METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

January 28, 2004 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Charles Becker, Herb Brown, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Dave Fuller, Gene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Laura Hudson, Tom Hughes, Tom Imeson, Richard Kidd, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, Martha Schrader

Alternates Present: Jim Bernard, Jack Hoffman, Alice Norris

Also Present: Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Beverly Bookin, CREEC; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Danielle, Cowan, City of Wilsonville; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Ed Gallagher, City of Gresham; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Erik Kvarsten, City of Gresham; Stephen Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Charlotte Lehan, Mayor of Wilsonville; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Dave Shields, City of Gresham

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons –David Bragdon, Council President; Carl Hosticka, Council District 3; Susan McLain, Council District 4.

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dick Benner, Brenda Bernards, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill, Gerry Uba

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Mayor Charles Becker, MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:14 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Rob Drake gave an update on the RSIA subcommittee.

Tom Hughes reminded the committee that the second phase of the Agricultural Symposium was taking place on Friday, January 30^th.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for January 14, 2004.

5.  CONSIDERATION OF MTAC MEMBERS FOR 2004

Andy Cotugno directed the members to look through the MTAC list of members provided at the back of the room. That list is attached and forms part of the record. He explained that MTAC went through an annual process of reappointment and collected a list of nominations.

6.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President Bragdon outlined scheduled Council agenda items for the next few months.

Andy Cotugno said that Mary Jo Waits would be visiting town in March and she would give a presentation on The New Downtown: The Shape and Function here at Metro. The presentation would include information on the new economy and movement of people around the country. He said that they were trying to pair her up with Joe Cortright who had done work on the Portland Metropolitan Region and the changing economic characteristics and how this area compares to other parts of the country. Mary Jo Waits would be here March 8^th and 9^th and Metro was hoping for an afternoon session on one of those days.

Lisa Naito said that the first week of March the Counties would have a meeting followed very closely by a League of Cities meeting and she cautioned Andy Cotugno to try to keep those two events from overlapping.

Rob Drake said that March 6-9 the congressional delegation would be in town and as a result there would be a lot associated meetings during that period.

7.  ANNEXATION CODE CHANGES

Dan Cooper reviewed the material that was included in the packet. Those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Herb Brown asked about the abolishment of the boundary commission.

Dan Cooper said that the result of abolishing the boundary commission was to make annexations and city creation inside the three county areas to follow the same rules as the rest of the state outside of the Eugene/Springfield area. To create a new city, the county would make the decision. To do an annexation to a city, the city council would make that decision. To do an annexation to the special district was also the county’s decision. What the Metro ordinance did was set some extra notice requirements and add some additional criteria and provided a special appeals process/commission if there was a dispute between governmental entities.

Gene Grant asked if there had been new or subsequent criteria added for approval of boundary changes.

Dan Cooper said they were only trying to clarify the process. He said that the real change was that it was simplified.

8.  2003 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

Brenda Bernards reviewed the materials that were provided in the meeting packet and that were offered at the back of the room during the meeting. Those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Gerry Uba reviewed the Title 7 section of the report. Those materials were part of the meeting packet and therefore are attached and form part of the record.

Lisa Naito requested clarification on what “consideration” meant and what Metro needed from the county.

Gerry Uba said that, in the case of Multnomah County, there were two issues 1) affordable housing production goals, and 2) the City of Portland and the City of Troutdale stated in compliance report that they had taken into consideration the requirements.

Lisa Naito said she would have someone from Multnomah County contact Gerry to review that information.

9.  REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN POLICIES-ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CRITERIA

Dick Benner reviewed the materials provided in the meeting packet, those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Ed Gronke asked about the appeals process pertaining to land priorities. He was specifically concerned about Metro choosing to include land in the RSIAs that ranked higher while there was land still available at one of the lower rankings.

Dick Benner said that as long as Metro demonstrated a factual base for a decision choosing land from a higher tier before choosing some other land that ranked better, it would not necessarily be appealed.

Richard Kidd asked what effect clustering and job housing balancing had when determining which piece of land to select. He wanted to know if there was a policy that specifically addressed the ranking of land and land selection.

