate of 1,050 acres over the next twenty years. She clarified that this estimate is based on currently available financial sources. The number does not reflect the need for additional parks, nor does it take into account future funding mechanisms, such as bond measures, which may be approved and implemented. She added that while the number is rather low, it is important to realize that local jurisdictions and Metro are more likely to purchase parkland outside the urban growth boundary, where it is cheaper.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the Housing Subcommittee recommendations, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. The main policy decisions concern the capture rate and the refill rate, as outlined in the recommendations. He noted that Mr. Ross, in his memo to MPAC, recommended that the capture rate should be based upon a five-year history rather than a twenty-year history, and questioned whether the refill rate is too high. Mr. Ross also raised concerns about the deductions for major easements and the use of Coffee Creek Prison in capacity analysis. At this time, Metro has not received formal comments on the Housing Subcommittee recommendations from anyone except Mr. Ross.

Commissioner Neeley asked whether using a five-year period or a twenty-year period for the capture rate makes more sense historically, as there are peaks and valleys in anything.

Mr. Cotugno said the recommendation is to use the longer-term historic rate because there are peaks and valleys. Next time, instead of a 70% capture rate the region could have a 50% rate, like in the early 1980s.

John Hartsock, Clackamas County Special Districts, asked if staff had a response to Mr. Ross’s reference to ORS 197.296(5) regarding the time period for capture rate data.

Mr. Cotugno said staff will prepare a response.

Chair Jordan asked members to come to the next MPAC meeting prepared to raise any questions or concerns about the various subcommittee recommendations, especially on the big issues that will impact the demand numbers.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Doug Neeley, Oregon City Commissioner, requested two votes.

4.1  Meeting Summaries for June 12, and June 26, 2002

4.2  Appointment of MTAC Members

Commissioner Neely clarified that he had hoped to vote on each of the meeting summaries separately, as he was not at the June 12^th meeting. He noted that the meeting summary for June 12^th was not included in the meeting packet.

Ms. Harold apologized for the oversight, and noted that the meeting summary for June 12^th was included in the last MPAC meeting packet. A copy of the June 12, 2002, MPAC meeting summary is included in the meeting record.

7.  MTIP FUNDING CRITERIA

Mike Hoglund, Director, Regional Planning, said the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) Funding Criteria has been approved by the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC). It will go before the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) on July 11, and go before the Metro Council for approval by the end of July. He reviewed the staff report to Resolution No. 02-3206 and Exhibit A to the resolution, which are included in the meeting packet. He said he would like to get a recommendation from MPAC today on the high-level policy direction, and tomorrow morning from JPACT. Staff has a little more work to do with TPAC and the MTIP Subcommittee on the criteria before releasing a solicitation packet. He noted that since there are two local match requirements, most jurisdictions will want to qualify for the 90/10 match. Therefore, the criteria need to clearly state what qualifies for a 90/10 match versus a 70/30 match. They want to solicit projects in late August 2002, begin reviewing the projects in December 2002, and start the public review in January or February, 2003.

Chair Jordan noted that when this topic was raised several months ago, MPAC felt it may wish to give its views on the criteria to JPACT.

Mayor Drake noted that at the MPAC/Council Coordinating Committee meeting that afternoon, Mr. Hoglund mentioned that the local allocation process might not be legal. He asked Mr. Hoglund to speak to that point.

Mr. Hoglund said Mayor Drake had made a proposal, supported by Washington County, that Metro consider sub-allocating a portion of the funds to local governments, primarily through the Washington County Coordinating Committee, East Multnomah County Coordinating Committee, a similar body in Clackamas County, and the City of Portland. Based on the MTIP criteria, each of the four local bodies would go through a local process and submit a proposal to Metro. At the MTIP Subcommittee, where the proposal was originally discussed, two main concerns were raised. First, the subcommittee preferred to think regionally, and rank all the projects on a regional basis. Second, there was a question about legality. The federal authorizing bill (TEA 21) does not allow strict sub-allocation of federal dollars to local governments. However, one could argue that with the program objectives it would not be a strict allocation.

Chair Jordan noted that at an earlier meeting, MPAC felt strongly about making a stronger land use connection to the allocation of MTIP funds. Does the amended MTIP criteria go far enough, or are there other things the committee would like to see?

