METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

August 14, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Richard Kidd, Mark Knudsen, Doug Neeley

Alternates Present: Jim Bernard, Ed Dennis, Meg Fernekees, Michael McFarland, Maria Rojo de Steffey

Also Present: Linda Bauer, Citizen; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Michael Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Karen Perl Fox, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Randy Gragg, The Oregonian; Holly Iburg, Newland Communities; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Gregory Jenks, Clackamas County; Alex Kasyan, City Cab Beaverton; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Ying Lin, Cogan Owens Cogan; Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Ginny Peckinpaugh, Consultant; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Pat Russell, North Clackamas Citizens Association

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons –Rod Park, Council District 1. Mike Burton, Executive Officer; David Bragdon, Council District 7

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Michael Morrissey, Mark Turpel, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commission and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at
5:03 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Jordan noted that the first regularly scheduled MPAC meeting in September is on September 11. However, many communities have events planned for that day. He suggested moving the meeting to Thursday, September 12. There were no objections.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Rod Park, Metro Councilor, said Council approved the riparian inventory, the wildlife inventory, and a combined map of the two for the purpose of economic, social, energy and environmental (ESEE) analysis. He stressed that Council has not decided on one or two ESEE, or on the relative value between any of the wildlife and riparian habitat. On the subregional rule, Council proposed additional language to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), which was accepted by the LCDC Subcommittee. The LCDC Subcommittee will meet next Thursday, August 22, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Chair Jordan said he had the unique opportunity to sit in on a brief portion of the Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) meeting, as the committee began working through the scoring system for economic value of property. He said everyone on ETAC deserves a thank-you gift; the discussion was mind numbing.

5.  EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S PERIODIC REVIEW RECOMMENDATION

Chair Jordan said Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, has presented to the Metro Council his recommendation on the urban growth boundary (UGB).

Executive Officer Burton reviewed his recommendation, a summary of which is included in the meeting packet. The summary is entitled, “Growth Management of the Metropolitan Region: Executive Officer Recommendation.” He noted the areas recommended for inclusion in the UGB and those that were not recommended. He suggested three key areas for future policy discussion: 1) an assessment of agricultural productivity on lands set aside for farm and forest protection, 2) the ultimate urban form of the region, and 3) development of a regional economic development policy. He asked MPAC to review his recommendation and discuss the larger question of how the region should manage planning.

Executive Officer Burton invited members of MPAC to join him in September for a bus tour of the lands recommended for inclusion into the UGB. He said he will also invite representatives from the farming, conservation and development communities. He stressed the importance of each elected official physically looking at the lands under consideration and sharing their points of view with the others.

Doug Neeley, Commissioner, City of Oregon City, said most people on the east side of the Willamette River in Clackamas County feel there is more residential land and less employment land coming into the UGB than desired.

Executive Officer Burton said he has also heard that comment. He invited comments on why particular land designated for housing should not be, and also on where the housing should go instead.

Mr. Cotugno added that it is difficult to find land for industrial use in Clackamas County because of the terrain. There are some locations around Damascus, outside the area in the Executive Officer’s recommendation, which could be used for industrial purposes. However, those lands are zoned exclusive farm use (EFU). The question of whether to convert farmland to industrial use is the same in the Damascus areas as it is in the Hillsboro area.

Executive Officer Burton said the region should not be afraid to have the debate about converting farmland to industrial use, but it needs to be public and have rational causes around it. He noted that horticultural and natural resource industries in the Northern Willamette Valley accounted for $1.5 billion last year. It is an extremely valuable part of the state’s economy.

Charles Becker, Mayor, City of Gresham, said it will be beneficial to visit the sites under consideration and hear local officials’ viewpoints. He looks forward to attending the bus tour.

Ed Gronke, Clackamas County Citizen, said he enjoyed reading Executive Officer Burton’s recommendation, and thanked him for raising the long-term issues. Until the region addresses the bigger picture, it will simply repeat the same process every five years.

Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton, agreed and said he has often compared his ten years on MPAC to watching the movie, Groundhog Day. He was extremely disappointed when the urban reserve program was shot out the sky, because it really took the long-term look that Executive Officer Burton is proposing in his recommendation. While Washington County may be extremely disappointed that the recommendation does not allocate the remaining 3,000 acres of industrial zone in Washington County, collectively the idea of a much longer look is the right thing to do. It allows people to seek investment and to plan the communities. He agreed with the general tone of the recommendation.

Executive Officer Burton thanked him and said one of the conundrums they all face is the constraint of law which requires certain actions to be done in certain ways at certain times. He is not recommending that Metro change that, but he is suggesting that Metro try to beyond that. An economic plan would talk about the availability of industrial and commercial land. To provide the elasticity that the market demands, the supply of industrial and commercial land should be 15,000 acres, not 5,700 acres. The region needs to look at meeting immediate needs with available land on the west side, and at developing the kind of employment that is needed in the east side.

Mayor Drake said he supports Mayor Becker’s push for expansion of the high-tech industry in Gresham. He noted, however, that corporate boardrooms need immediately available land and they want to cluster near similar companies.

