METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

October 22, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Charles Becker, Rob Drake, Dave Fuller, Gene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Laura Hudson, Tom Hughes, Kent Hutchinson, Richard Kidd, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, Craig Pridemore, Dan Saltzman

Alternates Present: Jim Bernard, Larry Cooper, John Leeper

Also Present: Betty Atteberry, Westside Economic Alliance; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Beverly Bookin, CCA/CREEC; Al Burns, City of Portland; Cindy Catto, AGC; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Kay Durtschi, MTAC; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Chris Eaton, Angelo Easton & Assoc.; Elissa Gertler, PDC; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Norm King, City of West Linn; Jim Labbe, Audubon Society of Portland; Stephen Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Charlotte Lehan, City of Wilsonville; Sue Marshall, Tualatin Riverkeepers; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Karen McKinney, City of Hillsboro; Michael Morrissey, Inst. Portland Metropolitan Studies; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; John Pinkstaff, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Amy Scheckla-Cox, City of Cornelius; Paul Thalhofer, City of Troutdale; Deng Xiao Ping, PRC

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – David Bragdon, Council President; Brian Newman, Council District 2; Rod Park, Council District 1. Other: Susan McLain, Council District 4; Carl Hosticka, Council District 3

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Chris Deffebach, Paul Garrahan, Karen Withrow, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Mayor Tom Hughes, MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were none.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for October 8, 2003.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President Bragdon said that the Council had approved the 217 Corridor Study and they would be considering the Powell/Foster Corridor study at the next meeting. He said that there would be two hearings in Council this year for Goal 5 and the ESEE Analysis. He said that the Title 4 RSIAs were also coming up on the Council agenda this year.

6.  RESOLUTION NO. 03-3376

Mayor Hughes introduced the resolution and Chris Deffebach gave an overview of the resolution and reviewed copies of slides that she handed out to the members. That handout is attached and forms part of the record. She also reviewed materials included in the packet, which are also attached and form part of the record.

Brian Newman asked if she would characterize the MTAC comments as clarifications or substantive changes.

Chris Deffebach said she would characterize them as clarifications.

Brian Newman asked if it was an MTAC recommendation that they remove the allow designations?

Chris Deffebach said no, it was a comment for consideration.

Andy Cotugno said that the most substantive policy issue the MTAC raised was what factors should define the economic importance in an area that established how it was traded off against the ecological importance of an area. The table that was currently recommended recognized three factors that establish places of most economic importance: land value, employment numbers in a vicinity, and significant industrial land. MTAC raised the question of whether to consider industrial areas and corridors as also having the highest importance. Those were currently designated at lower levels. He said that MTAC had not reached a recommendation on that.

Chris Deffebach also reviewed comments from Goal 5 TAC, WRPAC, and ETAC and IEAB.

Doug Neeley asked if Option 4 was essentially Title 3.

Chris Deffebach said that it was.

Doug Neeley asked if the MTAC recommendation for Option 1 was to “limit” riparian instead of “allow.”

Chris Deffebach said MTAC suggested strengthening the level of protection in all the riparian corridors to be “limit.”

Rob Drake said that it would be interesting to see what impact the final ESEE work would have on the actual properties. He was very interested in the results of the ESEE analysis. He said it was difficult to understand how it would all balance out.

Doug Neeley asked if there was any distinction made between perennial and intermittent streams for Option 3.

Andy Cotugno said that the point behind that Option was to take the fairly simple framework that was already adopted for Title 3 and try to extend it to work more comprehensively for fish and wildlife habitat. In Title 3, they had adopted a 15-ft setback requirement on intermittent streams, a 50-ft setback on most other streams, and up to 200-ft on steep slopes. This option would extend those numbers.

Doug Neeley asked if when the report referred to secondary streams it meant intermittent streams.

Andy Cotugno said yes.

John Leeper said that if the ESEE analysis could be simplified, it would be tremendous. He felt it would be too technical for the general public.

Council President Bragdon said that there were handouts that were somewhat simplified and referred to the buff colored handouts that the members had received and that are attached and form part of the record.

John Hartsock said that none of the ESEE process was locked in stone – it was just being accepted by Council to move forward to the next step of the process.