Bernie Giusto, Tri-Met Board of Directors, asked if there is a limit on the amount of money a jurisdiction can request for a particular project?

Mr. Hoglund said the issue of limiting the size of the projects was raised. Normally, a target is set for East Multnomah County, Washington County, Clackamas County and the City of Portland, and they can either bring in one project or a number of projects. Usually, the projects range from $.5 million to $3-4 million.

Mr. Giusto said it appears that Metro is already dividing the money by subregions.

Chair Jordan said the list of proposed projects is always much larger than the amount of money. Every subregion, therefore, comes in with more projects than there is money. Therefore it is theoretically possible that all of one subregion’s projects could get money.

Dave Lohman, Port of Portland, said on page 3 of Exhibit A, the first bullet point under Section IV includes “industrial areas.” He believes the 2040 Concept also includes promotion of intermodal facilities from an economic perspective.

Mr. Hoglund noted that intermodal facilities are included in Figure 3, and agreed that the text was inconsistent with Figure 3. He said he would check on it before tomorrow’s JPACT meeting.

Mr. Lohman noted that on page 10 of Exhibit A, the list of administrative criteria essentially repeats the various categories that receive points. However, it does not repeat all of the categories, specifically economic development. He argued that economic development needs the same level of attention as the factors that are listed.

Mr. Hoglund said the first, and overriding, objective for all projects is to leverage economic development. Metro does not fund anything but economic development projects. A project receives extra points if has an affordable housing connection or fixes a fish culvert, for example.

Councilor McLain said the Metro Council wants to make sure everyone understands that the 2040 design map is a dynamic document that needs to be amended occasionally. It is important that the MTIP process can relate to the updated conditions of centers. Council asked staff to include on the application a statement that applicants should note if their projects are 2040 projects, but are not currently reflected on the 2040 map. Otherwise, new projects do not have an opportunity to compete in the same way. JPACT should not be limited to just looking at projects that came in during that one year, because centers are unique and change over time.

Commissioner Rojo de Steffey said Multnomah County may be concerned about the thirty percent match. The county is very poor, and even a ten percent match is very difficult for some projects. A thirty percent match would take money from maintenance. She said she will raise the concern again at JPACT.

Chair Jordan said he knows the committee has struggled with how to address the issue of emphasizing certain things. They picked the option of a financial incentive, realizing that no jurisdiction has sufficient transportation funding.

Mayor Hammerstad expressed concern over Councilor McLain’s comments. When projects have already been worked on over a period of time, it is important not to undermine those projects by then focusing dollars on new projects that may be unrelated or in competition. It is important to remember that the goal is to foster town and regional centers so that they are successful and attract development, and that transportation dollars are allocated in a way that is consistent with that goal. While she did not think Councilor McLain’s statement was inconsistent with her point of view, she could imagine situations in which it could be.

Councilor McLain agreed that the Metro Council and Mayor Hammerstad have the same goal. The Council was simply trying to recognize that the map is not frozen and can be amended. Additional points are awarded in the MTIP process if a project shows previous commitment.

8.  PERIODIC REVIEW: 2040 POLICIES

Sherry Oeser, Manager, Regional Planning, reviewed a memo from Mr. Cotugno to Executive Officer Burton regarding potential growth management policy changes for the periodic review urban growth boundary decision. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting packet. She asked MPAC if staff has identified all the issues that need to be addressed, and what the committee thinks about the issues identified.

Chair Jordan said the item is being introduced tonight so that staff can begin hearing the committee’s ideas. The issue of policy changes will be revisited in September or October.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said at some point MPAC may wish to talk about conditions that the Council may want to consider: either general conditions for expansion areas which may relate to habitat protection, or specific conditions for specific areas. The Council has nothing to recommend at this point, other than to say that the Council is thinking about it, and as its thoughts crystallize, it will bring them to MPAC.

Mr. Giusto noted that the proposal is to prioritize centers and projects to create winners. He asked what happens now with centers that are more ready, in terms of how money is allocated.

