METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

October 9, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Andy Duyck, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, Judie Hammerstad, John Hartsock, Alan Hipólito, Tom Hughes, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Annette Mattson, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, Cheryl Perrin

Alternates Present: Meg Fernekees, Jack Hoffman, Dave Lohman, Michael McFarland

Also Present: Kim Anderson, Sunrise Water Authority; Linda Bauer, Citizen; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Tommy Brooks, City of Portland; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Rob De Graff, Portland Business Alliance; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Dan Drentlaw, City of Oregon City; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Chris Eaton, Angelo Eaton and Associates; Elissa Gertler, Portland Development Commission; Mary Gibson, Port of Portland; Joe Hanauer, Citizen; Jon Holan, City of Forest Grove; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Gregory Jenks, Clackamas County; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Doug Rux, City of Tualatin; Thane Tienson, Landye Bennett; Bruce Vincent, Tonquin Industrial Group

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Susan McLain, Council District 4; Rod Park, Council District 1.

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Lydia Neill, Marci LaBerge, Mark Turpel, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commission and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at
5:04 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Alan Hipólito, Multnomah County Citizen Representative, announced the opening of the Hacienda Community Credit Union. The Hacienda Community Development Corp. chartered the credit union, which will serve the Latino community in Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. A grand opening ceremony is scheduled for Saturday, October 12. A flyer is included in the meeting record.

Chair Jordan welcomed Cheryl Perrin, Commissioner, Port of Portland, to the meeting. He noted that MPAC is scheduled to meet on November 27, the day before Thanksgiving. Should MPAC finish its work on time in October, there will not be a meeting that night.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

Thane Tienson, Landye Bennett, introduced his client, Joe Hanauer. Mr. Hanauer owns property to the south of the St. Mary’s property in Hillsboro, and has worked for many years with Newland Communities’ predecessor to master plan the community. Fourteen acres of Mr. Hanauer’s property are exception land. He pointed out the property on an aerial map, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He urged MPAC to consider scaling back the development of Damascus and consider adding some land in Washington County to meet the housing need.

Mr. Hanauer spoke briefly about the history of his property and the South Hillsboro plan. He asked MPAC to keep his property in mind during its deliberations, particularly the fourteen acres of exception land. He noted that the exclusive farm use (EFU) portion of his property is a defunct tree farm that will eventually be developed.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said Council is in the midst of public hearings and working to develop a decision process on urban growth boundary (UGB) issues. He anticipated that Council will begin making decisions after the hearings conclude, beginning with the need analysis and working down to designation of specific areas for inclusion in the UGB. The issue of a Periodic Review Task 3 has arisen; he distributed a draft resolution for MPAC’s review. A copy of the resolution is included in the meeting record. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has requested a resolution of this type from the Council by the end of October, so that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) can make its deliberations before the end of the year.

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, briefly reviewed the draft resolution. The resolution recognizes that some of the special industrial lands need may not be met as part of the December 2002 decision. It directs the Executive Officer to work with DLCD to develop a work program to meet that need, in conjunction with an economic development strategy and possible consideration of subregional need.

Mayor Drake said there has been some discussion of modifying the population growth forecast. Will MPAC discuss the questions of when and how to modify the forecast at some point?

Chair Jordan said from a process perspective, MPAC has adopted the Urban Growth Report for housing, which included the population forecast. The Council is open to address all the assumptions in the Urban Growth Report, but he does not anticipate that MPAC will reanalyze those assumptions.

Mayor Drake said his only concern would be that, if there were any major change in the assumptions it could create a domino effect. In such a case, it would seem appropriate for MPAC to give an opinion.

Chair Jordan said he did not know how an iterative process that needs to be completed by December would work exactly. However, if the Council changes a fundamental assumption, MPAC will serve in an advisory capacity.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said the Council has received information from other sources that conflicts with the official forecast from Metro staff. Council is now struggling with how to use this conflicting information in its decision making process. Specifically, a forecast prepared for a number of agencies, including the Port of Portland, showed a substantially different growth rate for the four-county region for the next twenty years.

Charles Becker, Mayor, City of Gresham, said he would hate to see Metro make significant changes to its forecast based on a downward “blip” in the overall history of the region.

