METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

October 8, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Charles Becker, Herb Brown, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Andy Duyck, Dave Fuller, Gene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Kent Hutchinson, Doug Neeley,

Alternates Present: Tim Crail, Jack Hoffman, Alice Norris, Larry Sowa

Also Present: Bev Bookin, CREEC/CCA; Al Burns, City of Portland; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MTAC; Marty Harris, PDC; Ellen Hawes Grover, Stoel Rives; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Greg Jenks, Clackamas County; Norm King, City of West Linn; Stephen Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Charlotte Lehan, Mayor of Wilsonville; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Larry Pederson, City of Hillsboro; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Doug Rux, City of Tualatin; Amy Scheckla-Cox, City of Cornelius

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

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Brenda Bernards, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill, Linnea Nelson

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Acting Chair, Mayor Charles Becker, called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Acting Chair Becker reminded the members about the upcoming Agricultural Symposium on October 31, 2003.

Susan McLain thanked Sherry Oeser and staff for their work on the Agricultural Symposium. She said it was an exciting start to partnering with agriculture. She said that there would be people from LCDC and the State Department of Agriculture.

Acting Chair Becker welcomed Kent Hutchinson, representing the Governing Body of School Districts from Forest Grove School District, to the committee and asked him to give a short biography.

Kent Hutchinson said that he was on the Board of Directors for the Forest Grove School District, that he was a farmer by trade, and that he had a wife and two kids.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

Judie Hammerstad announced that the Lake Oswego Infill Compatibility Ordinance that was passed a few months ago won the Oregon Chapter for American Planning Association Award on October 4, 2003. It was an ordinance that was designed to be replicated in other communities, and she said that if planners were interested in reviewing the ordinance they should contact Stephen Lashbrook with the City of Lake Oswego for a copy.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summaries for September 10 and September 24, 2003.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President David Bragdon said that there were three major issues coming before Council over the next few months: Task 3, Title 4, and Goal 5. He said that Title 4 was the discussion of regionally significant industrial areas, and protections for industrial sanctuaries within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). That was related to the acknowledgement order for the action from last December in which they pledged to complete that work by the end of December 2003. That topic would be introduced more formally to MPAC at the October 22^nd meeting. There would be public hearings at the Council level in November, with Council action scheduled for December. Task 3 was the UGB expansion part of the industrial lands decision and had a deadline of June 2004. He said that Task 3 would come back to MPAC in mid-November. He said the goal was to reduce the areas covered by the Alternatives Analysis study. He expected a detailed schedule on Task 3 sometime in the spring of 2004. Goal 5 was the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection program. Last year Metro had adopted an inventory and they were now at the stage to do the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis. He said that the draft resolution for Goal 5 was on the agenda for later in the evening, and that MPAC would make a recommendation to council at the next meeting on this. He said that there would be a few public hearings in October. The program development stage would follow with final adoption scheduled for the end of 2004.

6.  ORDINANCE NO. 03-1014 FUNCTIONAL PLAN MAP CHANGES

Brenda Bernards, Metro Planner, reviewed the ordinance. She said that they had had a net gain of 26 industrial acres and a net loss of 36 employment acres. Metro staff also changed the map to show realignment of the south corridor light rail and the downtown Milwaukie light rail line. They had also put the Aloha Town Center where it was actually located.

7.  REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

Council President Bragdon said that back in May or June the Council had a report from the Regional Economic Development Partners and they had asked to come back to give a presentation targeted towards recruiting and the need for industrial land. He introduced Betty Atteberry from the Regional Economic Development Partners.

Betty Atteberry, Greg Jenks, and Charlie Allcock consecutively gave portions of a PowerPoint presentation. That presentation is attached and forms part of the record.

Charlie Allcock said that companies screening Oregon for sites to relocate had recently increased dramatically: they had received five inquiries in the last week.

Rob Drake asked if those five parcels that the firms were looking at were recently brought to the UGB.

Charlie Allcock said two of the five sites were already within the boundary and one was recently brought in.

Greg Jenks said that one of the sites was in Clackamas County but not located in the Metro UGB.

Charlie Allcock said that there were several sites in the UGB that were available for redevelopment, although there were problems with them.

Ed Gronke asked if the redevelopment issue was an economic problem or a time issue?

