METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

July 9, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Rob Drake, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, Judie Hammerstad, Alan Hipolito, John Hartsock, Tom Hughes, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Mark Knudsen, Doug Neeley, Cheryl Perrin, Craig Pridemore, Dan Saltzman, Martha Schrader

Alternates Present: Alice Norris, David Ripma

Also Present: Linda Bower, Citizen; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Elissa Gertler, PDC; Holly Iburg, Newland Communities; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Norm King, City of West Linn; Hannah Kuhn, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Tom Maletis, Land Owner; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Karen McKinney, City of Hillsboro; Greg Miller, AGC; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Jack Orchard, Ball Janik; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Amy Scheckla-Cox, City of Cornelius; Damon Sloudemire, FMSP

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – David Bragdon, Council President; Brian Newman, Council District 2

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dick Benner, Brenda Bernards, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Marci LaBerge, Lydia Neill, Tim O’Brien, Sherry Oeser, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Mayor Tom Hughes, MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Hughes alerted the members to the brochure “Industrial Business Parks” available for their review. This brochure is attached and forms part of the record.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summaries for June 11 and June 25, 2003.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President David Bragdon said the next council meeting was going to be in Lake Oswego. He said that the Council would discuss industrial lands at that meeting. Items for the following week included the summarized corridor work program and then an amendment to the RTP to include the auxiliary lanes on I-205. He also mentioned that they would be meeting at the City of Fairview the following week.

6.  PERIODIC REVIEW

Andy Cotugno introduced the Industrial Land Locational and Siting Criteria memo included in the packet. He then introduced Tim O’Brien, Metro Planning.

Tim O’Brien reviewed the draft map on Identifying 2003 Industrial Land Alternatives Analysis Study Areas.

Andy Cotugno said the priority statute, when they get to the point of amending the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), would control and require that they look at the Tier 1, 2, 3 and 4 lands first. He said that a lot of that exception territory was very hilly, parcelized, developed, and residential. That was why they were recommending more lands for study. He said that the hierarchy would apply based upon the needs for industrial land not for residential land. The MTAC recommendation was to proceed with the new study areas but with some trepidation about the area south of Wilsonville. He said that area was a big issue because of a significant farm base in Marion County and in Clackamas County inside the UGB. He went over the specific issues raised by MTAC by reviewing the memo, MTAC Recommendation Regarding Industrial Land Alternative Analysis Study Areas, which is attached and forms part of this record.

Doug McClain said it would be helpful for MPAC members to hear why they would include the Wilsonville area before making a recommendation to the Council.

Dick Benner said the process involved first looking at what land was needed, then to fill that need by reviewing land that was designated urban reserve. If there wasn’t any land left that was designated urban reserve, then look at exception land, and so on until the highest quality farmland was reached, which would be the lowest priority. As Metro had exhausted the opportunity to use exception land and it was time to look at the lowest priority of land, Metro was required to look at all of the lowest quality agricultural land based upon the criteria that they had selected. He said that the criteria determined where and why the study areas were selected. That did not mean that those areas had to be taken into the boundary, but it did mean that they had to be studied. He said that they should look at all the land that met the siting factors.

Charles Becker asked if there was anything in state law that precluded Metro from focusing in one geographic direction, or did state law require that they always look at it in terms of an ever-growing circle?

Dick Benner said that the LCDC had adopted a subregional rule, which had not been used yet. It would allow Metro to take regional need for industrial and housing and focus it in one or more parts of the region. The rule would allow that it apply the established priority of lands only in that part of the region.

Doug Neeley said that south of Wilsonville was a major issue. He said that he did believe that there were boundaries which Metro should not cross. He said that once Metro started moving south in that direction they open themselves to unanticipated sprawl. Some changes in Marion County could trigger unexpected consequences in terms of UGB expansion. He said that he felt there were certain areas within the Metro region that Metro should not expand into and this area may be one of them.

Cheryl Perrin said that the Port of Portland strongly felt that the study area needed to be extended south of Wilsonville. It was the one region that could accommodate warehousing and distribution, high tech, and general industrial. She said that a complete and thorough study would include that area since there was already a transportation infrastructure in place. She urged that the study area include the land south of Wilsonville.

Chair Hughes asked the members to review the letter from Canby, which is attached and forms part of the record.

Rob Drake said that Cheryl Perrin had made a good argument. He said that Metro would be remiss not to take an honest look at the whole region. He said MPAC should not limit it before doing the basic evaluation.

