METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

January 14, 2004 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

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

Alternates Present: Richard Carson, Meg Fernekees, John Leeper,

Also Present: Note: there was a large crowd in the audience for this meeting, but the sign-in sheet got stalled somewhere along the line and very few people actually signed in. Laura Bauher, Citizen; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Bev Bookin, CREEC; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Kay Durtschi, MTAC; Elissa Gertler, PDC; Charlotte Lehan, City of Wilsonville; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Amy Scheckla Cox, City of Cornelius; Dave Shields, City of Gresham; Thane Tienson, Landye Bennett

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

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Chris Deffebach, Lydia Neill, Mary Weber, Mike Wetter

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

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

6.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004

Tom Hughes said that he enjoyed chairing MPAC and that they were a very professional group to work with.

Rob Drake said that the Nominations Committee had nominated Mayor Charles Becker for Chair, Mayor Gene Grant for 1^st Vice Chair, and Mayor Richard Kidd for 2^nd Vice Chair per his memorandum which was included in the meeting packet and forms part of the record.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

David Bragdon said that there had been a Cascadia Conference in December at which Joe Cortright spoke about cluster theory and economic development. Since it was such a timely presentation Metro was trying to set up a special MPAC meeting for early March about this topic that would include Joe Cortright and Mary Jo Waits.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President Bragdon said that the Council had discussed the impact of industrial lands on the Willamette Valley and the outcome was to extend an invitation to south of the border officials, including Marion County officials, to attend the January 20^th Council work session at 1 p.m. He invited MPAC members to attend as well. He said that the Council had combined two previous parks committees and actually elevated the committee to a policy advisory committee, GPAC. He said that the Council had sent a memorandum to MPAC allowing for more time to consider the Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (RSIAs). There would be more discussion on that issue when they reached agenda item #7. He said that the Council was now looking to have policy discussions on the Regional Framework Plan.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for December 10, 2003.

7.  TITLE 4 RSIA ORDINANCES

Chair Becker introduced Dick Benner to discuss Title 4.

Dick Benner reviewed the handouts, which are attached and form part of the record.

Gene Grant asked if only headquarter offices for industrial companies would be allowed outside of the cap.

Dick Benner said yes-in Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (RSIAs).

Rob Drake said that there seemed to be some conflict on defining industrial land versus employment land. Employment and industrial land uses were more mixed in modern times. He said that large employers were not happy with Option 2. He suggested that their work on this issue was not yet done.

Doug Neeley asked Rob Drake if his concern was specifically about regionally significant industrial land?

Rob Drake said that they started out wanting to provide industrial land for business but it was now being perceived as Metro making more regulations and burdening the business industry.

Vera Katz said that MPAC was strongly divided on this issue. They could review the work on what had been done in the previous year and look at the data again and answer the question about what kind of industries they were looking at for the next 15-20 years. Maybe employment needs were different from industry needs – maybe with the delay on the decision they could revisit it and find the answers.

Richard Kidd asked David Bragdon for the timeframe on this issue for the Council?

Council President Bragdon said that the only deadline they were under that was related to this issue was periodic review. He recommended that MPAC provide specific directions to MTAC or whomever they decided to refer this back to, if they were planning to change the course of this issue.

Richard Kidd asked if they should send it back to MTAC for review and to work on a recommendation for MPAC.

Council President Bragdon said that MTAC worked for MPAC and Metro staff would support both entities.

Tom Hughes said that as the region had evolved economically, a different kind of economy had also evolved. There was a variety of industrial manufacturing versus other types of employment. Whatever they decided to do at MPAC had to entail three things: 1) to consider the regional impact and link of the region while still respecting the individual jurisdictional needs, 2) include the diverse and young work force in examining regional economics and what would create economic success, and 3) realize that they might not be able to determine land needs for 5-years out and try to work into the plan some flexibility to deal with economic flux.

Chair Becker agreed that they had not identified future industrial needs and therefore needed to remain flexible with whatever decision they reached.

Gene Grant said (referring to the January 9, 2004 memo from David Bragdon page 2, “The Council asks that MPAC focus its discussion on January 14^th on three questions:”) the answers to those bulleted items should be consecutively no, yes, and no. He said that developers and users were asking not to be boxed into a specific list of categories of industry, but instead to realize that all industry should be okay. The region should be able to meet varying types of demand in order to further business. It would be very difficult to police/enforce any specific cap regulations. He supported the proposal to give the issue more time. He also cautioned against making the Happy Valley, Damascus, and Clackamas County areas designated as regionally significant in order to create freight facilities. He said that they did not want that area to be developed in the same way that the 212 corridor was developed.

Susan McLain said that while diversity in jobs and a strong job market were very important, they still had to deal with the fact that they had limited resources. They needed to plan for those different industries in order to protect the limited resources and yet utilize land for jobs in an efficient and productive way.

Vera Katz said that they also had the mission of supporting town centers. She said it would be very difficult if they were to allow uses on industrial land that really should be in town centers. Perhaps they should not expand anything for a 20-year supply of industrial land and instead the existing commercial space/office space/retail space would be enough to fill the real need.

Dave Fuller said that you couldn’t apply the same criteria and rules to smaller cities that were applied to larger cities like Portland. Smaller cities needed some commercial and office land in order to diversify. He strongly suggested that MPAC and the Council consider the size of the jurisdictions when making policy on this issue.

Ed Gronke said that the business of jurisdictions was to lure business to their areas while at the same time Metro was trying to fulfill its own responsibilities by setting an overall standard. Setting a detailed regional standard was difficult because different cities sometimes needed different types of business to thrive. The attempt by Metro should be to set standards that followed the letter of state law, and let jurisdictions set their own, more specific, standards.