Dave Lohman, Port of Portland, said the Port was deeply involved in the development of the forecast used in the commodity flow study, to which Presiding Officer Hosticka referred. From the Port’s discussions with the consultant who prepared the forecast, and from its own deep involvement in Metro’s forecast, the Port has concluded that there are no significant differences between the two forecasts. They were prepared for different purposes based on somewhat different geographic areas. The population forecast portion of the commodity flow study was not terribly important to that study and was not done with the same care and attention to detail as Metro’s study.

Doug Neeley, Commissioner, City of Oregon City, noted that MPAC made its decision about capture rate based on a twenty-year history, rather than a five-year history, to address the issue of “blips.”

Rod Park, Metro Councilor, invited everyone to attend Pleasant Valley’s presentation at Council on Thursday, October 10. They have received an award from the Oregon Association of Planners and are in the running for a national award.

6.  PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE UGB

Chair Jordan said MPAC has four upcoming decisions. Tonight, it will try to make conclusions on an employment map recommendation from the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC). Second, tonight’s agenda lists Title 4 code changes and map. However MTAC has not yet finished its recommendation, so MPAC will take up the issue at a future meeting. Third, MPAC needs to formally adopt the Employment Urban Growth Report. Fourth, MPAC made changes to assumptions about parks and schools in the Housing Urban Growth Report that affect the bottom line dwelling units demand number. In addition, the Executive Officer has changed his recommendation slightly. Chair Jordan suggested asking MTAC to bring MPAC an update on housing that addresses whether they are in balance and whether MPAC’s recommendation will hold water at Council. He asked Commissioner Neeley to make a short presentation on proposals from Oregon City.

Commissioner Neeley introduced Dan Drentlaw, Community Development Director, City of Oregon City. He said Mr. Drentlaw would present the Oregon City Commission’s proposal on the UGB boundary, which differs slightly from the Executive Officer’s recommendation. He distributed three maps of the areas under discussion: South End, Beavercreek/Henrici, and Livesay. Copies of the maps are included in the meeting record.

Mr. Drentlaw reviewed the differences between the proposals of the Oregon City Commission and the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer recommended adding 700 acres in the South End Area to the UGB; the Oregon City Commission recommended scaling the expansion back to 190 acres. The area proposed for inclusion is not conducive to compact urban form, it is not near services, the transportation system is inadequate, and there are no nearby jobs or commercial areas. In the Henrici area, the Commission added a few hundred acres south of Henrici Road due to its relatively good access to Beavercreek Road and Highway 213 and its proximity to Clackamas Community College. The southern corridor also represents a natural break in topography and infrastructure. The Commission believed it was important to bring both sides of Henrici Road into the UGB in terms of planning and developer contributions toward fixing the road.

Commissioner Neeley noted that the Oregon City Commission’s original recommendation did not include Henrici Road. After the Executive Officer proposed its inclusion in the UGB, Oregon City staff recommended that both sides of the road be included, so that the road would not be governed by two different jurisdictions (the city and the county).

Mr. Drentlaw said the Oregon City Commission recommended inclusion of 150 acres of residential land in the Livesay Area. The Livesay Area is closer to the existing city and services and the Highway 213/
I-205 interchange than the South End Area.

Commissioner Neely noted that various proposals are being submitted to Metro. He asked how, procedurally, MPAC will make a recommendation on the UGB expansion when it may not have information on all of the various proposals?

Chair Jordan said this is why he is proposing that MPAC ask MTAC to look at the issues received to date, and give MPAC a recommendation on whether they are in balance or whether serious reconsideration needs to occur.

Susan McLain, Metro Councilor, said as the Council conducts its public hearings and hears from local jurisdictions and the general public, it is developing a record of the information. Any advice the Council receives from Oregon City must be balanced against all of the legal and public information it has also received.

Mr. Cotugno said there is a disconnection in the process. During the public hearings, the Metro Council is receiving suggestions through the end of October. MPAC’s recommendation to the Metro Council is due October 23. At this point, MPAC does not even know what some of those recommended changes will be because they have not yet been introduced. Does MPAC want to cycle back and make a recommendation after the record closes on October 31, on every change that has been introduced to the Council?

Chair Jordan said MPAC is the Metro Policy Advisory Committee. Its job is to represent the constituent governments, citizens and entities within the region. MPAC generally makes its recommendations without benefit of public comment, and he hopes the Metro Council will take the recommendation in that light. He did not see any logistical way for MPAC to process the myriad of public hearing record that will come from the public hearings and assimilate the information into a recommendation. His goal is for MPAC to assimilate as many jurisdictional proposals as possible.

