METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

July 24, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy,
Andy Duyck, Eugene Grant, John Hartsock, Alan Hipólito, Richard Kidd, Mark Knudsen,
Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, David Ripma

Alternates Present: Ed Dennis, Meg Fernekees, Jim Griffith, Jack Hoffman, Dave Lohman, Michael McFarland

Also Present: Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Maggie Collins, City of Wilsonville; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Chris Eaton, Angela Eaton and Associates; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Jim Labbe, Cogan Owens Cogan; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin, Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; John Leeper, Washington County Commissioner; Ying Lin, Cogan Owens Cogan; Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Ed Sullivan, City of Hillsboro

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Rod Park, Council District 1; Susan McLain, Council District 4. Bill Atherton, Council District 2, David Bragdon, Council District 7

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Renee Castilla, Andy Cotugno, Michael Morrissey, Mark Turpel

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Jordan called the meeting to order and declared a quorum at 5:09 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were none.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

4.1  Meeting Summaries for July 24, 2002

The minutes were moved and adopted. Nathalie Darcy, Washington County Citizen Representative, abstained.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said Council is waiting for Executive Officer Mike Burton’s recommendation on the urban growth boundary (UGB). In the meantime, Council is completing the fish and wildlife inventory.

Susan McLain, Metro Councilor, said the Natural Resources Committee will meet on July 31, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. to discuss wildlife habitat issues. The committee will also review a memo by Ken Helm, Senior Assistant Counsel, regarding final inventory steps. One of the final steps will be review of local plans, which will be brought to MPAC for its review. The committee will also review the steps of the economic, social, energy and environmental (ESEE) analysis, including the money raised for outside analysis, the review of the Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC), and the upcoming peer review.

Rod Park, Metro Councilor, said based on testimony given at yesterday’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Subcommittee public hearing on the subregional rule, there may be a meeting with the Community Planning Committee next Tuesday to prepare a response for LCDC by August 2.

9.  WILDLIFE HABITAT INVENTORY

At the request of a committee member, Chair Jordan moved to item 9 of the agenda.

Andy Cotugno, Director, Planning Department, noted that MPAC has already made a recommendation to the Metro Council on riparian resource designation. A few meetings ago, the committee reviewed both the wildlife resource designation and how to combine the riparian and wildlife designations. Tonight’s agenda item concerns only the wildlife resource designation. The Council has not yet adopted the riparian resource designation. It is waiting to receive recommendations on the wildlife habitat inventory before proceeding.

Doug Neeley, Oregon City Commissioner, asked if it would be possible to also move item 7, LCDC Subregional Rule, ahead on the agenda. He noted that both items 7 and 9 call for a recommendation.

Chair Jordan said he would try to accommodate Commissioner Neeley’s request.

Mark Turpel, Manager, Long-Range Planning, emphasized that MPAC is only reviewing the inventory, not the ESEE analysis tradeoffs or the program details. The main issues for discussion are the criteria used, and the designation of particular resources as either significant or regionally significant. Executive Officer Burton has recommended that all of the areas labeled two through nine by considered regionally significant. The agenda packet includes the recommendations of the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC), the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC), and the Goal 5 Technical Advisory Committee (Goal 5 TAC).

Commissioner Neeley asked why the Goal 5 TAC recommendation differentiated between significant wildlife habitat and regionally significant habitat, in terms of which areas should be included as habitats of concern.

Mr. Turpel said state law says that if a local jurisdiction is going to make a decision about a resource, it must decide what is significant. In addition, Metro is required to take a further step and decide what is regionally significant. In its recommendation, Goal 5 TAC simply stated that everything is significant, but that only habitat receiving a score of two through nine should be considered regionally significant and analyzed.

Chair Jordan asked if anyone from MTAC was present and wished to comment. No one came forward.

Commissioner Neeley said from jurisdictional standpoint, including areas with a score of one provides the benefit of a mechanism to require restoration of higher-scoring lands in order for lands scoring one to be developed.

Ed Dennis, Councilor, City of Hillsboro, said the City of Hillsboro will vote no on the recommendation. He personally visited several of the sites and questions some of the criteria used. It seems like there are real problems with the science involved. For example, some of the sites scoring one appear far more valuable than higher-scoring sites that are essentially farm ditches. He expressed concern that the source documentation is based on a 1978 U.S. Corps of Engineers study. He noted an example in which an area that scored a two is an airport runway in Hillsboro. He said he assumes there will be opportunities in the future to further discuss these concerns.