Ms. Oeser said the consultants who performed the centers study raised the issue of how centers are defined. There is some confusion about what centers are supposed to be and do. The other issue is to add additional centers. She understood Mr. Giusto’s question to be, how do you know which centers are ready to go? Criteria and performance measures would have to be developed for all the centers. The idea is not to pick and choose a few centers to receive all of the resources, but instead to strategically determine which centers are ready for assistance.

Mr. Giusto noted that the Housing Subcommittee’s recommendation talked about whether or not to pursue an aggressive refill rate. If the region chose to do so, would the refill rate in centers be part of the hierarchy criteria?

Ms. Oeser said yes.

Mr. Lohman asked if the recommended policy changes Ms. Oeser reviewed have been compared to the MPAC Jobs Subcommittee recommendations on industrial areas and centers.

Ms. Oeser said yes, but asked that committee members also review the memo to make sure that nothing was overlooked.

Eugene Grant, Mayor, City of Happy Valley, expressed concern about the statement on page five of the memo, to discourage centers-type employment in non-center areas. The economic development issue makes him nervous. Scarcity means higher costs, and one of the main reasons development does not go into centers is the high cost of land and structured parking. Using centers policy to discourage development will drag the costs up, which is contrary to the region’s need for economic development. He supports the incentives listed in the memo, but he has grave concerns about discouraging through regulation and restrictions and making all land off limits to office and retail, except in centers.

Councilor Park asked what Mayor Grant felt about encouraging certain activities, such as siting a post office and other civic facilities in centers? Such incentives would discourage the siting of those facilities in non-center areas.

Mayor Grant said he has no problem putting civic facilities in centers as a magnet to attract retail and office. He is concerned about saying that everything is off limits to office and retail except these designated centers, thereby creating an artificial scarcity even if it increases costs. How expensive should they make it to develop economic business facilities in the metro area?

Councilor Park asked if Mayor Grant supported allowing commercialization of industrial land?

Mayor Grant said that industrial land is a different issue. He does not have as much of a problem protecting industrial land, because that is a really important policy. The region should not drive up the price of office and retail through artificial scarcity in an attempt to achieve its centers policies.

Mr. Hartsock asked if the recommendation is essentially to change zoning? In the consultants’ report on centers, a center is described in a variety of ways because there is no clear definition. Does “discouragement” simply mean that development will be encouraged in designated centers? At some point, new centers will be created. Is the goal more to work within the existing designated centers?

Ms. Oeser said yes, she thinks so. She added that this area needs more discussion and research.

Mayor Hammerstad said this is a critical discussion, because if you push on this, then land coming into the urban growth boundary that is less expensive and easier to develop will attract retail and commercial because it is cheaper than going to a center, which already has the infrastructure built. That is exactly what they do not want. At least, she does not want it, since she is the mayor of a town center. It has a lot of very onerous implications aside from the economic development benefit of being cheaper.

Mayor Grant said taking Mayor Hammerstad’s argument to the extreme, she is saying that Pleasant Valley and Damascus should not be allowed to have any retail and office because it should all go into existing centers such as Lake Oswego and Portland.

Mayor Hammerstad said she is not taking her argument to that extreme.

Chair Jordan said on the concept map, Damascus would be designated as a center if it is brought into the UGB. In his opinion, if you push on any one of these things, you find unresearched consequences. When the Council and MPAC begin making recommendations, he hopes that as much research as possible will be done on integration of the concepts. He recalled a presentation on centers a year ago, and there was some opinion that Metro had set the bar so high that the market could not respond. There is general agreement about the long-term goals. The general issue is how do you get there? Will the market respond to a lower level of initial expectations, in a two-part process? He would like to see the Council discuss at some point the issue of centers success and Metro’s relationship to the market as a regulatory agency or provider of incentives.

Councilor Park asked what jobs are not desired in centers? Obviously, a steel-manufacturing job would not be desirable in a center. He is trying to look at it from both directions: the carrot and the stick.

Councilor McLain agreed with Chair Jordan, and said there is not enough information yet to know what needs to be done. Determining performance measures will give a chance to discuss what attributes are desired, and how to measure them.

Chair Jordan said he has heard universally that the region ought to find ways preserve industrial opportunities, and that the leakage of industrial land is generally bad. He asked if the committee supported the general notion of trying to preserve industrial opportunities in the region.