Andy Cotugno said that was correct. It was a preliminary ESEE analysis based on a broad regional picture. The final program would also incorporate corrections and revisions over time, so it was an ongoing process.

Council President Bragdon said that it was a significant step, however, since there were some options that would be excluded at this point of the process.

Ed Gronke said that he had attempted to explain the ESEE process to three CPOs and their eyes glazed over pretty early in the presentation. He said that landowners would have great concern about what the ESEE program would mean to their personal property. He said he was concerned that the public did not comprehend what was happening with the Goal 5 work.

Gene Grant said that he that he was concerned about the part of the resolution that said “won’t result with the taking.” He said that the program might be buildable for some parcels, but there was concern that each property owner would have the ability to realize the value of their property. The resolution needed to provide more reassurance that the program would avoid going to the extreme edge.

Kent Hutchinson said he was not sure that Metro was getting word out to people about the program.

Andy Cotugno and Chris Deffebach reviewed the decision schedule and outreach opportunities for the next fourteen months.

Chris Deffebach said that that Metro had notified property owners when the riparian and wildlife inventory had been completed and that Metro planned to notified property owners again when the options portion of the ESEE program was completed in the spring.

Kent Hutchinson said he was worried that notification at that point might be too late to make significant changes to the process.

Mayor Hughes said it would be helpful to get a motion.

Rob Drake asked Susan McLain to comment on the motion.

Susan McLain said that her understanding was that changing from “allow” to “lightly limit” would provide more protection.

Carl Hosticka said it was a recommendation for defining an option for the purpose of study and not a recommendation to adopt an option or program. The concern triggering the discussion at Goal 5 WRPAC was related to a comment in the vision statement about a continuous ecological corridor: if you were to “allow” development anywhere within that corridor, then they were potentially disrupting continuity. In order to have an option that laid out the possibility of preserving what continuity, it was proposed that the option be designed in such a way as to accomplish that.

Rob Drake asked if that option were adopted how did it vary from state Goal 5 and local law?

Carl Hosticka said that there was a potential conflict between that option and the taking of property.

Rob Drake said that they didn’t want to get into a taking of property but rather enhance the existing resources. His concern was that they were trying to do both when they couldn’t. He said that nonuse was the same as taking.

Carl Hosticka said that the opposite of allow was not prohibit. The way that the word “allow” was used meant unconditional use. There would not be a true “allow” by that definition; it would likely be limited by existing regulations. There could be use under certain conditions.

Paul Garrahan said that under the Goal 5 rule “allow” meant that you would not prohibit any use. There was a concern that an “allow” would not provide for some regulation to require mitigation. Their concern was to have a continuous ecologically viable corridor that might allow some development to occur, but you would also allow mitigation (if it did occur). In order to ensure that there was some mitigation to help the ecological viability of the stream if development occurred, it should be lightly “limited.” The concept of “lightly limited” was that some development would occur but mitigation would also occur.

Chris Deffebach pointed out that in the draft report, page 6, there were three options listed.

Andy Cotugno said that the motion would change the “allow” to “lightly limit” in the class 3 riparian and in the impact areas riparian in Option 1C.

John Hartsock asked if, as they were going deeper into this, they could have “allow” come back in as a solution, or would it forever be precluded from this point forward?

Chris Deffebach referred to Option 4 which basically put “allow” back in the existing conditions.

7.  PERIODIC REVIEW SCHEDULE

Andy Cotugno gave an overview of the schedule for the Periodic Review process. That schedule was part of the packet and is attached and forms part of the record.

8.  TITLE 4 RSIA ORDINANCES

Rob Drake said that there had recently been some intense comments in Washington County from industry regarding Title 4 mapping and language. He said that they were very interested and concerned about the Title 4 process and where it had reached. Their main concerns were with the 1000 employee minimum and the definition of industrial land. He suggested that the Council President and the MPAC Chair convene an informal group of planning directors and a few captains of industry who were expressing these concerns, somewhere outside of Metro, to discuss the issue and find common ground.