Mr. Cotugno said this is the inventory step. The airport runway itself should not be on the map; if it is, then a map correction needs to be incorporated. The open field area next to the runway might be on the map, if there is a resource there. The ESEE analysis may determine that it is not a resource worth protecting due to conflicting use. At this point, the inventory is simply trying to identify resources. He noted that the Corps of Engineers study is one of several sources used, not the only one. All of the habitats of concerns were confirmed by a biologist who is an expert in the field.

Councilor Dennis said he spoke earlier with Councilor McLain and understood that a number of details may shake out during the ESEE analysis.

Commissioner Neeley noted that some farm ditches are actually channelized streams and may in fact provide connectivity for something further up in the watershed that existed prior to the ditch.

Councilor McLain said the airport runway is a good example of the type of feature that will be removed during an ESEE analysis. However, it is important to go through the process and not predispose the inventory. The ESEE will balance those conflicting uses.

Larry Cooper, Multnomah County Special Districts, said in a previous meeting they talked about the lack of funding for the ESEE analysis. What will happen if Metro runs out of money halfway through? It is important to perform a serious analysis. Areas one through nine encompass a huge amount of real estate and many stakeholders who stand to lose money.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro does not intend to blow by the ESEE analysis. An economic advisory committee has been created to review the analysis. The lack of money to which Mr. Cooper referred pertains to hiring an independent, objective peer review. If during the ESEE analysis, Metro realizes that the cost is much larger than expected, steps will have to taken to ensure that a full ESEE analysis still occurs. The plan cannot be adopted in the end without the ESEE analysis.

Chair Jordan asked if the acreage that needs to be analyzed for ESEE factors includes upland habitat in addition to riparian corridors. He asked what percentage of total acreage the upland habitat comprises?

Mr. Cotugno said there is 94 percent overlap between riparian and upland habitat. Including upland wildlife habitat only adds an extra six percent above riparian.

Dave Lohman, Port of Portland, said it is clear from the discussion that the ESEE analysis is very important. The inventory is a fairly mechanical step.

Mr. Cotugno said MTAC made two observations in its recommendation that call out the importance of the ESEE analysis.

Mr. Lohman drew the committee’s attention to the fourth bulleted paragraph in the MTAC recommendation. He said some of the habitats of concern need to be looked at further. The Port is very supportive of allowing a more comprehensive study of those lands. He noted that there needs to be a mechanism in place to incorporate map corrections.

Jack Hoffman, Councilor, City of Lake Oswego, asked when the ESEE will begin? He asked if the City of Hillsboro is opposed to the inventory because of map errors?

Mr. Cotugno said the ESEE analysis will hopefully start this year.

Councilor Dennis said the City of Hillsboro has some problems with the criteria. Only one site in the Hillsboro area does not come from the 1978 Corps of Engineers’ study.

Councilor Hoffman asked if it is the whole Hillsboro area or a limited number of areas that can be corrected through map corrections?

Councilor Dennis said he understands that it is a fairly limited number of areas.

Councilor McLain said it was her understanding that Metro received a request for map changes from Hillsboro. Out of 11 proposed changes, five or six changes could be made easily by staff. However, in four or five other areas, Metro felt there were policy issues that needed to be discussed first. The changes involving policy issues can be made after the ESEE analysis.

Councilor Dennis said he is new to this topic, and has personally seen five or six disparities. He understands, however, that the City of Hillsboro has made 216 requests for map corrections, of which about 35 were addressed. The city has raised a large number of concerns about the inventory.

Councilor McLain said the total number of change requests fit into eleven categories. She hopes during the ESEE analysis, the City of Hillsboro and Metro can have a good conversation about the difference between true amendments versus policy and criteria.

Alan Hipólito, Multnomah County Citizen Representative, said he will vote in favor of the inventory. He noted that there is a value to protecting land, beyond that which can be financially gained. Certainly that will be balanced in the later analysis. The notion of casting the net wide does not distress him. Secondly, he noted that even if all of the restrictions on the land were lifted, people who do not own property would not benefit financially from the transfer or redevelopment of that land. Their interests lie in environmental protection.

