METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

March 24, 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, Judie Hammerstad, John Hartsock, Tom Hughes, Kent Hutchinson, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Deanna Mueller-Crispin, Doug Neeley, Dan Saltzman, Martha Schrader

Alternates Present: Richard Carson, Tim Crail, John Leeper,

Also Present: Betty Atteberry, Westside Economic Alliance; Linda Bauer, Citizen; Ann Beier, DLCD; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Jim Bernard, City of Milwaukie; Beverly Bookin, CCA/CREEC; Donald Bratsch, Coalition to Save the Valley; Al Burns, City of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Gary Clifford, Multnomah County; Valerie Counts, Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Bob Durgan, Anderson Construction; Kay Durtschi, MTAC; Andy Duyck, Washington County; Ed Gallagher, City of Gresham; Bill Hayhurst, Coalition to Save the Valley; R. Scott Hemble, Clackamas County; Kathy Henton, MCCI & Gresham CIC; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Delna Jones, CFM; Jackson Kellogg, Citizen; Norm King, City of West Linn; Curt Kipp, Wilsonville Spokesman Newspaper; Larry Ksiouzyk, DLCD; Hannah Kuhn, City of Portland; Stephen Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Charlotte Lehan, City of Wilsonville; Greg Leo, Coalition to Save the Valley; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Anthony Merrill, Mayor’s Office; Greg Miller, AGC; Alice Norris, City of Oregon City; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Steve Pfeiffer, Perkins Coie; John Ramig, Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Robert Russell, Coalition to Save the Valley; Amy Scheckla-Cox, City of Cornelius; Dolores Scott, Coalition to Save the Valley; Dr,. Chas Scott, Coalition to Save the Valley; Susan Stevens, Coalition to Save the Valley; Thane Tienson, Landye Bennett; Jonathan Williams, Intel; David Zagel, TriMet

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

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill, Linnea Nelson, Mary Weber, Ray Valone

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Mayor Charles Becker, MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Becker handed out a memo regarding Healthy Centers, A Strategy for MPAC Action, and said he would speak more directly to the subject at the end of the meeting if time allowed.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

Greg Leo said that there were a number of parties from the southern part of the region that were interested in the discussion pertaining to Ordinance 04-1041A.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for March 10, 2004.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President Bragdon said that Ordinance 04-1046 would be on the Council agenda the following day. He mentioned the open houses that Metro had been holding pertaining to Goal 5 and Industrial Lands and informed the members that there would be a summary of those open houses presented at the next MPAC meeting. He also informed the committee members that Council would be reviewing the Metro budget over the course of the next few weeks.

6.  ORDINANCE 04-1041

Councilor Hosticka gave a brief description of Ordinance 04-1041.

Tom Hughes asked if Councilor Hosticka was planning on applying the ordinance as policy to the upcoming Urban Growth Boundary Expansion decision in June.

Carl Hosticka said that if it was adopted now it would become part of policy for the June decision.

Tom Hughes asked at what point and time between now and June would they establish the criteria that they would use to determine which lands would be off limits and which lands would be considered?

Carl Hosticka said that the work on that had already begun, the report from the Department of Agriculture would help them begin that work, and they would most likely adopt it before they begin to make decisions about policy.

Tom Hughes said he felt there was a broad agreement to protect agricultural land, but not a consensus on what criteria to apply to which lands. There was a need to establish criteria to determine which lands were essential and which lands were not essential. He was concerned that there would be enough time between now and June to have the Department of Agriculture create, and then vet among various stakeholders, criteria and still make the decision by June.

Judie Hammerstad said that was a good reason for passing the motion now. The ordinance would protect the farmland. She also said that she felt it would end land speculation. They couldn’t predict the future, but maybe by passing the ordinance they could demonstrate that as a committee they valued farmland, and maybe that would carry weight next time a decision needed to be made. She urged support for the ordinance.

Doug Neeley said he supported the ordinance.

Tom Hughes asked Carl Hosticka if he felt there was time to set the criteria?

Carl Hosticka said that he thought there was time. The staff report would be available shortly and they had a couple more months until June to discuss it more broadly.

Herb Brown said it was a good idea to protect the farmland but he wondered if there could be a provision to examine it again in 5-years.

Kent Hutchinson said that he was not convinced that the brain trust was the State Department of Agriculture. He said that he supported the amendment, but he was concerned that they would not have enough time to query farmers. He said it needed to be tied to the economic reality of a community. He also said that he did not think that Metro had legal authority to cross over into Marion County unless they were invited. He suggested that Metro consult with Marion County.

John Leeper said that he did not see the purpose in making a site-specific exclusion such as the Willamette River or the Pudding River. He said that they were moving from creating general policy to being site-specific.