Council President Bragdon said that he and the MPAC Chair had met for an hour before the meeting to discuss this and their conclusion was similar. He agreed that more discussion would be helpful. He said that they did not, however, want to go back 10 months and discuss the original objective, which most of MPAC had subscribed to at the time, which was trying to be responsive to the need for large scale industrial sites. The recognition of that led to the remedies that they had been pursuing such as UGB expansion, safeguarding the industrial land that currently existed, accommodating expansion efficiently, and preventing encroachment on industrial areas. The road to achieving those goals was paved with complications and perils. He said that they did not want to have unintended consequences. Reactions to the process so far had been varied and in some cases opposing. He said that the types of informal discussions that Mayor Drake had suggested were appropriate. Metro had no consensus on the work done so far and wanted to address the need for industrial employment in the region.

Chair Hughes said that he supported the comments that both Rob Drake and David Bragdon had made. He said that for almost every decision they had made there was a process that involved starting out with a concept that most of them thought was a good concept, and then as they worked through towards the end, more and more concerns and opposing views were identified. He said he felt that in the end, though, they always seemed to have a final product that almost everyone could work with.

Dave Fuller said he would like to comment representing Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village. He said that Metro was considering almost all the developable property in their areas as part of the process. He said that his three cities, plus Gresham, had been working diligently for over two years to formulate a plan to develop and diversify so that they wouldn’t be the hardest hit next time there was an economic recession. He said that they wanted to develop their areas and they felt that Title 4 would destroy their plans and chances for development. He said that they did not want rail moved out of Portland to their areas. He said that they wanted to enhance their area and provide industrial locations for their cities and not use prime land for railway or warehousing. They were concerned with providing more employment density for their cities.

Chair Hughes asked Mary Weber to give her presentation and then they would have comments after the presentation.

Mary Weber reviewed the handouts (Title 4 Regionally Significant Industrial Areas Code Changes and Map Adoption Critical Dates and Timeline, Resolution Packet, Title 4 RSIA Standards, Freight Designation Map, Assessment of Potential Regionally Significant Industrial Areas Packet, Recommended Factors for identifying RSIAs, Summary of July 2003 Jurisdictional meeting, Regionally Significant Industrial Areas map for Portland and Troutdale, Regionally Significant Industrial Areas map for Hillsboro, and Regionally Significant Industrial Areas map for Tualatin/Sherwood/Wilsonville) and those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Doug Neeley said the corporate headquarters restrictions were not clear. He said it was more logical to look at headquarters from the standpoint of employment densities and proportion of land taken rather than have the 1000 minimum employment requirement. He said that many of the companies that could locate in the region might have good employment potential but not necessarily huge headquarter requirements. He recommended that jurisdictional ordinances on industrial significant land allow training in the facilities if the training and education served industry-wide needs. It would make a great deal of difference to community colleges and universities in terms of where they would like to add satellite programs.

Susan McLain that they had gone more towards general language so that the local zoning would define what industry really was. It was a difficult balance between specificity and openness.

Chair Hughes said that there were only two corporate headquarters that had more than 1000 employees in Oregon. Nike had started the headquarters with 100 people and then later evolved. He said they also had to take into account the real picture.

John Leeper said that there always seemed to be a contingent that came on the scene late in the process. He said maybe Metro should slow down the process and let them have a say in the planning.

Chair Hughes said that the schedule called for them to make a decision by December 10, 2003 so they would not be able to slow down the process because the rest of the stuff couldn’t go forward without the decision. He recommended that they reviewed the maps and ordinances with their individual professionals and identify where they had grievances, then bring that back to Metro staff. He thought it might be possible to have some Metro staff visit individual jurisdictions to talk about their concerns before December 10^th.

Dave Fuller said that if they looked at the amount of regionally significant land in Fairview and Troutdale versus the whole city area, the ratios were considerably greater. To go forward with it as it was now would significantly restrict their options for growth.

John Leeper asked if the December date was inscribed in stone.

Council President Bragdon said that LCDC had given them that date.

Chair Hughes told the members that they needed to review the materials because RSIA would be on the agenda again at the next meeting.

Council President Bragdon said that this process was an attempt to respond to the market niche about limited lands in the region for industrial employment. It was not Metro’s prescription that the whole world would be working in manufacturing or that Metro did not like offices or retail. They were trying to preserve industrial land for industrial purposes.

Chair Hughes reminded the members about the Agricultural Symposium on October 31^st at the Holiday Inn in Wilsonville at 8:30.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR OCTOBER 22, 2003

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