METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

October 23, 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, Bernie Giusto, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, Judie Hammerstad, John Hartsock, Alan Hipólito, Tom Hughes, Vera Katz, Mark Knudsen, Richard Kidd, Annette Mattson, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, Cheryl Perrin, David Ripma, Dan Saltzman

Alternates Present: Meg Fernekees, Jack Hoffman, Dave Lohman, Roger Vonderharr

Also Present: Linda Bauer, Citizen; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Tommy Brooks, City of Portland; Al Burns, City of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Rob De Graff, Portland Business Alliance; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Elissa Gertler, Portland Development Commission; Mary Gibson, Port of Portland; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Holly Iburg, Newland Communities; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Leeanne MacColl, League of Women Voters; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Doug Rux, City of Tualatin; Thane Tienson, Landye Bennett

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Rod Park, Council
District 1. Rod Monroe, Council District 6.

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Brenda Bernards, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Lydia Neill, Michael Morrissey, Mark Turpel, Gerry Uba

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commission and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at
5:05 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland, said that Lufthansa Airlines announced today that it would begin flying a nonstop flight from Portland to Frankfurt, Germany. It was the first nonstop flight from Portland to Europe. For two months starting March 31, the price would be $419 to Frankfurt, and $20 more to any place Lufthansa flew in Europe. She thanked everyone who represented companies like Intel, Nike and Freightliner. The companies committed millions of dollars for a travel bank and outbid Seattle. She congratulated the Port of Portland.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said from his perspective, the Council’s thinking about its upcoming decisions appeared a little chaotic. His personal feeling was that this was not a bad thing because the Council had not fully engaged its mind in the issues until recently. The Councilors were in the process of trying to individually understand what choices were available and the implications of those choices, within their legal framework. They were working toward an orderly process for resolving the chaos. He hoped people would not be alarmed at this point, and that they would help the Council understand the choices and their implications.

Rod Park, Metro Councilor, said the Council was doing quite well. They had completed five public hearings and had two more left: one in Gresham on Thursday and one in Portland next Tuesday. The hearings had been going quite well and the Council had received a lot of information from them. The Community Planning Committee had scheduled extra meetings on October 30^th at 2:00 p.m., and November 7 and 14^th following the Council meetings. Hopefully by November 5, the Council will have settled on some of the numbers and begin looking at specific parcels of land.

6.  PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE UGB

JPACT Comments to MPAC on Periodic Review of the UGB

Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor and Chair, Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT), reviewed a memo from JPACT to the Metro Council and MPAC regarding periodic review of the urban growth boundary (UGB). A copy of the memo is included in the meeting packet. He thanked MPAC for making time on its agenda for JPACT.

Chair Jordan thanked JPACT for giving MPAC an opportunity to comment on the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) funding allocation process earlier this year.

Title 4 Code Changes (Industrial Lands Policies) and Map

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, distributed a memo to MPAC from himself, dated October 23, 2002, regarding the October 23, 2002, MTAC motions and actions on Title 4. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record. MTAC voted on two specific amendments. The first amendment addressed the siting of government facilities, and the vote was 12/7 in favor. The second amendment was to allow large corporate headquarters, which was an office land use type, on industrial lands. There was a vote to make the threshold 1,000 employees instead of 2,000 employees. The vote was 11/9 in favor. He noted that the vote was listed incorrectly in the memo and apologized for the error. With those amendments, the overall recommendation passed out of MTAC on a vote of 22/1. The one vote in opposition was from Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, based on the 1,000 employees amendment. He reviewed the recommended Title 4 language, which was attached to the memo.

Mr. Cotugno said the key question before MPAC was which lands should be assigned to the regionally significant industrial category. MTAC recommended general areas that should be evaluated. These areas were circled on the map of potential regionally significant industrial areas, which was attached to the memo. MTAC did not recommend adopting specific territories within those circles at this time. Within those broad circles there were clearly be places that should not be regionally significant industrial areas. Specific land would be designated by December 2003, following close coordination between Metro and those individual jurisdictions.

Roger Vonderharr, Mayor, City of Fairview, noted that many sections of the Title 4 code state that an area must have transit service. He asked if MTAC’s position therefore was that outlying areas that did not currently get transit service would never fit into the regionally significant industrial area category? The language allowed the transportation system to dictate land use policy. It was TriMet’s option whether to provide transit service.