Susan McLain said that the criteria were important. She said that staff from the Department of Agriculture had attended all 5 Agricultural Symposiums that they have had in Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah counties. She said that the Department of Agriculture and the staff members had been working on this for 18 months. Metro had tried hard to make sure that that the work was thorough and complete.

Kent Hutchinson said that there had to be more time for public comment.

Doug Neeley said he thought there would be public comment at the Council meetings when this came forward.

David Bragdon said that any time they had an ordinance they also had public hearings. He said that when he scheduled the ordinance it would be in conjunction with the UGB ordinance, which was noticed to 65 thousand households, and that there were three scheduled evening hearings in the region.

Kent Hutchinson said that he did not think that was the type of forum farmers would attend and Metro should advertise those hearings in the Capital Press.

Carl Hosticka said that the major issue was should they adopt the ordinance, as a matter of policy, in their desire to preserve the importance of agricultural land and its contribution to the agricultural economy. Whether they applied the ordinance to the June decision depended on whether they could develop criteria between now and June. That was probably why it was even more important to pass the ordinance now, because if they had to wait for the criteria to be developed, it could potentially slow down the process.

Rob Drake said that he agreed with the letter from the Port of Portland distributed at the last meeting, that stressed the value of that area and property for industrial land for warehousing. He said that MPAC balanced goals in the region all the time.

Richard Carson said that Commissioner Pridemore supported the ordinance.

Tom Hughes said he needed to see the criteria before he could feel comfortable about what he was voting on. He said that 130 acres south of the Willamette was a golf course and not farmland and therefore the land was not pristine farmland.

Judie Hammerstad said that golf courses were a permitted use on farmland, like churches and schools. The only way they could give permanence to this was through the state legislator or through Metro’s charter. She suggested that they pass this ordinance and show MPAC support for the concept, and then it would move to the next part of the process.

Chair Becker said it was important to protect agricultural lands and keep compact urban forms. He said it was important to draw the line somewhere. He said that they needed to support investments made in infrastructure and not create additional needs for other infrastructures. They were also concerned about maintaining the jobs/housing balance within the region. He said he would vote in favor of the ordinance.

7.  TITLE 4 RSIA ORDINANCES/SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE & MTAC COMMENTS

Rob Drake said that the subcommittee had met one more time and produced the document that was included in the packet. Members of the subcommittee felt that there was not enough time to consider medical facilities and their use in industrial lands. A Providence representative was at that last meeting. He said that the subcommittee was asking for Metro to appoint a fast-track committee to look at the issue of medical facilities on a limited basis in industrial areas. Metro could finish the periodic review in June and allow more time for experts and folks to examine the issue.

Mary Weber handed out a revised/updated version of the Title 4 language. She reviewed the materials that were included in the packet and those that were handed out at the meeting from the MTAC discussion. All those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Hal Bergsma reviewed the green copy that included the changes provided by the RSIA Subcommittee. That copy is attached and forms part of the record.

Vera Katz asked what they wanted the MPAC members to do.

Hal Bergsma said that this was an alternative that could be explored as well as the existing option.

Dave Fuller said he would like an overview of what properties would be on the RSIA map. He said that he understood that it would only be applied to lands brought in on the last addition to the UGB unless the local jurisdiction made a request. He said he had concern that Troutdale, Fairview, and Wood Village continued to carry that designation.

David Bragdon said that portions of it did not just apply to RSIA. He said that in terms of amending the map – they would be able to do that after they heard from the members. He said that he could not speak for the Council, but he thought that there was a move to make an amendment for the areas that Dave Fuller was speaking to.

Andy Cotugno said that the proposed version of Title 4 was supposed to be accompanied by the map that represented the RSIAs recommended by the local governments. At the next meeting they should be ready to make a recommendation on both the map and the language of the ordinance. Therefore, if there was an area that they specifically wanted included or excluded, that should be part of the recommendation. Andy Cotugno said that the RSIAs that came in during 2002 were already adopted as RSIAs and were not part of this effort. It was the territory inside the old UGB that was in question, and their recommendation at the next meeting should be explicit about what areas would be included and what areas would be taken out.

Doug Neeley said that the wording in the ordinance “training facilities primary purpose was to provide training for industrial workers” might imply to jurisdictions only current industrial workers. He wanted the jurisdictions to understand that it was for the industry and would provide training for future employees as well.

Chair Becker said that the question would be whether or not they had a training facility that was connected to an industry or an independent training facility for a type of industry.

Doug Neeley said it should provide for both types of training. He said he was not just talking about in-house training, but rather any kind of training that was needed.