Executive Officer Burton noted that there are a lot of economic plans in the region, but no regional economic strategy. An overall economic strategy is not just a market issue; the long-term impact needs to be considered. He recommended using MPAC as a table for discussing an overall economic strategy and sharing each city’s long-term economic goals.

John Hartsock, Clackamas County Special Districts, said from the perspective of Vice-Chair of the committee to incorporate Damascus, the interesting dynamic of the large area is that it gives people the opportunity to plan a full community. One of the questions is whether to look at a paradigm shift, forcing the industrial development first in order to fulfill that need and answer the elasticity question.

Executive Officer Burton said planning for development of the Damascus area will require a lot of planning to do it right. It needs the commitment of everyone in the region.

Chair Jordan thanked Executive Officer Burton for his presentation and for all the work he and his staff have done. He said the recommendation set a good base for MPAC discussion.

Executive Officer Burton thanked Metro planning staff, Mr. Cotugno, Mary Weber, Community Development Manager, Dan Cooper, General Counsel, and Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, for their hard work.

Chair Jordan asked the committee to look at the draft periodic review UGB issue recommendation schedule, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He noted that MPAC has a lot to do before the end of October.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the schedule. One of the first topics will be to determine which issues can be decided as part of this year’s decision (Task 2 of Periodic Review) and which are long-term issues and should be part of Task 3. He noted two key deadlines on the schedule: August 28^th is the deadline for local governments to submit housing need proposals; September 12^th is the deadline for local governments to submit jobs land need proposals.

Chair Jordan said he realizes that the deadlines require a very short turnaround. However, MPAC will not be able to complete its work in time if new proposals hit the table in late September and early October.

Commissioner Neeley asked if he was correct that MPAC could continue to fine-tune its recommendation after the September 12^th deadline.

Chair Jordan confirmed that there will be issues on the table up until the day of the final vote. He is simply trying to set up a process by which to go through the issues.

Mr. Cotugno noted that the Council’s seven public hearings in October are not listed on the schedule. Council will wrap up its conclusions in November. MPAC’s schedule is designed to fit into the Council’s schedule, so that Council will have MPAC’s recommendation by the time it completes its public hearings and enters into a decision-making mode.

Chair Jordan asked if there were concerns about the schedule. There were none. He noted that a number of topics in Executive Officer Burton’s recommendation concern long-term planning. He asked if MPAC wants to make its recommendation within the broader context of long-term issues that need to be addressed. Examples include a broad-based economic development strategy for the region, Goal 5, the potential of an unmet industrial land need, the region’s relationship with the agricultural industry in the Northern Willamette Valley counties, the region’s relationship with Clark County, Washington, subregional analysis, and urban reserves.

Mr. Cotugno noted that page 15 of the Executive Officer Recommendation lists some of the potential “Task 3” topics for future discussion.

Mr. Gronke said the development of a regional economic strategy is overdue. From a business perspective, he would look first at locating in an area that had such a strategy.

Chair Jordan said discussion of a Task 3 recommendation will be on the next MPAC agenda. The potential Task 3 topics will be pulled from the list in the Executive Officer’s recommendation.

Commissioner Neeley said MPAC needs to discuss the refill rate in centers, since the Executive Officer has recommended increasing the rate.

Chair Jordan said the committee will discuss the proposed refill rate.

Nathalie Darcy, Washington County Citizen Representative, asked if greenspaces will be included as a Task 3 topic?

Mr. Cotugno said there are many things that interrelate – the question is which topics belong in a periodic review order of LCDC. A bond measure would not be included in a periodic review measure. If there is a bond measure, then it could very easily complement a Goal 5 program. If it involves land acquisition inside the urban growth boundary, it clearly impacts the capacity of the UGB. Those two items would belong in a periodic review.

Chair Jordan said if the committee needs more information about any aspect of periodic review, please tell him or Mr. Cotugno.

Councilor Park asked if the committee’s silence on Task 3 reflects a high comfort level or the feeling of a deer in the headlights. He asked Mayor Drake for his opinion on Task 3: the linkage between an economic development strategy, the subregional question, urban reserves and Goal 5.

Mayor Drake said it is a lot, which partly explains the deer-in-the-headlights reaction. Local governments are already strained in terms of citizen interest in what they do. He supports and encourages involvement, but along with it comes a lot more care and attention. As a result, his professional staff has reached its maximum workload. He supports looking at these topics, however there is a lot happening quickly. These are big decisions that will impact a lot of governments for a long time.

Councilor Park asked if he would be more comfortable knowing that it is somewhat on a slower timeline, based on the fact that the Council does not know what LCDC will decide regarding subregional analysis at its October 24-25 meeting. LCDC’s actions will affect the makeup of Task 3. As he understands it, a request for Task 3 would still be timely prior to the acknowledgement of Metro’s current expansion. The actual request could be submitted in January or February 2003.

Meg Fernekees, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), said Councilor Park is correct that a request for Task 3 would still be timely prior to the acknowledgement of Metro’s current expansion. However, DLCD wants it sooner rather than later, and expects to receive the request prior to the Council’s December 2002 decision.