Mr. Cotugno said the subcommittees did speak to Commissioner Neeley’s recommendation. In Goal 5 TAC, there was a minority vote to keep lands scoring one in the inventory. The “ones” are generally characterized as isolated patches of one to three acres, clearly detached from the large patches or the streams. This is predominantly an important feature in Multnomah County where all of the streams have been buried. Therefore, the large patches that exist are generally in parks, and those patches of trees are very important for the tropical migration of birds. There are clearly other patches of land in the region that are isolated stands. Those are less important for bird migration because riparian corridors still exist to accommodate migration. Goal 5 TAC recognized that function; however it felt comfortable not including it in a regional program because it should be addressed a local level. At MTAC the vote was 25 in favor, with one person opposed because he felt the “ones” should be included, and one person opposed because he felt the “twos” should not be included. WRPAC voted eight to six to keep the “ones” as regionally significant because of the resource function it provides.

Commissioner Neeley said Mr. Cotugno made reference to the “number ones” being in parks. However they are not all in parks. He already gave his logic for its inclusion. By making them regionally significant, it gives local jurisdictions the ability to blame Metro for something they really want to do anyway. It can be used as a mitigation strategy in many cases where the removal of a “one” gives an opportunity for action in other areas.

7.  LCDC SUBREGIONAL RULE

Chair Jordan said the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee met jointly with the LCDC Subcommittee on subregional rule on June 19, and saw the first draft prepared by Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff. The MPAC Subregional Subcommittee then met and proposed language changes to the draft. Last Wednesday the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee refined its recommendation, which is included in the meeting packet. Last night the LCDC Subcommittee held a public hearing at Metro, and received testimony which may have some bearing on MPAC’s recommendation to the Metro Council regarding the subregional rule. The record will remain open until August 2, which allows time for the Metro Council to comment.

Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, gave a brief description of last night’s public hearing. Seven to nine people testified, some in favor of the draft as revised by the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee. The City of Portland and 1000 Friends of Oregon suggested it was not yet the right time to move on the subregional rule. The City of Portland in particular thought that the case had not been made by Metro that there was a need for a subregional rule. Two members of the three-member LCDC Subcommittee were present. The subcommittee listened but did not respond much. They did respond to the testimony that Metro had not yet made the case for a rule. They did not agree or disagree with the comment, but did tell Metro that maybe it ought to give more attention to making that case. Other than that, he did not get a sense from the two individual commissioners of how they felt about particular elements of the rule or the changes recommended by the MPAC subcommittee. The LCDC Subcommittee will meet again on August 7, and attempt to review everything they have received and make a recommendation to the full Commission.

Chair Jordan noted that Richard Ross, City of Gresham, has asked to address MPAC as neither of his city’s representatives were able to attend tonight’s meeting.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said in his opinion, two cases need to be made. First, why Metro wants a rule, and second, why Metro would want to allocate land on a subregional basis. Most people understand why Metro wants a subregional rule: procedurally, Metro would like guidance. The second case is more problematic.

Councilor Dennis said his sense was that the Metro Council gave direction to MPAC, and MPAC created a subcommittee to do the work. While the rule could be improved, it is good enough.

Richard Ross, Planning Department, City of Gresham, reviewed a letter from Charles Becker, Mayor, City of Gresham, to LCDC regarding the proposed subregional rule. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record. The City of Gresham is cautious of how the subregional rule could be used now or in the future. Mayor Becker proposed three caveats in his letter: 1) the rule should not be used to supplant the existing state statutory criteria that Metro uses to amend the UGB, 2) the rule should not be a rationale to put off regional decision making on the UGB, and 3) it should not be a way to piece-meal the consideration of land needs for the UGB. It is a special tool for special circumstances but there is still work that needs to be done on it.

David Ripma, Councilor, City of Troutdale, said has far as he knows, MPAC has not held a debate on the wisdom of Presiding Officer Hosticka’s first question: why does Metro want the rule? He is very alarmed that the die has been cast. MPAC should discuss and make a recommendation to the Council on the wisdom of creating a subregional rule. It is potentially a big departure from the state land use hierarchy for UGB inclusion. The MPAC Subregional Subcommittee was set up and moved forward with a recommendation. Now MPAC is voting on which version of the recommendation it prefers. He represents cities that have flat-surface, developable, industrial land within the UGB that is for sale. Their chance to develop that land comes in the regional context. Instead, the idea is to add the state’s best prime farmland into the UGB in Washington County. He is disappointed that MPAC has not had the debate. He disagreed with Presiding Officer Hosticka’s premise that the first part of the case is a foregone conclusion. He objected to MPAC voting on the subregional rule language prior to voting on whether to have the rule.