Charlotte Lehan said that the City of Wilsonville was not supportive of going south of the river. She said it was a huge policy issue. She was concerned that the technical criteria would support that area as prime for industrial development when she felt that policy should be the real deciding factor in that decision. She said that industrial and commercial development would dominate that area, and that Wilsonville had the real possibility of becoming Portland’s Bellview. She said that if that was what the region really wanted then the centers projects and planning would become moot because Wilsonville would be the next major center. She said they would be headed all the way to Woodburn if they went in that direction. She said it was reasonable for MPAC to make a policy decision on whether to go south of the river. They should look at the criteria carefully and to understand all the qualifications for developing there.

Brian Newman asked if there was a legally defensible policy that would provide that they don’t go east of the Sandy River or south of the Willamette River?

Dick Benner said that when it was discussed at MTAC, the focus was on the factors of the criteria. He said that the Metro staff had set those factors so, essentially, they could be changed. However, once those factors were changed they would still have to be applied consistently.

Brian Newman said that he felt that there was little enthusiasm for folks to go south of the Willamette. There was an interest at looking at EFU land on the west side adjacent to Hillsboro, Forest Grove, and Cornelius, however, and if those areas were selected at some point that it was done in a legally defensible process.

Doug Neeley said that just because a suburban community was currently in existence was not a good argument to jump the river and develop industrial business.

Rob Drake said that the region was working hard to find industrial land to build the 20-year base. The difficulty was that some communities had not provided for a 20-year land supply. Their goal was to stay healthy as a region financially through jobs and quality of life. He said he was perplexed knowing that the county line would stop south of the bridge. He said that Metro could not stop development between the Willamette River and Woodburn anyway. It seemed that the river had already been broached. He said that MPAC had set limits many times, and that looking at the proximity of the property and at the valley, Wilsonville had a nice industrial center. The region, however, needed another 1900 more industrial acres and south of Wilsonville appeared to be a great spot in terms of access to I-5 and the valley. He said that it made sense to include it in the study.

David Bragdon said that Charlotte Lehan had raised some valid concerns. He said that they needed to distinguish between the technical work and policy work. He said that the technical work should not preordain any particular policy outcome, nor should they allow current policy choices to short-circuit or jeopardize the technical work. He said that once the study of all the acres was done and they had arrived at roughly a 2000-acre supply, then the policy discussion should take place. The industrial land decision needed to be safeguarded for specific industrial purposes. Redevelopment was also a huge concern and they would touch on it through the centers discussion. He said that the policy issues needed to be addressed at the right time and with the right tools.

Judie Hammerstad said that the technical analysis of regional need could provide an answer that would be in total conflict with what the local government wanted to do. Charlotte Lehan did not have a vision of Wilsonville as an industrial center. If MPAC decided on a particular use that the local jurisdiction violently opposed, that local implementer would face severe problems. She said that the technical analysis needed to come first but that she hoped the policy overlay was going to be up to the decision makers.

Doug Neeley said that MPAC was the policy advisory body. Their job was to listen to the technical work that came before them, but it was the place to discuss it and vote on it. He said that he felt this issue was a policy issue.

Charlotte Lehan said that there was nothing in the technical criteria that would prevent the area south of the Willamette ranking number one as the place to increase industrial land supply. She said she felt they should frame a policy decision right now. Charboneau had been a problem since development particularly in terms of infrastructure and the lack of surface connection. She said they would need a third bridge in that area because the other two were nearly at maximum capacity for I-5 traffic, which did not address the local traffic problems.

Craig Pridemore said that Clark County would like to be considered when looking at the regional picture. He said that they could possibly accommodate limited warehouse expansion.

Vera Katz thought his suggestion was good. Clark County had the housing but not the jobs. Portland’s transportation system was ready to collapse and the identified infrastructure improvements were huge. The two states had agreed on what needed to be done, but the costs were enormous. She said they should look at demographics analysis and the current economic situation in conjunction with the regionally significant industrial areas including Clark County. These things needed scrutiny before moving into agricultural and forest lands.

Andy Cotugno said that the Council had adopted the analysis that determined the need for industrial acreage. That analysis had been predicated on the historical rate of job capture. The amount of residential land added to the UGB to meet the need was based upon 68% capture rate. The amount of job land that included the outstanding 2,000-acres was based on 75% job capture rate.

Tom Hughes asked at what point in the process would that determination of whether to include Clark County or not need to take place?

Andy Cotugno said it would need to take place concurrently with the determination of how much to expand. If they wanted to look at the 75% capture rate, and whether including Clackamas County figures would change that capture rate, they should revisit it before proceeding with the 2,000-acre expansion.

Tom Hughes said that they still had to go through the legal steps before any of it would be added as EFU land.