Chair Jordan suggested scheduling an additional meeting for Wednesday, October 30, in order to complete MPAC’s recommendation. Commissioner Neeley noted he had a conflicting obligation to Oregon City that night. There were no other stated conflicts. Chair Jordan asked committee members to add October 30^th to their calendars.

Recommendation on Jobs Land Needs

Mr. Cotugno reviewed a memo from himself to MPAC giving a progress report on MTAC discussion of Title 4 Industrial Lands and additional lands to be considered for inclusion into the UGB for jobs. He also distributed a press release from Executive Officer Mike Burton, regarding supplemental recommendations he made on Tuesday to the Council Community Planning Committee. Copies of both items are included in the meeting record. He noted that most of the MTAC votes were unanimous. Meg Fernekees, DLCD, abstained from voting because the final recommendation will come before LCDC for its approval. About 25 to 26 voting MTAC members attended the meeting. MTAC has not yet made a recommendation on the Stafford Basin (area 42) or the area south of Damascus.

Richard Kidd, Mayor, City of Forest Grove, said the Forest Grove site is very important to his city because Forest Grove’s transportation plan will not work without this land swap. Nine acres of the swamp that Forest Grove has requested for inclusion in the UGB is already inside the city limits. It is part of a school site that cannot be used because it is inside city limits but outside the UGB. It is not being farmed, even though it is EFU land. Forest Grove has proposed to swap out EFU land that is isolated from potential development due to construction of a highway. Part of the land has already been turned into a wildlife preserve; it is not developable land and cannot be served by utilities. For Forest Grove and the region, it is a win-win situation.

Chair Jordan asked if Metro could condition a UGB decision by mandating that a local jurisdiction rezone land? Mr. Cotugno said yes.

Jon Holan, Planning Director, City of Forest Grove, noted that in terms of acreage, Forest Grove is proposing a one-to-one land swap. Effectively speaking, however, because Goal 5 resources are present in the swap-out area, that area would be difficult to develop for industrial use. By allowing for the swap and redistributing the distribution of Forest Grove’s industrial area, the city will be able to more effectively reach its industrial potential.

Mayor Becker said the City of Gresham has reached an agreement with Multnomah County on the Springwater addition. The Gresham City Council expects to put forward a resolution on October 22, agreeing to conditions for Springwater.

Chair Jordan asked for comments from MTAC members.

Gil Kelley, Planning Director, City of Portland, said one of the questions addressed by MTAC was which of the proposed sites were truly industrial. There was some concern at MTAC about including sites with EFU land in the full UGB package, as the legal hurdle for EFU land may be quite high. A strategic question for MPAC and the Council to answer will be whether to make decisions on sites with EFU land separately from the full recommendation, in case those sites are appealed. One Thousand Friends of Oregon expressed strong concern about the Shute Road site because it is flat, farmable EFU land. Most MTAC members were compelled to support its inclusion because of the services, proximity and clustering. There was some discussion about how to establish a hard urban/EFU edge. At the MTAC meeting last week, it was noted that with the Title 4 package of restrictions, industrial land will be conserved inside the UGB, thereby lessening the need for industrial land outside the boundary.

Commissioner Neeley asked Mr. Kelley to explain what he meant by a “hard edge.” Did he mean strictly by urban form, or did he mean that beyond this line, urbanization should not ever occur?

Mr. Kelley said he does not know about “ever” but he does think that the region needs to start defining real edges that are permanent or semi-permanent. Agricultural industries have their own needs that are invisible to the current process. In some areas, there is no barrier to UGB expansion except state statute.

Doug Rux, Economic Development Director, City of Tualatin, corrected a comment made by Mr. Kelley about proposed office use in the Tualatin Quarry. The Tualatin Quarry site has always been proposed for industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing and meeting the high-tech cluster need. It has never been proposed for Class A office or general office use.

Tom Hughes, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, said on the map it appears that there is no edge separating the proposed industrial land in the Shute Road site from agricultural land. At MTAC, a concern was raised that a small portion of the site is located north of a creek. In reality, the “creek” is a drainage ditch and does not, by most people’s definition, constitute a “hard edge.” Weibel Creek, to the west and slightly to the north of the site, does provide a fairly significant barrier to additional growth. Sunset Highway provides a hard edge north of the site. In addition to state law – which he argued has some force – another edge is created by the airport’s clear zone. It may not be a natural edge, but it is a pretty sharp edge. In summary, the area is pretty well containable in about a 700-acre maximum area.