Mr. Cotugno said if an industrial area did not have transit today, then private or public transit service must be extended to the area. It did not have to be public transit. For example, Intel provided its own shuttle, and SMART transit in Wilsonville was separate from TriMet.

Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton, clarified that transit only needed to come to the property, not through it.

Mr. Cotugno said an earlier draft of Section 3.07.420(E(2)) allowed for a large-scale corporate headquarters office function to go into an industrial area if its size was 25 acres or larger. Concern was expressed that 25 acres was not a good measurement. It would be possible to have a very low-density, small, inefficient headquarters that consumed 25 acres. An employee threshold was proposed as a better indicator of size. The equivalent of a 25-acre corporate headquarters would be 2,000 employees. There was an amendment at MTAC to change the threshold to 1,000 employees; the motion passed 11 to 9.

Ed Gronke, Clackamas County Citizen Representative, said he was a little uncomfortable with the idea of having head counts because business was changing so rapidly. He could easily picture a corporate headquarters with 400 employees that could be extremely valuable. He asked if MTAC was saying that if there was such a thing, it should not be located in a regionally significant industrial area?

Chair Jordan said yes. It was a question of balance. What should the threshold be? What made sense? When trying to deal with a broad term like economic development, how broad a net should they cast to get businesses into the region? On the other hand, everyone has talked for years about preserving industrial land for certain kinds of uses, as much as possible.

Mr. Gronke said his concern was that if the proposed language became law, it would not allow local jurisdictions to make that judgment. That made him very uncomfortable.

Bernie Giusto, TriMet Board of Directors, addressed Mayor Vonderharr’s concern about transit. TriMet had several site arrangements with private employers, which fed into the transit system. TriMet welcomed such agreements because they made TriMet’s system more efficient. Establishing transit service to industrial areas was not an overwhelming issue.

Mr. Gronke asked if the following business would be allowed in a regionally significant industrial area. He used to run a business with 50 to 60 offices spread along the West Coast. A typical office would consist of about 2,000 square feet of office space that would handle sales, marketing and accounting. In conjunction, they would rent a large warehouse space for equipment storage. Much of the equipment was hazardous material: oxygen, nitrogen, liquid argon, and various other gases. They would always look for industrial areas because large trucks were necessary to deliver the materials.

Mr. Cotugno said Mr. Gronke was describing a warehouse, which was an industrial function. The office function was an accessory to that industrial function. Therefore if would be permitted outright under the proposed Title 4 language. He noted that the restrictions on office use would only apply to regionally significant industrial land, not regular industrial land or employment land.

Mayor Katz asked for the rationale behind changing the threshold from 2,000 to 1,000 employees.

Mr. Cotugno said it was a question of flexibility to accommodate new corporate offices that may be trying to locate in the region. The feeling at MTAC was that the region clearly did not want to send away large corporate headquarters.

Mark Knudsen, Washington County Special Districts, asked how large a 1,000-employee corporate headquarters was, relative to other existing corporate headquarters in Portland.

Chair Jordan said in 1985, he worked for Pacific Power and Light Company. The company’s corporate headquarters employed about 1,000 people and was located in downtown Portland in a 15-story office building that covered slightly more than half a city block.

John Hartsock, Clackamas County Special Districts, asked if the 1,000 employees had to work in the building or be employed by the company. Did the company need 1,000 employees at move-in or five years from move-in? There were many ramifications to whatever number was chosen.

Mr. Cotugno said the requirement was for a building that accommodated 1,000 employees. The building might not be full at the outset.

Mayor Kidd said as he listened to the discussion, MPAC as talking him out of pushing very hard for regionally significant industrial areas in small jurisdictions. He would very much like a business to come into one of his city’s vacant industrial sites and move 200 employees on it right away, and ten years from now have 1,000 to 3,000 employees. But if it was restricted, he will never get the seed that will grow in this manner.

Mr. Gronke asked why the region would want to have a company such as Nike in a regionally significant industrial area. Why not tell such businesses that they should locate in a center instead?