Andy Cotungo said that if Council adopted a conclusion that more jobs would go to Clark County and less within the Metro UGB, then Metro would have to monitor the job growth in Clark County. In the next periodic review, if that change had not occurred then they would have to compensate in the next decision. It would be an ongoing obligation.

Craig Pridemore said the county was looking for a legal option to add industrial lands in the Clark County area. He said that the Board of Commissioners would be taking an extremely tight stance on residential and an aggressive stance on jobs growth. If Metro were to adopt a lower capture rate, he felt he would be able to make a good argument with Washington State for more job growth in Clark County. He said it would be great if this was part of the MPAC discussion.

Charles Becker wondered if when they were talking about industrial lands they were thinking specifically about distribution centers and warehousing.

Andy Cotugno said that they were looking at all industrial land needs, but there was a strong portion of it, 70%, that was warehousing and distribution. Clearly the I-5 and 205 corridors was the primary area of interest for that district.

Ed Gronke said that if it appeared that the majority of MPAC members felt that no matter what happened they did not want to expand south of the river – why spend the money to study that land in the first place?

Tom Hughes said that in order to meet the criteria and the legal requirements Metro had to include areas of little interest along with those highly desired areas in the analysis.

Alan Hipolito asked if there was a legally defensible reason to study or not to study that area south of Wilsonville.

Dick Benner said that whatever the criteria or factors used in the study, that criteria had to be consistently applied. He said that the criteria could be revisited.

Dan Cooper said that they were talking about physical factors that relate to the land, and not regional policy drivers. Once they make the policy decision then regional policies could be applied when choosing from the same level of priority under state law. He said that they would need to identify a physical factor to exclude an area from the study. Once the study was consistent and complete then they would be able to consider the policy factors. If they were not consistent in what areas were studied, then it could be challenged. He suggested that they should study all areas that met the criteria.

Gene Grant said that he did not think it would be difficult to re-write the criteria in such a way as to exclude the area south of Wilsonville.

Vera Katz asked if one of the criteria could be that they couldn’t cross rivers?

Dan Cooper said it would need to be related to a physical detriment and not just because they don’t want to cross the river.

Richard Kidd asked what the motion would do to the Council schedule for this item. He wanted to know if it would be pulled off of the Council agenda since MPAC would be forwarding it with no recommendation.

Dan Cooper said that MPAC was an advisory committee to the Council and therefore they would be asking the Council to send it back to their staff for a re-write on the criteria.

Richard Kidd asked if it would through out the Council’s agenda and timeline on this.

Dan Cooper said that the Council could act based on their advice.

Richard Kidd asked if the motion was defeated could MPAC then make a motion which did not recommend the package to Council.

Dan Cooper said they could and then the Council could decide whether to still include it on their upcoming agenda and the Council would vote however they wanted to vote.

Richard Kidd asked if it would still give them the opportunity to address the Clark County issue, the possibility of not expanding south of the Willamette, and the policy issues?

Dan Cooper said that on this particular type of decision MPAC was to act in an advisory capacity and the Council was not required to follow their advice.

Rob Drake said that every jurisdiction had objected to something that Metro had proposed over the last eleven years. He said that if someone was going to put industrial land in place, they would need infrastructure brought to that property and that was their problem and not the other jurisdictions. He said that they were only talking about the study area and that they should at least look at it.

Rod Park said that he would vote in favor of including it because of the legal aspects and because they could not eliminate areas without criteria factors to support that decision, which would require that it be included in the study. He said that Metro would set itself up for a legal challenge, that he did not consider that a responsible thing to do.

Charlotte Lehan said that Wilsonville objected to all the EFU, both on the east side and the south side of the city. She said that she considered south of river a regional issue. The City of Wilsonville was the third highest in the Portland region for industrial land right now as a percentage of their total land. They had 500 vacant acres inside the UGB and another 200-acres just brought in and another 400-acres between them and Tualatin. She said they were not standing in the way of industrial development, but rather the area south of the Willamette was a big policy issue that should be on the MPAC table.

Doug Neeley said that the motion was to determine criteria that would work as opposed to them objecting outright.

Gene Grant said that he thought that counsel had given them the possibility of having the criteria re-written which would allow for a legally defensible option to exclude south of the Willamette.

John Hartsock asked if LCDC had an issue with the timing of the study.

Andy Cotugno said that the deadline for completion of the study was next June. The goal was to finish the alternatives analysis work by the first of the year so that the decision-making and public hearings could proceed and be completed by spring.

Rod Park said he felt that staff had produced good technical criteria. He said he felt it was a policy issue not a technical issue.

Cheryl Perrin said that they had put a tremendous amount of time and money into just determining the criteria. She said it was only part of the study at this point and that did not mean that they would develop south of the Willamette. The study and inclusion of that area provided a basis to move forward. She said she felt they should at least study that area.