Chair Jordan reminded MPAC that one of the major discussion points in a Task 3 regarding the region’s economic strategy will be the exchange of industry issue. How viable is agriculture? Is it a viable part of the metropolitan economy, or does the region trade?

Al Burns, Planning Bureau, City of Portland, clarified that MTAC did not vote on which sites were good versus bad; the vote was on which sites should be included in a December 2002 decision and which should be postponed until 2003.

Lisa Naito, Commissioner, Multnomah County, said the Multnomah County Commission has been discussing how to best create an urban/rural edge. The county has been working with the City of Gresham on the Springwater site and has developed a list of acceptable conditions. A copy of those conditions is included in the meeting record. She noted that some of the most productive agricultural nursery land, in terms of the state’s economy, is not necessarily zoned EFU.

Chair Jordan said there are at least two other sites on which MTAC has not yet made a recommendation to MPAC. MTAC will continue to discuss the sites and give its recommendation at MPAC’s next meeting. He suggested voting on the current MTAC recommendation as a package, and then arguing around the margins.

Ed Gronke, Clackamas County Citizen Representative, asked for the total acreage involved.

Mr. Cotugno said the total is about 1800 acres, including the residential land in Boring.

John Hartsock, Clackamas County Special Districts, asked if MPAC is assuming that the Executive Officer’s initial recommendation is acceptable? MPAC has never commented on the initial recommendation. The MTAC recommendation is in addition to the Executive Officer’s base recommendation.

Councilor Park clarified that in terms of process, the Executive Officer’s August 1^st recommendation composes the base exhibits. The recommendation he just made will require an amendment to the base exhibits by a Metro Councilor. Further recommendations by MPAC or others will also require sponsorship by a Councilor.

Commissioner Neeley said he would prefer to treat the MTAC recommendation as a consent agenda, in which members can pull out items if desired.

Chair Jordan said tonight’s discussion, if MPAC wants to wrap it up, should include more than just the additional lands recommended by MTAC. It should also include the lands originally recommended by the Executive Officer. He said MPAC could take the recommendation in tiers or as a package.

Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland, asked if MTAC has approved the Executive Officer’s base recommendation?

Mr. Cotugno said yes, MTAC has reviewed the base recommendation and has not recommended any deletions.

Chair Jordan said everyone on MPAC is familiar with the August recommendation from the Executive Officer, and has now seen MTAC’s recommendation on additional land. He noted that MTAC still has at least two pieces of property at which to look, and he directed MTAC to also look at the Executive Officer’s original recommendation and notify MPAC is there are concerns about any of the sites.

Mr. Cotugno added that in the Executive Officer’s most recent recommendation, there is a small area in Tualatin that MTAC did not discuss. This area was in the August 1^st recommendation. The area north of Highway 99W is proposed to come out of the August 1^st recommendation because it is part of a natural wildlife refuge area, and is not suitable for employment. The area south of Highway 99W was in the August 1^st recommendation for housing purposes. It should be for job purposes instead.

Judie Hammerstad, Mayor, City of Lake Oswego, asked if the main motion included the wildlife refuge?

Chair Jordan said it included the change, which took out the wildlife refuge piece and put in the small sliver of land to the south of Highway 99W.

Mayor Katz noted that MPAC had not discussed the Executive Officer’s base recommendation. The motion was to accept the base recommendation and MTAC’s recommendation.

Chair Jordan agreed and added a caveat that if MTAC, in its deliberations on the outstanding sites, comes back and objects to a site in the original Executive Officer recommendation, the issue could return to MPAC.

Chair Jordan asked Commissioner Neeley if he would like to discuss the Oregon City sites tonight.

Commissioner Neeley recommended that MPAC discuss the sites at a subsequent meeting, after Oregon City has made its formal proposal to Metro.

Chair Jordan directed MTAC to look at Oregon City’s proposal before it comes back to MPAC.