Councilor Park said at the Community Planning Committee meeting yesterday they discussed whether acreage was a good test for a corporate headquarters. The committee asked Mr. Cotugno to come up with a different threshold. They discussed using either floor area ratios (FARs) or employees, and MTAC came up with the current language. The Community Planning Committee was very interested in setting a threshold other than acreage. He understood the concerns of Mayor Kidd and Mayor Vonderharr. He said Chair Jordan’s example of where 1,000 employees could fit and Mr. Gronke’s question about siting headquarters in centers both made the point of why it was hard to justify 25 acres for corporate headquarters.

Mayor Vonderharr said his concern was that the plan would promote filling his area with warehouses and low employment levels, while prohibiting office or corporate headquarters unless they met certain criteria. No one seemed to be addressing the fact that tax base for every city was crucial. Some cities were strictly bedroom communities right now, and they were going down the tubes really fast. Filling Fairview with warehouses would not improve his tax base. The 50-acre minimum would restrict his city to one large company, assuming it was lucky enough to attract one. He noted the impact that Fujitsu’s closing had on Gresham’s budget, and Gresham was much larger than Fairview. Small cities did not have the flexibility of a larger city.

Chair Jordan said the crucial issue was identifying which of these lands should be designated regionally significant. Metro had backed away from designating specific tax lots at this time because of that very issue. The region must discuss the location of these industrial sanctuaries with individual jurisdictions and understand the dynamics. Mayor Vonderharr identified a real concern for all jurisdictions, but smaller jurisdictions in particular.

Mayor Vonderharr suggested that if they wanted to regionalize responsibility for industrial development, then they should regionalize the revenues from that development.

Judie Hammerstad, Mayor, City of Lake Oswego, noted that Section 3.07.420(F(1)) was changed from 10 acres to 20 acres, but Section F(2) remained at 15 acres. The result was that anything below 50 acres could be re-subdivided unlimited times.

Mr. Cotugno agreed, and said Section F(2) should be changed to read “20 acres or smaller,” to eliminate the loophole. He noted that Section 3.07.430(C) addresses existing uses and should be changed to 20 percent floor space and 10 percent land area, to make it parallel with the changes made to Section 3.07.420(H).

Lisa Naito, Commissioner, Multnomah County, said she was uncomfortable with the grandfather clause in Section 3.07.420(H). It was potentially problematic to limit the expansion of existing businesses to 20 percent more floor area. Some businesses may already own land for future expansion and have plans to do so. Did the language refer to the building’s footprint, or would businesses also be restricted from building up? Did 10 percent more land area mean more land than the business already owned?

Mr. Cotugno said no, it meant more land area than was already developed.

Commissioner Naito said this was the type of government action that created Measure 7. She realized that some level of restriction must be imposed in order to change the course of the future, but she questioned whether these were the right levels.

Mayor Drake asked whether a business would be allowed to expand if it was shadow-platted at more than a 20 percent floor area increase or 10 percent land area. For example, if a business has a master plan in which it started out in a 100 square foot building, but its ultimate plan was to expand the building to 200 square feet, would that business be grandfathered in? The expansion would be larger than 20 percent.

Mr. Cotugno said the intent was to recognize that existing retail and office businesses should be allowed to continue and not be zoned out of existence.

Al Burns, Planning Bureau, City of Portland, said recognition of two concepts allowed MTAC to have a breakthrough and finish its recommendation. First, the Title 4 language was not everyone’s zoning code. It was a regional template for a new set of industrial regulations. No jurisdiction would be required to adopt the language verbatim in its local code. Instead the code provided interpretation and application at the local level, and a year from now each jurisdiction would present its own version of the code to Metro for review and approval. Second, MTAC recognized that Title 4 was a template for future regulations that would apply to regionally significant industrial areas. Everyone could think of existing situations, nonconforming uses, and particular users to which these regulations would not and should not apply. The answer was not to change the regulations to accommodate each exception. Instead, the map should be changed. If these regulations did not apply to a particular site, then the local government should not identify that site as a regionally significant industrial area.

Mayor Drake said he respected what Mr. Burns said, but the limits were still very prescriptive. While he was generally supportive of the language, it could preclude things that they could not foresee.

Commissioner Neeley said two issues had been raised in the Oregon City Commission’s discussions about Title 4. First, changes to the regulatory environment may require businesses to expand more than 20 percent in order to meet the new regulations. He felt that ought to be an exception. Second, rather than talk about the issue in terms of prescriptive percentages, why not talk about it in terms of a demonstrated proportional increase in the employment associated with that expansion? A business could conceivably increase 20 percent and not employ another person.