Commissioner Neeley said MPAC put forward a motion to find out whether or not Metro could have a rule. At that time, MPAC addressed the question of whether there was a point in having a debate when, in fact, the Commission may tell Metro that a subregional rule is not possible. In his understanding, Metro will first find out if it can have a rule. Whether it wants one is a different issue. He argued that the subregional rule could be used to look at the region’s jobs/housing balance and address the concerns Councilor Ripma raised about the industrial land supply.

Commissioner Duyck said it was his understanding that when Metro asked for the subregional rule, it was interested in it. Otherwise, why waste the time asking for it? Nobody around this table should ever believe that by precluding subregional need in one area of the Metro region, it will create any kind of development in any other part of the region. It probably will not because the type of development that might be used under subregional analysis will not move somewhere else just because land is available.

Mr. Benner raised a point of context. The subregional allocation is already authorized in some case law that involved some Metro decisions. So it is not quite correct to say that a rule that would talk about subregional allocation is at odds with the land-use planning program. The matter has come before the appellate courts and they have said subregional analysis can be done, but Metro did not do it right that time. Part of the motivation for the rule is to ask LCDC for guidance on how to do subregional analysis.

Richard Kidd, Mayor, City of Forest Grove, said this rule is needed in the toolbox of Metro and the local jurisdictions in the Metro region, and he favors moving forward. However, the rule is just a tool. To solve his city’s problems without this rule, he needs transportation (highways, not light rail). This rule alone will not solve his problems.

Councilor Hoffman agreed that Metro needs a tool to solve regional problems, but any tool has to be consistent with Metro’s planning documents, including the 2040 plan. It has to be consistent with the statewide goals, including Goals 3 and 4, and with the statutory priority (ORS 197.298(1)). The statutory priority basically says that exclusive farm use (EFU) land is last. The concern he hears in Washington County is that while EFU land is last, it is all that is available, therefore it is necessary to somehow trump the priority. Many people are concerned about protection of farmland. He does not want a tool that is used by special interests to go onto farmland and thereby hurt Troutdale or Happy Valley. Lake Oswego is in a unique position on this issue because it is not looking for jobs or housing. The subregional rule is not a special interest tool. It is the tool of Metro staff and the Metro Council. The committee knows that subregional need cannot serve solely as a basis for expanding the UGB, but the UGB can be expanded on a subregional basis in a regional context. He is comfortable with the rule because the subregions are large enough to accommodate some analysis without sacrificing farmland. He noted that the same two people who objected to the wildlife inventory also moved and seconded the subregional rule. He does not know if there is a connection, but both items deal with resources and it gives him some pause.

Ms. Darcy asked, if the Commission were to adopt this rule, would Metro then have an opportunity to discuss whether to use the rule?

Chair Jordan said yes, a really lengthy one.

Ms. Darcy agreed that MPAC’s original recommendation to go forward with the rule was to say, let’s find out if the rule can be done and how, and then discuss whether to use it.

Chair Jordan gave an overview of the MPAC Subregional Subcommittee’s meeting last week and the process it went through to develop the words that are in front of MPAC this evening. There was significant discussion about the issue of Metro having to go through its policies and procedures, and its goals within its own framework, before it could even consider using a rule. If changes need to be made in Metro’s Framework Plan and Functional Plan to justify an action, those changes will have to be acknowledged at DLCD before Metro can go through a subregional land allocation.

Commissioner Duyck stated for the record that he has worked on farmland protection and put in more rules at the local government level than most of the people around the table, except possibly the Metro Councilors. He fully agreed about the protection of EFU land. On the same token, he agreed that Metro still has the final word and has the ability to make sure that the subregional rule is just a tool and not something that is used by special interests.

Commissioner Naito thanked everyone for his or her comments, and said this is a tough call for her. On balance, she tends to agree with Councilor Ripma. One of her concerns is political: if Metro adopts this rule, it may become the planning motivation and not just a tool. She realizes that there are safeguards in the rule, but she worries that the region will be moving toward subregional responses rather than trying to solve the larger regional issues together. She will vote no.