Rob Drake said he thought it would be for future industrial needs. They didn’t know what those future industries would be and therefore should keep the provision as broad as they could.

John Hartsock said that for the Damascus area – it was the only area that had no ability to choose where the RSIAs were to be located. He said that beyond the question of hospital needs, they had other institutional needs to consider, such as the two high schools, four middle schools, and ten elementary schools. They, therefore, needed to get through the concept plan.

Chair Becker said the concept plan helped jurisdictions to consider the full community and the sort of facilities needed within that community.

John Hartsock said that the RSIA had a little bit stronger designation.

Tom Hughes said that Hillsboro would like to see an increase of square footage of allowable retail use. He said that currently Hillsboro had an industrial complex that employed about 45,000 people during the day, and a 3,000 square foot limit wouldn’t be enough for a Carl’s Jr. So they were looking for a more workable square footage that would allow them to provide restaurant space that wouldn’t require business to go outside the area. If they weren’t able to build adequate restaurant space into the industrial areas then there was also the consideration of an additional burden on traffic because employees would have to leave area to eat. He suggested that 5,000 square feet for the seating area was more workable. He agreed with the general discussion that medical and hospital facilities were needed around the region, and to accommodate that need there should be maximum flexibility for those requirements. He suggested that a more reasonable approach would be to continue with the current language in the ordinance and make changes later, after the study on medical facilities was complete.

Gene Grant asked Mayor Drake if the subcommittee’s recommendation to study the hospital issue further was related to the Clackamas County RSIA areas brought in 2002, or was it only for the existing industrial areas that were non-RSIA?

Rob Drake said he thought it was a good idea to take a good look at that area whether it was RSIA or industrial land to figure out what needed to be done.

Andy Cotugno said that there was a discrepancy about the 3,000 versus the 5,000 square foot restaurant seating space that he wanted to clarify. He said that at MTAC they were clearly talking about 3,000 square feet in regionally significant industrial areas. They had debated 3,000 versus 5,000 versus 7,500 square feet for the industrial areas. The recommendation from Hal Bergsma retained the 3,000 square feet in regionally significant and purposed to change the industrial to 5,000 square feet. He said that what the subcommittee submitted to him supported MTAC’s action. He said that the philosophy that MTAC was employing was that things should be a bit tighter in RSIA and a bit looser in industrial.

Rob Drake said that he was willing to have the subcommittee to weigh-in on that issue. He said he thought that could apply to both areas.

Chair Becker said that perhaps it should go back to the subcommittee.

Susan McLain reminded the committee that it had a June decision deadline. She said there was a difference of opinion between MTAC and MPAC, and that MPAC should weigh through that and make a decision.

Doug Neeley asked if the subcommittee could come back with a recommendation at the next meeting.

Rob Drake said that he thought they could.

Dave Fuller said that his understanding from that discussion had been that 5,000 square feet would apply to both types of land.

Rob Drake said that he also thought it was 5,000 square feet for both.

Chair Becker asked the subcommittee members present to affirm that. They did, and it was agreed that 5,000 square feet for both types of land was what it should be.

Andy Cotugno said that Metro staff would incorporate the revisions and have that for the members at the next meeting along with the accompanying map.

8.  ORDINANCE 04-1046

Ray Valone reviewed the ordinance and its background. That ordinance, and staff report were part of the meeting packet and therefore form a part of the record.

Chair Becker reviewed the handout, Strategy for Creating Healthy Centers, which he had passed out at the beginning of the meeting. That handout is attached and forms part of the record.

John Hartsock said that the Greater Metropolitan Employment Lands Study (GMELS) process was about 4 years long and he wanted to know if Metro was committed to doing the entire process?

Andy Cotugno said that Metro was not doing the study but was participating with 10 or more other government and private organizations that were doing it on a consortium basis. The first phase was a sculpting process to identify the problem and identify the work program to examine that problem. When that phase was done, all those parties would get together to review and decide if they wanted to move on to the next step and continue to contribute. He said that the next step was slated to take place about July of 2004.

Tom Hughes said it was a great idea and that they really did need to have collective efforts on how to develop centers. There were jurisdictions that were encountering problems.

David Bragdon said that he thought the Council would be receptive to partnering in the endeavor. The Council had identified this as an area that they wanted to work on.

Chair Becker suggested forming a subcommittee and he asked those that wanted to be on the subcommittee to email him before the next meeting.

Doug Neeley asked if the subcommittee could only be comprised of members of MPAC or could jurisdictions with centers actually put someone forward to participate.

Chair Becker said it was his hope that jurisdictions would participate. He stressed that those struggling should come to express questions and concerns and that those that were successful also come to share their expertise.

There being no further business, Chair Becker adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR MARCH 24, 2004

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