David Ripma, Councilor, City of Troutdale, asked if he was to understand that these regulations were not mandatory on the cities that happened to have industrial lands in these areas? Was MPAC on the record that these regulations were not mandatory; they were simply a suggestion?

Chair Jordan said the regulations were mandatory. Mr. Cotugno added that it was mandatory for a map to be adopted.

Councilor Ripma said he heard a statement about local governments being allowed to decide whether or not to put a particular site on the map. Did local governments get to decide whether or not they ended up being regionally significant industrial areas? It did not look like it.

Chair Jordan said no, Metro needed to adopt a map at some point. The suggestion was that within a year there would be a dialogue between Metro and local governments about which sites should or should not be designated as regionally significant industrial sites.

Councilor Ripma said he asked at the last meeting how local jurisdictions could amend or adjust these areas, and Mr. Cotugno said that MTAC would bring it back to MPAC. Troutdale tried to change the map at MTAC and it came back to MPAC exactly the same. He had been around Metro long enough to know that when you saw a shaded area like this on a map, it would end up getting adopted and become impossible to change. He did not think there was any flexibility in the Title 4 language.

Chair Jordan said he appreciated Councilor Ripma’s concern and his attempt to change the map at MTAC. He noted that MTAC’s vote on the overall recommendation was 22 to 1.

Councilor Ripma there was a very disparate impact. The shaded area labeled #7 took all of Troutdale and Fairview’s industrial land. These regulations could prescript their future and their ability to pay for services, with no public input.

Chair Jordan said if the Council was to adopt MTAC’s recommendation, it would adopt the draft map with the circles and say, “specific sites to be adopted within a year.”

Councilor Ripma said it was typical Functional Plan language that “cities shall adopt.” There was no flexibility at all. He suggested that regionally significant industrial areas should not take more than 20 percent of a single city’s industrial lands, for example. There ought to also be some provision for amending it. When the region added industrial lands to the perimeter of the UGB, there would be no provision to remove the designation of regionally significant industrial lands.

Mr. Cotugno said MPAC and Metro amended Title 4 maps twice in the last year, specifically at the request of local governments.

Councilor Ripma said it was nothing anywhere near this scale.

Mayor Vonderharr said when he looked at this the first time, he said it looked like small cities were going to be collateral damage. The vote at MTAC was so positive because only a handful of cities would get hammered. It the regulations completely removed his city’s ability to provide infrastructure, he would end up with a city full of warehouses.

Chair Jordan said he understood Mayor Vonderharr’s concerns. The balance was that the region was trying to preserve regionally significant industrial areas. There was a problem with small jurisdictions; that was an issue. MPAC must resolve those issues. The regulations were important for the region. The dilution of industrial land was a problem, and the region needed to find a solution. It did have fiscal impacts on jurisdictions. He asked if a map needed to be adopted at this time.

Mr. Cotugno said no, the map could be adopted next year.

Mayor Vonderharr said the answer may be to establish a threshold whereby small jurisdictions were able to establish local plans that would meet the same goals but allow the jurisdictions to fiscally provide the necessary infrastructure. There must be a trigger level because, as Councilor Ripma said, when the designation took 100 percent of a city’s industrial and employment lands, there was no flexibility.

Chair Jordan said it was difficult for him to understand the severity of the issue right now, because there were no sites designated other than the large circles. Had MTAC discussed the impacts on individual jurisdictions?

Gil Kelley, Planning Director, City of Portland, said there were two points of discussion at MTAC. First, during the mapping process there needed to be close scrutiny of what would qualify for the most restricted zones, recognizing that these restricted zones were a subset of industrial lands, which were in turn a subset of all employment lands. Commercial lands were not a part of the discussion; they were even beyond that. In its recommendation to MPAC, MTAC deliberately chose to exclude fiscal considerations as a means of bringing new lands in or defining the restrictions on the inside. MTAC felt it was an important issue, but it was really a tax and revenue sharing issue, not determinative criteria for whether something ought to be industrial land.