The committee agreed.

Ms. Oeser said staff will make a future presentation with more detail.

Chair Jordan added that ultimately there will be proposed policy changes for MPAC to consider.

9.  LCDC SUBREGIONAL RULE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULE

Chair Jordan said the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee has met twice since the last MPAC meeting: once with the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Subcommittee that is considering the draft rule, and once separately. In the meeting record is a summary of the comments from the July 1, 2002, MPAC Subregional Subcommittee meeting, comments from the Cities of Forest Grove and Portland, and a copy of the draft rule.

Chair Jordan asked that tonight, MPAC give feedback on the draft rule and the summary of comments. The MPAC Subregional Subcommittee will meet again on Wednesday, July 17, 2002, to consider the comments MPAC makes tonight and to complete its recommendation to MPAC. The LCDC Subcommittee will hold a public hearing on July 23. MPAC does not meet again until July 24. Therefore, MPAC’s comments will need to be submitted to the LCDC Subcommittee after the public hearing. He noted that the full Land Conservation and Development Commission will hold a public hearing at a later date. A representative from the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee will testify at the July 23, 2002, LCDC Subcommittee public hearing, in order to characterize the discussions in the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee. This way, the LCDC Subcommittee will have a general idea of MPAC’s future recommendation. Hopefully, MPAC will be able to finalize its comments on July 24.

Mr. Cotugno said the position taken to date has been to establish a rule, without yet knowing if, when or how the rule will be applied, or what will result from applying the rule. Establishing the rule will give the region the latitude to go through that sort of assessment process. The draft subregional rule reflects this position by setting up a process to define what issue the subregional basis will address, what type of goals and policies will be established, and whether those goals and policies are being met. Specific comments were raised at the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee; they are outlined in the meeting summary.

Chair Jordan said he received a request to testify from John Leeper, Commissioner, Washington County Commission. He noted that Commissioner Leeper was present at the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee meeting last week.

Commissioner Leeper noted that he is a member of the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee. He spoke on behalf of the Washington County Commission in favor of subregional analysis. A copy of his written comments is included in the meeting record.

Commissioner Neeley asked if Clark County would be part of a subregional analysis. For example, the regional land supply study was a six-county study. What happens in Clark County impacts the Metro region, even though Metro has no jurisdictional authority.

Mr. Cotugno agreed, and said Commissioner Neeley’s comments tie into his earlier statement on the capture rate. In relation to the drafting of the subregional rule, the question is how to define the five subregions. If there are only five, is one of them the city central and one Clark County? If so, that leaves three subregions, and there is a big difference between three and five. The subcommittee is looking for clarification.

Chair Jordan said in his view, Metro will only pursue using the subregional rule if there is a problem for some particular partner that arises from looking at the land allocation regionally. In his opinion, it would need to be a pretty significant problem. How Metro goes about analyzing the dynamics of that problem and what the solution might look like, should encompass whatever elements, such as Clark County, are necessary for a good analysis. The staff at the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is trying to get some grasp of what size subregion is small enough to be useful, without Balkanizing the region.

Mr. Cotugno asked if the population figure of at least 150,000 per subregion is flexible, and how that number was chosen.

Bob Rindy, DLCD, said DCLD staff put the number forward as a starting point for discussion. As Chair Jordan said, too many subregions will Balkanize the region. There is some flexibility in the 150,000 number. He said Metro needs to tell DLCD what they believe the right number of subregions to be, and they will take that recommendation into account.

Commissioner Duyck said he is not advocating for a higher or lower number, but he asked how it was chosen. Was it tied to a geographic area?

Mr. Rindy said at this point, it is a random number. Metro might give DCLD a reason as to why a particular number is good, and to the extent that they can write a rule around that and make that justification, they will do so.

Chair Jordan said one of the big issues, as discussed in the Subregional Subcommittee before the draft rule was requested, is that there is a myriad of attributes in which there might be disparity across the region. Those attributes are not set to any particular geography, or the geographic boundaries may vary from one attribute to another. He noted the difficulty of trying to carve up the region conceptually and yet not tie it to specific geography, keeping in mind that no one knows yet which attribute may need to be addressed subregionally.