Nathalie Darcy said they needed to try to define industrial lands in some way even if it meant saying what industrial lands weren’t.

Doug Neeley wondered if industry had changed enough recently that 50-acre size parcels would not necessarily be needed in the future. He said that unless they know the answer to that they should protect those particular large lots.

Judie Hammerstad said the initial discussion was to protect 50-acre parcels inside the UGB to provide a 20-year supply of regionally significant industrial land. Then put restrictions on it so that it wouldn’t become parcel-like. MPAC’s job was to preserve land outside the UGB and dedicate those parcels that were really going to be significant. She said it was becoming clear that people had different purposes for use of the land from what they started out trying to accomplish. She suggested that they should refer the issue to Ethan Seltzer or Joe Cortright who had done economic sector work and did not have a vested interest in the outcome. She said they should not send the work to a real estate organization or a development organization, because they would only provide one particular point of view. She said that close examination should be given to land that was previously used and was now referred to as a brownfield. These lands should be redeveloped before using up the precious land supply and before expanding into EFU land. She suggested that MPAC determine clearly the direction they wanted to take with this issue and then to be careful where they send it.

Herb Brown said that mayors should be allowed to make decisions on what was needed for their areas.

Rob Drake said that MTAC sometimes had surprising opinions and that they were land use professionals. He suggested that MPAC make the recommendation in conjunction with input from Ethan Seltzer and Joe Cortright. He said that they could not dismiss the opinions of industrial landowners because they know what moves their property. He suggested bringing together MPAC or MTAC and those people who had done economic sector work together on this issue.

Carl Hosticka agreed that they needed more time and the essential problem was that they would not know what they would need for future supply. He said that he did not feel that they would know more after sending it back to MTAC and therefore suggested that they focus on designing a strategy. He said they would need to focus on development of flexibility and diversity. Parcelization was a nearly irreversible process and the region did not have a good track record of recycling developable land. The need was to identify some of those strategic principles and create a plan to meet that unknown future. That was what they should hope to get from whoever they referred this issue to for review and consideration.

Chair Becker said they should discuss who to refer the matter to and focus on preserving some land but perhaps letting industries/jurisdictions decide what parcel sizes they would need for development.

Rob Drake said maybe they should develop a subcommittee to determine where this issue should be sent for discussion and determination of a strategy. He said that Ethan Seltzer’s duties had recently changed and that he might not be available for anything but a quick visit.

Richard Carson suggested that they should bring in someone who knows about economic development. He said that they didn’t need more regulation and that they actually might need less regulation.

Chair Becker said he would like to create a subcommittee that would interact with MTAC.

Tom Imeson asked that MPAC define what that subcommittee would be asked to do.

Chair Becker said he would review his notes and write up their purpose.

Council President Bragdon said that this issue was a response to a specific need that everyone at the MPAC table had agreed on approximately a year ago. The region had a deficit of industrial land that was understood to have characteristics that were flat and large that involved making and distributing products. To address that need two things would be done: 1) protect/preserve lands with those characteristics from infringing uses, and 2) to add supplemental land to the UGB that also met those criteria/characteristics. However, in the last 2-3 months they had been hearing that land use needs for the future might be different than they had been in the recent past. If the nature of jobs was changing did that mean that land needs also needed to change?

Dave Fuller requested that a member from the smaller cities be included in the subcommittee.

Council President Bragdon said that this was a regional discussion and there would never be an intent by Metro of taking control away from jurisdictions large or small.

Judie Hammerstad said that the other need that had been identified was in warehousing. Jurisdictions that possibly had the larger parcels of land would rather, it seemed, have tech-flex and nano-tech office parks and Kruze Way type locations. Warehousing was not necessarily what all jurisdictions were looking for. She said that the subcommittee should also address this issue.

John Leeper said that warehousing was a rather outdated phrase and that it might be more pertinent to use the term “distribution centers.” He said that the state government should have involvement in this effort through LCDC, even though it was a Metro effort.

Vera Katz said they should also consider the out-sourcing of many manufacturing businesses to foreign countries. Many companies in the region were doing it more and more frequently. She raised the questions of how long that would last, would it increase, and what would the economic and job ramifications be for the region? She suggested that these questions should be asked of folks in large local industries.

Andy Cotugno said there were several studies underway pertaining to this issue, but those studies were not all due at the same time or even in the near future. He said that they should determine what needed to be dealt with immediately and what could be assigned to a longer-term effort. He said he was concerned because Metro was operating under a deadline of June 30^th and if that was not possible should Metro ask the state for an extension?

Chair Becker asked Rob Drake to be chair for a MPAC RSIA subcommittee and asked John Hartsock, Martha Schrader, Tom Hughes, Richard Kidd, and Dave Fuller to be on the subcommittee. He asked Rob Drake to set up meeting dates and times.

8.  REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN POLICIES-ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CRITERIA

Dick Benner gave a presentation on this. Dick Benner reviewed materials provided in the meeting packet and other materials were placed at the back of the room for the members and those materials are attached and form part of the record.

9.  GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS & MAPPING

Chris Deffebach gave a short presentation on this topic and handed out copies of slides of a PowerPoint presentation and a list of the upcoming workshops on this issue. Those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Doug Neeley asked if people would be able to look up their properties on detailed maps at the workshops.

Andy Cotugno said that what was presented at MPAC was a generalized picture, but that the maps did get very detailed and those would be available at the workshops.

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 JANUARY 14, 2004

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