Chair Jordan said the question before the committee is whether the language in the recommendation is appropriate.

Councilor Ripma said it is called a tool; it is also a weapon.

6.  SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS – COMMENT ON RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Cotugno said a total of four subcommittee reports have been presented at MPAC. The Housing and Jobs Subcommittees are listed on the agenda in case anyone has comments. He noted that comments on the Parks Subcommittee and Demand Forecast Subcommittee recommendations are also welcome. The purpose of tonight’s discussion is to understand the two subcommittees’ recommendations so that MPAC can make its recommendation on the overall package that will go before the Metro Council later this fall. Executive Officer Burton will make his recommendation, the Council will take it up, and MPAC will vote on that recommendation. MPAC is not taking action tonight, but it is the culmination of the subcommittees’ hard work.

Chair Jordan said from a process perspective, he needs to know how much discussion MPAC wants to have about the subcommittee reports and any of their underlying assumptions. Those issues can then be factored into committee discussions over the next three months.

Housing Subcommittee

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the main points of the Housing Subcommittee recommendation. There is some debate about the estimated 20 percent underbuild factor and about the standard methodology for adjustments, which applies the 2000 vacant land to the 2000 zoning and forecasts from 2000 to 2022. The biggest issues are the refill rate and capture rate, in terms of making a policy judgment call and how much it will affect the final numbers.

Jobs Subcommittee

Mr. Lohman briefly reviewed the Jobs Subcommittee conclusions.

Chair Jordan asked for comments on particular pieces of any of the subcommittee reports. He made two suggestions. First, he was a bit concerned about the Parks Subcommittee report that defaulted to a need for parkland over the next 20 years based on how much the region thought it could afford. He would like to hear discussion about whether that requirement is ambitious enough. He also has significant concerns about the region’s ability to build the transportation system in the next 20 years, but he is not willing to abandon the Regional Transportation Plan and default to the $2 to 3 billion dollars the region expects to receive. Second, MPAC heard testimony some time ago about the region’s ambitions for centers: that by setting intensity levels of development that are beyond where the market will go, the region may in fact be depressing its ability to get the kind of development in centers that it wants. He is experiencing this in the Clackamas Town Center area, where values are not rising quickly enough to move to structured parking. Therefore, they are not seeing the type of redevelopment they want. He wants to discuss whether the region needs to reach its goals regarding centers in two steps rather than one.

Ms. Darcy said as a member of the Parks Subcommittee, she is also concerned about the recommendation. At the same time, the subcommittee was told that the final proposal had to be totally defensible. If financing is not available, then a higher figure is not defensible. If someone has better information, she would appreciate including it as part of MPAC’s future discussion about parks.

Mr. Lohman noted that the centers report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff does not differentiate among types of centers. In a number of Metro documents, including the Regional Transportation Plan, priorities are set. First category priorities include central cities, regional centers and industrial intermodal facilities. Station communities, main streets and town centers are secondary. It is unclear whether the centers report applies to both or just to regional centers.

Mr. Cotugno said Parson Brinckerhoff’s recommendation is to not follow a simplistic first tier/second tier designation, but to have a much more detailed focus on what is happening in each center. A focus on priorities is perhaps more a question of the center’s developmental evolution than its hierarchy. The consultants also recommended that the centers be prioritized in a way that takes advantage of the activities that are happening. They also laid out dozens of things that ought to be pursued in centers, such as constant and active community business and government leadership.

8.  ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION

Mr. Cotugno briefly reviewed the methodology report, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. The tables compose a simplistic reference to each of the criteria laid out by Goal 14. The ultimate decision will supplement that with criteria laid out by the Regional Framework Plan. Executive Officer Burton’s recommendation will be predicated on the alternatives analysis. He asked that anyone recommending that Metro include or remove a particular area from the recommendation provide Metro with supplemental data.

Chair Jordan said there will be more committee discussion once the alternatives begin to appear as locations on maps. He is trying to structure a discussion, starting in mid-August and ending in late October, that allows MPAC time to discuss all the important issues. He encouraged members to email or call him or Mr. Cotugno with suggestions for agenda items as they begin to review the reports.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR JULY 24, 2002

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