Gene Grant said that his intention was to revise the criteria to find a legitimate way to exclude it.

Doug Neeley said that there were concerns about how the region grew and whether there should be specific boundaries beyond which the region did not grow.

Charles Becker said there had been good discussion and that the Metro Council was aware of the discussion. He said that the motion was not necessary in order to give direction to staff.

David Bragdon invited any MPAC member to speak to Council at the meeting on Thursday pertaining to this issue. He said that he would convey to the Council members not present what had transpired.

7.  CENTERS

Brian Newman reviewed materials included in the packet and materials provided at the meeting which are attached and form part of this record. He said that once the factors were confirmed then it would be open for application, and the jurisdictions would have the month of August to complete their applications. Applications would be reviewed in September and the pilot center(s) would be selected by early October. He said that he hoped to have a product by the end of next spring.

Ed Gronke asked if it were most likely that they would choose the jurisdiction that had the most potential for success.

Brian Newman said that they would indeed want a ripe jurisdiction in which to invest their dollars.

Ed Gronke wanted to know what they hoped to achieve through the pilot project.

Brian Newman said to create an action plan to help centers get new development. To encourage new residential and commercial development that would meet the density expectations of the 2040 plan.

Charles Becker said they were not placing emphasis on town centers or regional centers but rather on the local jurisdiction to develop in their own way.

David Ripma asked how many centers there were in the region.

Brian Newman said there were 37.

David Ripma asked if they had an estimate of how many centers would qualify for the pilot project.

Brian Newman said all centers could apply, but that they would have to determine if they met the factors in order to have a fighting chance to be selected.

David Ripma asked if they were narrowing it down by picking those particular factors? He asked how many centers were left when Portland was removed.

Brenda Bernards said it was 28.

Brian Newman said they would expect 7 – 8 applications approximately.

Charles Becker asked what the final date was.

Brian Newman said the decision would be made at the end of September or early October.

Alan Hipolito asked if they were looking at including non-profits and affordable housing in considering jurisdictions.

Brian Newman said yes. He said that they were looking at the complete local capacity to support a successful result that included non-profits and other groups that make a center successful.

Alan Hipolito asked if those criteria were explicit in the program.

Brian Newman said it was but it could be expounded upon.

Ed Gronke said that he was still not clear as to what their goal was.

Brian Newman said that they were trying to help a particular center become fully successful. He said they would like to see all the centers in the region be successful. However, they could only afford one pilot project, possibly two. That center would be unique and there would be specific code and specific barriers for that area. He said that he hoped that resolutions to barriers would provide a template for how other centers could be successful as well.

Charles Becker asked if they had a timeline to check when certain items were accomplished or just a deadline for the whole program.

Brian Newman said yes to both.

Brenda Bernards said that they were using the eight-step program as their outline.

Vera Katz said that they would need to establish performance measures very early on, or the communities would need to establish them in a broad sense.

Brian Newman agreed.

Andy Cotugno emphasized that it was a pilot program and therefore a learning experience. Clearly they want to accomplish something good in that selected center, but they also wanted to learn something successful that could be applied to other jurisdictions.

Charles Becker said that since each center would be at a different point of development they would need to have good performance measures that reflected on the identified factors for a specific center.

John Hartsock said that maybe the applicant should list their schedule and performance measures as they would measure it themselves and include that in the submission.

Tom Hughes said that the key was not to have common performance standards but to have them early in the process even if the process would take longer.

John Hartsock said that a 60-day report would help measure whether the goals were being met and if they were moving along in a timely fashion.

Judie Hammerstad said that the centers program description and objectives laid out where growth should be directed and guidelines for that to be accomplished. She said she felt that the Lifestyle Center being developed at the Bridgeport site in Tualatin was detrimental to the objectives of the centers program. Specifically, this development created traffic problems for Lake Oswego’s town center. It would compete with the Tualatin town center and it was not mixed use. She said that Lake Oswego was spending $22 million in their downtown center to make it viable. She felt that the centers program was a good program, but that it had to work regionally or a development could undermine the success of town centers. They should not have to put those kinds of dollars into their town center only to see the effort fail. She said that other jurisdictions might face the same issue some day.

David Bragdon said that Council was considering what could be done to prevent things like this happening. He said that it was related to regionally significant industrial land, Title 4, and that they as a committee would need to be vigilant with that issue and to give it teeth. He said to have something applicable would require work on the functional plan and industrial land protection. Industrial land needed to remain industrial land, as there was already a shortage of it.

There being no further business, Chair Hughes adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR July 9, 2003

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