Charlie Allcock said that in the Metro area, and particularly in the Portland city limits, the land that was available for recycling had significant brownfield issues usually associated with past use.

Ed Gronke said that it sounded like a combination of economics and time.

Charlie Allcock said it these sites often have time and dollar issues that the public had to deal with.

Rob Drake asked about changing criteria to allow for greater consideration of economic impacts as it relates to urban renewal. He said that the region had identified that there was two-three times the amount of need versus existing supply. He was curious as to what Charlie would give up during the renewal process for urban renewal assistance in order to accomplish his goals with limited funds.

Charlie Allcock said that if, as a region, we say that these are the homegrown businesses that are here, that we want to really help them stay here and grow here, then we would need to consider their specific needs and what we could do to help them stay and be profitable.

Judie Hammerstad said, pertaining to issue of redevelopment of land inside the UGB, it seemed as though people did not want to recycle buildings, but would rather build their own on Greenfield sites, even though the public cost was greater.

Charlie Allcock said that the real trade-off was that land in the urban area (land available for recycling) was not the same land that was “virgin” land. Past users of that land had left residues to clean up. That ultimately was a pocketbook issue and required collaboration between those who were there previously and the public sector.

Judie Hammerstad asked if he could quantify the difference between the public investment that was needed to go outside the UGB, and the partnership for the existing piece of property that was being recycled. She asked if the costs between redevelopment and greenfield sites could be quantified.

Greg Jenks said they had tried to ascertain what the remediation costs would be. He said it was also a timing issue. If a property did not have a good bill of health when a buyer was looking, then it didn’t get considered. While the infrastructure was in place, there would also be improvements or retrofit required.

John Hartsock asked if there was a designation, Level 1, environmental assessment that indicated a potentially clean site to would-be buyers, and would that provide more opportunities?

Greg Jenks said that if the site was a level 1, then it would absolutely change the opportunity. He said the property was not marketable if there had been a prior use without a Level 1 assessment.

Betty Attteberry continued the presentation on the topic of regional collaboration.

Doug Neeley asked if they had two comparable pieces of land and one was identified as regionally significant and the other one was not, would it make any difference in terms of the interest of buyers?

Greg Jenks said that normally a company that was looking at two sites would ask to see zoning ordinances or overlays that were in effect on those sites. It really depended on how the opportunity matched the ordinance or those regulations. It did mean less flexibility in responding to opportunities. With the current economy, the lines of what was industrial and what was employment were getting fuzzy. He said he had concerns about Portland’s ability to compete in the market.

Doug Neeley said that one of the concerns he had about pushing shovel ready land was that it not reduce the significance of what they had achieved with their planning, pertaining to functional plans. He said that shouldn’t change just because they were in an economic slump.

Ed Gronke said that the region was facing a lack of adequate resources to do what needs to be done. He said that wouldn’t change for a while. One of the problems they were facing was that many voters did not know or understand the trade-offs and decisions being made at MPAC and Metro. He wondered if the region was willing to put up with a higher unemployment rate to keep everything the way it was. He suggested a long-term public campaign to give people a sense of what they were working on.

Greg Jenks said that the Regional Partners had come to the conclusion that they would have to tell their story better. He said that they would need to represent the importance of regional economics and the ways in which business investment helped that economy.

Betty Atteberry said they had to identify some of those priorities. She said that being an advocate for transportation improvement dollars for both this region and across the state was very important.

Judie Hammerstad said that she noticed in the key site selection factors that education was at the top and taxation policy wasn’t listed. She said that MPAC had heard a lot about businesses leaving the region because Oregon and its tax policy were business unfriendly. The cost of doing business wasn’t listed in key site selection factors, but that was a problem if they expected to have a high quality education system, then they would probably have to live with a more progressive tax policy. She asked if it was a factor in recruiting businesses.

Charlie Allcock said that the tax issue did come up but only after a general metropolitan area had been selected by a company. When Oregon was competing with other states the tax issue wasn’t critical. Once the selection process got dialed down to four or five sites within an area, then buyers looked more closely at community driven criteria such as taxes. That was when it became an important issue.

Marty Harris said that out-of-state buyers were more concerned with getting value for what they pay for and that the focus needed to be providing an environment in which people felt that they were getting what they paid for.