Chair Jordan said his concern for MPAC is that it has work to do that is required statutorily. To comply with the current work program, MPAC needs to be done by October. He knows there are big questions about big issues in everybody’s mind, that MPAC has not addressed and will not address before October. Therefore, he wants to make the October decision in the context of an agreement that MPAC will come back to the table and hammer out the big issues.

6.  DAMASCUS CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTATION

Karen Perl Fox, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Ginny Peckinpaugh, Consultant to 1000 Friends of Oregon, presented the Damascus concept plan. A copy of the presentation is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Gronke asked if they investigated mechanisms to fund the proposed transportation system?

Ms. Fox said the cost of the proposed system is less than the cost of the Sunrise freeway. While they did not have the financial wherewithal to do a detailed transportation modeling study, they have been talking with other organizations about doing a feasibility study.

Mr. Gronke said his concern is not just the cost of construction, but the cost of maintenance and operation. A system like that would not be self-supporting.

Ms. Fox said they are very interested in finding new, innovative financing mechanisms. There will be further study in those areas.

Holly Iburg, Newland Communities, asked if they expect actual development to occur in ten years?

Ms. Fox said yes, potentially.

Mr. Hartsock said the ten-year estimate was based on principles of accounting’s policy of concurrency.

Ms. Fox said information about the concept plan is available on the Internet at http://www.designdamascus.org/.

7.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-3197, For the Purpose of Requesting Informal Advice from the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee regarding Taxi Regulation on a Regional Basis

Mr. Dan Cooper said the 1992 Metro Charter states that Metro can take jurisdiction over any matter which the Council finds to be of “metropolitan concern.” However, any matter that is currently a local service cannot become a matter of metropolitan concern without approval by the voters or by MPAC and the Council. The question of whether Metro should be involved with taxicab regulation has arisen. It is a service regulated by local governments, therefore the issue has come before MPAC. Resolution No. 02-3197, recently passed by the Council, informally asks MPAC to consider whether Metro should proceed to the formal step of declaring taxicab service as a matter of metropolitan concern.

David Bragdon, Metro Councilor, introduced the resolution, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. He noted that taxis serve a regional marketplace and there is a need to minimize empty trips. He addressed three perspectives: customer, entrepreneur, and community. It is common sense to give taxis the ability to move around the region efficiently.

Mayor Drake said the City of Beaverton does not heavily regulate taxi service. It does charge a small business fee, which supplies a small revenue stream and allows the city to know what businesses exist. He noted that Metro is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for federal transportation dollars, and has a region-wide transportation interest. It is extremely inefficient to have someone legally take a cab from Beaverton or Hillsboro to the Portland airport, but not legally be able to take someone back to Beaverton. As the region continues to grow by a half-million people over the next twenty years, it might be nice to facilitate taxicab competition. Logic dictates that regulation should be placed under one umbrella. His interest is not critical of Portland, but it is counterintuitive to a free market economy to let the City of Portland regulate the rest of the region. He thinks there is regional interest in this issue.

Mr. Neeley said he is curious whether the entrepreneurs generally have the same general feeling. He suggested conducting a survey.

Councilor Bragdon said that is one of things the Council would wish to find out. He noted that Sassy’s Cab Company in Oregon City fought for a long time to get licenses within the City of Portland.

Mr. Gronke asked Mr. Dan Cooper how far Metro’s regulatory powers extend. What about areas outside the Metro jurisdictional boundary?

Mr. Dan Cooper said taxicabs tend to stay within metropolitan areas, though it is not unheard of for a taxicab to go from Portland to Seattle and return. When regulating taxicabs, a jurisdiction is regulating who is authorized to be inside that jurisdiction. If a taxicab picks up a passenger within a city, takes the passenger outside the city and then violates the city’s rules and regulations, that city has jurisdiction over the taxicab.

Mr. Hartsock asked if cities such as Canby and Sandy could enter into a regional regulatory system?

Mr. Dan Cooper said yes, through an intergovernmental agreement.

Chair Jordan said the purpose of this agenda item is to introduce an informal request for MPAC’s opinion. He asked Al Burns, Portland Planning Bureau, if he was authorized to speak for his city.

Mr. Burns said as far has he could determine, the City of Portland has taken no position. He spoke with the Licensing Bureau who said the program requires 1.5 employees and does not generate income. There are three parts to the job: public safety, control of supply and demand, and the role of taxis as a transportation feature (taxis are required to service the entire area, not just from a hotel to the airport). The Licensing Bureau has very mixed feelings about giving up its responsibility.

Chair Jordan asked that someone from the City of Portland attend the next MPAC meeting, prepared to articulate a position.

Mr. Burns noted that Metro is not the only candidate to oversee taxi regulation. Other options include the Port of Portland or TriMet.

Councilor Bragdon noted that taxicab regulation affects every city, even if those without programs, because they are subject to the standard set by the City of Portland.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR AUGUST 14, 2002

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