Title 4 Code Changes (Industrial Lands Policies) and Map

Mr. Cotugno said this item is a status report, because MTAC did not have time to make a recommendation at its meeting this morning. In its discussions, MTAC has debated whether the Title 4 limitations on industrial land should apply to only the expansion areas or if they should also apply inside the existing UGB. There appears to be general consensus that the restrictions should also apply inside the existing UGB. However, there is some concern that the limitations go too far to be applied inside the existing UGB, especially in the area of office use. The Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) also looked at the proposed Title 4 code changes and map and developed criteria for assessing potential regionally significant industrial areas and a list of potential regionally significant industrial areas. A copy of TPAC’s recommendation is included in the meeting record. JPACT will review TPAC’s recommendation at its next meeting and make a report to MPAC. TPAC made two observations: 1) it is important to maintain a freight connection from a transportation perspective, and 2) JPACT prioritizes centers and industrial lands for Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) funding allocation purposes. If the region is going to prioritize spending money to access these industrial areas, then it should make sure that those areas stay industrial.

Mr. Kelley said MTAC also discussed certain kinds of educational facilities, particularly vocational, in industrial areas.

Mr. Hartsock asked if a corporate yard qualified as an industrial use, even though it would not uniquely serve the industrial area. Mr. Cotugno said yes, it would be an industrial use in itself.

Chair Jordan said in his opinion, this is the more important issue facing the region at this time. To his knowledge, the members of MPAC have been universally concerned about the dilution of industrial land and the ability to create basic jobs in the region. This is one of the fundamental components. He urged committee members to give this topic due credence in their deliberations, keeping in mind Mayor Katz’s observation that it is a new economy and the next twenty years may not look like the last twenty years.

Mayor Katz said many MPAC members attended a regional conference yesterday, at which it was made clear that fifty percent or more of the high-tech firms are moving their manufacturing jobs overseas to Malaysia, China and India. The new economy is knowledge-based. While the region is probably capable of planning for the next five years, they need to think in an entirely different way if they are trying to plan for the next twenty years.

Mayor Hughes agreed and said this is one of the most important discussions MPAC can have because there is not an unlimited supply of employment land and the land that exists must be used wisely. However, he would prefer a more cautious, gradual approach to the regulations so that in five years, they do not have industrial sites for which there is no demand because the limitations are too restrictive.

Chair Jordan added that while MPAC may make Title 4 changes in this round of periodic review, the Task 3 discussion will focus on the region’s economic strategy for the next twenty years.

Mayor Katz noted that as the economy and the complexion of the region’s jobs change, there might not be a need for the type of industrial land currently under discussion. Those jobs may need to be located in main streets, town centers and regional centers. One of the issues is how to build up those areas to maintain the 2040 Growth Concept.

Mayor Hammerstad said the region’s old industrial zones are not necessarily valuable any longer, because they represent not only the old economy but facilities that have been sited on high-value land. However, the region still needs places to relocate auto body shops and marine facilities, for example. Those types of uses do not need large parcels of land, but they do need to go somewhere. They could go into employment areas, but currently it seems that the region’s employment areas are not protected from turning into commercial/retail/entertainment centers. If Metro designates employment centers, mainly intended to serve people already living and working in that area rather than the larger market, and the region is letting those employment areas be used for other uses, then it is undermining the original intent. It is much more difficult to plan for employment when the employment land has been taken off of the map. It is a big problem because land for which is there a designated use is being taken out of production to build facilities for which there is no regional use. There needs to be teeth in the employment land designation. She would like to discuss this issue at MPAC in the future.

Mayor Drake said Mayor Katz’s points are well taken. He cautioned that MPAC not preclude the availability of that land because the future is not known. It is important that the employment land be kept, even if it is not used. The Regional Industrial Lands Study’s observations and recommendations were pieced together by top professionals in the field. He would feel remiss having this conversation without the presence of someone like Ethan Seltzer of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies.

Mr. Gronke said MPAC needs to be careful not to preclude office use in the industrial lands. He has been involved in a couple of small start-up companies. Their intent was to do manufacturing, but for the first two years they did nothing but software writing and development and engineering development – strictly office-type uses. They were located in downtown Portland in an office area. They eventually moved to an industrial area due to cost. Had they not had the flexibility to move, some of those businesses may not have survived.

Chair Jordan said MPAC is only starting to scratch the surface of understanding the relationship between the public sector, as regulator and incentive provider, and the private sector – those who risk capital and actually build things. Task 3 is really about better understanding that relationship.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR OCTOBER 9, 2002

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