Rob Drake said he felt that there was a good exchange between the private and public sectors on business. He said he felt they were doing a pretty good job.

Herb Brown said that messages to the public should be short and concise for the greatest impact.

8.  GOAL 5 FISH & WILDLIFE PROTECTION PROGRAM CONCEPTS

Council President Bragdon said that this was the next step on the Goal 5 Regional Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection effort. MPAC had approved the inventory last summer and the next step was the ESEE analysis. He introduced Chris Deffebach, Metro Planning.

Chris Deffebach handed out materials on Goal 5 and reviewed those materials, which are attached and form part of this record.

John Hartsock said that while reading the matrix, pertaining to the phrase “…would not affect existing use,” he identified the potential that if a house were destroyed by fire or something else, it would, in fact, change the existing use of the property.

Chris Deffebach said that they would work on that statement. The point was to prevent people from thinking that their house would be torn down. Redevelopment was one of those issues on which they knew they would need to spend more time.

Lisa Naito said that it was an extremely important issue. She said that they had actually had a case like that and it was extremely important and complicated.

Chris Deffebach continued her presentation and reviewed the Regionally Significant Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat map and the Component Summary Highest Overall Value map.

Doug Neeley pointed out that under Option 2 he thought they could also talk about habitat protection under certain conditions. Where it was a previously developed they might need less habitat protection versus an area that had not been developed and needed greater protection.

Lisa Naito said it was difficult for her to conceptualize how it would all fit together. She was concerned about how watershed protection of fish fit into the whole plan.

Andy Cotugno said that he thought she was saying that different watersheds had different issues. He said that they would be defining a range of options from very aggressive to less aggressive. They would be able to tailor the options to the characteristics of the specific watershed.

Lisa Naito said that she would be most concerned about spending limited funds where they would have the most cost effective results in terms of the wildlife.

John Hartsock said that there was a potential of one watershed and three properties next to each other with different, or even opposing, needs, yet all so close and tied together. What would they do to protect that watershed?

Chris Deffebach said that his point illustrated the trade-off of variables.

Susan McLain said that they were trying to verify the results and the “doability” of certain incentives. She said that they were trying to determine if incentives work at all.

Acting Chair Becker asked if they would be looking at the options available to jurisdictions on the basis of making a decision on habitat.

Andy Cotugno said that the vision statement that MPAC had approved several years ago called for three options to be available. One was the safe harbor option, where Metro defined the program, met the state law requirements to do the inventory and ESEE analysis, and established a program that the local government could choose to adopt and not do any further work because it was acknowledged by LCDC. The options that Chris Deffebach discussed were about what that safe harbor option should consist of and doing the ESEE analysis necessary to support that safe harbor option. The vision statement also recognized the need for two more options: the riparian district plan, where jurisdictions may choose to go through a special planning process that deviated from the safe harbor option. The third approach was available to the property owner at permitting time.

Brian Newman asked if the fourth regulatory option would be acknowledged by LCDC. He wasn’t sure about the process.

Andy Cotugno said that Metro implementing the Goal 5 program under LCDC requirements was an optional step. If Metro was to choose at the end of the process to not adopt any further the Goal 5 program it would, in effect, be adopting a no build option. That did not relieve the local governments from the obligation of meeting Goal 5 state law requirements. The inventory that was adopted about a year ago was a very inclusive inventory but it was also an inventory that had different gradations of quality. He said that the inventory was nothing but an inventory, but the process that they were undergoing now was to introduce the trade-offs. This stage was introducing the competing uses and providing for choices about where to be aggressive and where not to be aggressive.

David Bragdon said that at the next meeting the staff would be looking for a decision on this issue.

Rob Drake said that the information seemed very detailed for the average property owner and he was concerned about making the material accessible to the public.

Chris Deffebach said that the buff colored handouts were designed to help with that, and they would be having outreach efforts as well. She said they would move forward with that process after they had something adopted.

9.  POWELL/FOSTER CORRIDOR STUDY

Andy Cotugno introduced Brigit Wieghart, Metro Planning, to give her presentation on the Powell/Foster Corridor study.

Brigit presented a slide show and reviewed handouts, all of which are attached and form part of the record.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes, MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR OCTOBER 8, 2003

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