Councilor Dennis noted that he is attending as the alternate to Tom Hughes, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, who is currently in Scotland. He said he attended a meeting of westside local government leaders on Monday, and there seemed to be unanimity among westside local government officials supporting subregional analysis, along the lines of Commissioner Leeper’s testimony. On behalf of Mayor Hughes, Councilor Dennis stated that the subregional rule is a long-term tool, but there is also a short-term situation. At least two large-lot industrial requests have been made recently in Washington County, where infrastructure exists. Those companies have the potential to reenergize the high-tech sector in the state.

Jack Hoffman, Councilor, City of Lake Oswego, said he is comfortable with the rule because it is important to have a rule in place. The Court of Appeals and the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) have stated that subregional need satisfies the need factors of Goal 14. He is concerned that the rule may morph into something unintended, or that it may sacrifice Goal 3 lands and exclusive farm use (EFU) lands at the alter of economic development. The rule should not be used as a way of easily getting around the statutory priorities. He supports the subregional rule because in his opinion, it is a good protection against bypassing those statutory priorities. He also supports the petition language that went with the rule to LCDC, which addressed the 2040 Growth Concept, the regional context, and the goal of seeking equitable distribution of employment opportunities, investment and tax capacity. Keeping in mind that everything must be done in the regional context, he feels comfortable with MPAC’s direction on the subregional rule making.

Mr. Hipólito noted that he is still in a learning process. He asked what action MPAC is being asked to take today. What was the context behind MPAC’s decision to seek a subregional rule and what other options had been explored?

Mr. Cotugno said in general, MPAC discussed and recommended asking LCDC for a rule. In doing so, Metro proposed possible language for the rule. MPAC reviewed the draft language, and the Metro Council formally forwarded the draft rule to LCDC. LCDC formally agreed to address subregional rule making, made a formal notice of proposed rules, announced a schedule and public hearing dates, and proposed a rule. The June 3, 2002, draft subregional rule is LCDC’s attempt at a draft rule. In his opinion, Metro is fairly comfortable with the LCDC draft, but MPAC is in the process of discussing whether the rule meets its intended goal. There have been several discussions at MPAC regarding the goal of subregional analysis, but there is no policy conclusion as of yet. In the past, Metro has tried to make decisions ostensibly on a subregional basis. Those decisions failed in court. Therefore, Council has stated that it will not make decisions subregionally until there is a clear set of rules.

Commissioner Duyck asked it would be appropriate to make a motion to recommend adoption, with the changes recommended by the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee.

Chair Jordan said this is the first time the item has been before MPAC, and the Subregional Subcommittee meets again on Wednesday, July 17, 2002. He asked for comments tonight, which will be assimilated and brought back to MPAC in a final form for a recommendation on July 24.

Commissioner Duyck noted that the agenda listed the proposed action as a recommendation.

Ms. Harold said that was a typographical error and apologized for the confusion.

Mr. Cotugno noted that the recommendation will be in the form of proposed amendments.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said he wonders when Metro and MPAC will discuss what it is trying to accomplish. He noted the language in the subregional rule (660-026-0025 (4)(A)), which states “…the subregional allocation is required to: (A) achieve an efficient urban form….” It is important to define what that means in relation to Metro’s Framework Plan. He hopes that at some point, MPAC will look at those goals and policy objectives. He asked if the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee plans to do so, or if it will have this discussion after the LCDC Subcommittee has taken verbal testimony.

Chair Jordan said he thinks the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee will discuss the rule next week and come forward to MPAC on July 24, with a recommendation on whether MPAC should propose language changes to the rule. If the recommendation includes comments about efficient urban form, that will be before MPAC for discussion and a decision at its next meeting. He assumes that Presiding Officer Hosticka’s comments get at a bigger question, which MPAC has danced around for a long time: why would Metro do this, and what does it hope to accomplish? He proposed two answers. First, beyond the issue of more certainty, it makes sense to request a rule because it is conceivable that a regional UGB amendment process could create disparity across the region. If that potential exists, what tools exist to alleviate that disparity? One tool might be the subregional rule. In his opinion, it is not the only tool, and not even the only tool in the land use arena. Second, the rule requires Metro to look at its own policies and regional goals, and to state its goal and why it needs to use subregional analysis to reach that goal. That will be a really intense discussion that will occur when MPAC and the Metro Council actually decide to use the subregional rule.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said there are regional objectives that may be better achieved through subregional allocation than through a regional allocation. Those regional objectives are in Metro’s Framework Plan. He is thinking of the issue in terms of that, not the disparity issue. Does MPAC need to discuss its objective now or in the future?