Dick Benner said that there was information on that in Chapter 1 of the Regional Framework Plan, which was provided in the packet. The council would have to consider that and make a finding on it about whether their choices had advanced that policy. Regarding clustering, there was evidence in the record that certain industries benefited from clustering.

Susan McLain said that Metro would have to demonstrate in the findings that a certain piece of land was unique and better than the choices not taken. She said that there was a risk involved.

Doug Neeley asked if the level of existing services in a corridor was a factor in the areas selected.

Dick Benner said that it was one of the factors in Goal 14 and there were Framework Plan policies and regional transportation policies that would have to be considered to guide a decision. He said that Metro had heard that ODOT was concerned about some areas being studied because of the capacity of the interchanges and about land capacity in those areas.

Jack Hoffman asked how the subregional discussion fit into this and would it apply to this decision.

Dick Benner said it was a policy of the regional framework plan but he did not know how it would be applied and those surrounding issues.

Andy Cotugno said that it might be better not to use the word “subregional” for this analysis as there was a whole subregional rule that Metro had not yet implemented.

Jack Hoffman said that the “subregion” was in the Functional Plan but it meant a “sub-area” and not the way the Metro had been recently using the term “subregional.”

Jack Hoffman asked where in the Framework Plan did it show or allow for a balance between the agricultural industry needs and other industrial needs.

Dick Benner said it was in Goal 14, but modified by the state priority statute. The Framework Plan policies were generally stated and didn’t determine an outcome, but rather needed to be reconciled with Goal 14.

Susan McLain said that section 1.4 applied to all consumer products, not just high tech computer chips.

Andy Cotugno said that section 1.12 on page 15 was specifically about agriculture and forest.

Gene Grant said that Metro could add new policies if they desired and that would be an amendment of the Framework Plan. One of those new policies could be against going south of the Willamette River. Then, all things being equal, if there was class II farmland that was north or south, that policy would be the bases to not take the land south of the river.

Dick Benner said he thought they could take the policy that was in the Regional Framework Plan and interpret it to mean that they would not go south of the Willamette River. Then they would have to explain who doing that would be bad for agriculture. Or they could adopt a new policy but a regional policy would have to fit into state law. He said it was a good policy and the Metro Council could use it, but not to included class I farmland in the boundary and decide not to take an exception land because it was between two communities. State law said you had to take the exception land first.

Susan McLain said they would have to determine which was riskier. Was it riskier to make a new proposal or use existing policies?

Tom Hughes asked if Dick Benner thought that any interpretation of state law had changed as a result of the situation.

Dick Benner said it might have been refined, especially with LCDC’s acknowledgment of what Metro sent down to them after the UGB expansion.

Tom Hughes said that with the inclusion of the concept of livability in the North Plains area that things went from very clear cut to very muddy.

Dick Benner said that livability was a tag-on to one of the need factors in Goal 14. Livability was treated more as a choice of land as opposed to a livability need that must be accommodated.

Doug Neeley said that they could adopt a policy of livability that stated they would not develop south of the Willamette and Metro would not necessarily be hurt by it.

Tom Imeson asked if it was a process of considering the practical application of a policy and determining if they get you to a place that makes it impossible to reach the goal that you started with.

Dick Benner said that there was no state law that Metro have the policies that it has. Metro policies would have to give way to state law if there was ever a conflict.

Tom Imeson said then it was a point of policy rather than a rigid application.

Dick Benner said that there was state law to protect farmland and there was also state law regarding a healthy economy. Those sometimes could be reconciled by making good choices, but not always.

Susan McLain said that Metro had policy that said they had to do a better job with land inside the boundary. Therefore, they did have a responsibility in the Regional Framework Plan to do the best they can with what they had. It would require flexibility.

Dick Benner asked if she meant the clause about efficient use of the land?

Susan McLain said yes.

Dick Benner said it was in the Regional Framework Plan and also in Goal 14, which emphasized efficiency, and Goal 2, which listed the exception criteria. Metro had interpreted those laws to mean that if they find they don’t have enough capacity inside the UGB to accommodate forecast need, and then their first step was to look inside the UGB for efficiencies. This meant changing something to increase the capacity of the existing UGB, and it was only after they did those to some degree that they could look outside to bring in new land.

There being no further business, Chair Becker adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR JANUARY 28, 2004

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