Commissioner Neeley reiterated that Metro is not required to do a subregional analysis. As already mentioned, when Metro has tried to address subregional issues it has often run into litigation issues. The subregional rule will enable Metro to do a subregional analysis if it feels one is necessary.

Chair Jordan said there is no one at the meeting from the City of Portland. He asked Al Burns, Planning Bureau, City of Portland, if he would like to speak.

Mr. Burns said if Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland, were here, she might state concern that the draft rule is still a solution looking for just the right problem. Mr. Rindy stated that 150,000 was a random number. The region needs a policy-based rule, not a random-number-based rule. To the extent that the region wants to be more equitable or more efficient, maybe many of these needs could be addressed by more, better, and deeper regional planning, and refining the concept of complete communities for jobs and housing in Metro’s regional plan. Then Metro can request LCDC acknowledgement and use the plan. One of the alternatives they might look at is more plan and less rule. Mayor Katz always notes the sorting process: What are the problems? What are the problems we are trying to solve? Of those, which ones can be solved by land allocations? Of the ones than can be, which ones should be solved by land allocations? Which ones should be solved by other means such as sharing service obligations or subregional tax base sharing? Of the ones that can be and should be solved by land allocations, what other tools could be used, such as specific land need allocations, general land need allocations, and urban reserve dedications? Once the entire sorting process has been worked through, then we can identify the problems that we need this additional tool to solve. She would have wished that MPAC had this discussion before requesting LCDC’s help.

Councilor Park said Councilor Dennis mentioned a couple of industrial sites that were requested in Washington County. He asked staff if Metro has received a request for either a major amendment or a quasi-judicial amendment to bring land in for a specific purpose.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said no request has been received.

Councilor Park said it is difficult for Metro to react if it has not received anything.

Mayor Drake said in theory that is good, but a business makes a decision in its boardroom, not between the City of Hillsboro and Metro. The decision is based on whether the land is available or not. If the land is not there, the business will go somewhere else. By the time the region establishes a process, the board will have made its decision long ago. MPAC needs to be mature enough to recognize that the industrial process will not be quick or nimble enough to provide that available land. Broadly, the regional discussion is, do we or don’t we want more of that business?

Chair Jordan asked for comments on the language of the rule for the subcommittee.

Mr. Rindy responded to Presiding Officer Hosticka’s comments about the language regarding efficient urban form. DLCD staff called out the term “efficient urban form” because the subregional rule has to conform with Goal 14. Whether it is Metro’s purpose or not, the end result of the subregional rule will be that farmland will be added to the UGB that otherwise would not come into the boundary. That result is definitely more palatable to LCDC if the result will be a more efficient urban form. He asked MPAC to consider helping DCLD define “efficiency” and to consider detailed it wants LCDC to make the definitions.

Commissioner Leeper noted that his next comments are spoken as an individual, not a representative of the Washington County Commission. From a personal point of view, the cities and counties on the westside are progressively more constrained by the fact that all of the land outside the UGB is farmland. He recognized the importance of agriculture as a part of the economy, but EFU land should not be placed on such a pedestal that it could not be used for any other purpose. The proposed rule would be another approach that could be used to enable the region to expand onto EFU land. If this approach is taken, Washington County may want to espouse some different utilization of that EFU land to accommodate industrial and housing purposes.

Gil Kelly, Planning Director, City of Portland, said Mr. Burns accurately quoted Mayor Katz as saying that she believes this is a solution in search of a problem. This perception is partly the result of the fact that this discussion started as subregional need for housing, but all the recent citations have been about large-sized industrial need. The City of Portland sympathizes with that need, but sees it as a regional issue, not a subregional issue. Portland questions even more strongly the premise of the subregional rule.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR JULY 10, 2002

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