Richard Ross, Community Planning Division Manager, City of Gresham, said MTAC would be looking further at the map and making some recommendations. His understanding was that MTAC would make some local recommendations by the middle of next week about where they should look on the map. He did not agree with the idea that only small jurisdictions had concerns. Gresham also had concerns about what was designated regionally significant.

Chair Jordan said he did not remember the exclusion of fiscal issues as criteria for discussion.

Mayor Drake said it was clear that there were unresolved issues about the map. Through the code language, MPAC had set a framework on how to preserve future industrial land. He recommended that MPAC act on the language now, and then work through what preexisting land should or should not be designated as regionally significant industrial areas.

Mr. Cotugno said MPAC could move forward without the map. The map was not intended to show where regionally significant industrial areas would be adopted; it was to show where Metro would go look. However, he did not think that MPAC could move forward without designating specific parcels of land within the UGB expansion areas as regionally significant industrial land.

Mayor Drake said it was his intent to designate regionally significant industrial lands in the expansion areas.

Commissioner Naito asked how MTAC derived the preexisting use criteria in Section H. What was the rationale for the twenty percent floor area? When talking about the designation on the map, they were basically looking at preexisting uses. The discussion about which areas to include or exclude as regionally significant industrial areas on the map, and the discussion of how to restrict preexisting uses in order to not impact a regionally significant area, were the same discussion.

Chair Jordan said there was a subtle nuance between open space and already developed land inside the currently existing industrial areas.

Mr. Burns said MTAC created a subcommittee on Title 4, and one of the subcommittee’s concerns was to help the Metro Council make a good, defendable decision. In the needs analysis, part of the needs justification for new industrial lands was that the region had not done a good job protecting industrial land inside the UGB. In its decision, the Metro Council would have to demonstrate compliance with State Land Use Planning Goal 14, Factor 4, Maximum Efficiency of Land. If Metro takes another year to look at the regulations and the map, it also needed to take another year to look at the industrial lands additions on the outside of the boundary.

Chair Jordan asked if Metro would need to identify specific parcels within the UGB in order to meet Goal 14. He felt that MPAC would adopt regulations to prevent the dilution of industrial land in the region. However, there are concerns about individual jurisdictional impacts and about which spots on the map should be designated as regionally significant industrial areas.

Mr. Burns said the map could be adopted a year from now.

Mayor Drake said he agreed with Mr. Burns to some extent. However, the Regional Industrial Lands Study identified a need of 5,700 acres, and noted that some of it had better use than others within the boundary. Next year Metro would refine what was on the map and which areas were being well used, while still allowing local flexibility. In his opinion, Metro could add industrial land to the UGB; it was simply acknowledging the 5,700-acre need. At the same time, the region would protect that land for applied materials types of businesses that said they could not come to the region because there was no vacant land. It was possible to do both.

Councilor Park agreed with Mr. Burns, but added a caveat that if Metro did not add any exclusive farm use (EFU) land, then there was no need to worry about this discussion. However, if Metro brought in EFU land that could not be justified under Goal 14 factors, then he did not see how the Land Conservation and Development Commission could acknowledge the Council’s decision. If MPAC did not want to adopt a map and did not want to designate regionally significant areas, then it should leave out EFU land. But if MPAC wanted to go into EFU, there had to be a quid pro quo.

John Hartsock, Clackamas County Special Districts, offered to make a motion to accept the Title 4 draft language as presented by MTAC, specifically excluding the map that was attached in the handout.

Chair Jordan said there were some other points for the committee to discuss first.

Jim Jacks, Planning Director, City of Tualatin, clarified that local jurisdictions would decide which areas in their cities should be regionally significant industrial areas, and make recommendations to the Metro Council. The Metro Council would then make the legal decision of what would be regionally significant. Someone mentioned a safety, saying that if a local jurisdiction did not want to prevent a preexisting use from expanding in the future, then it should simply not include that land as regionally significant. However, this approach could result in a map of regionally significant industrial areas that looked like a spot-zoning exercise. The Metro Council might not agree with the local jurisdiction’s recommendation and designate the entire area as regionally significant.

Mr. Kelley said Section H was intended to avoid that checkerboard pattern. Section H allowed for preexisting, nonconforming uses while creating a cohesive designation area.

Commissioner Naito asked how MTAC derived the numbers in Section H. She agreed with the overall philosophy.

Mr. Burns said the suggestion came from the City of Hillsboro. The language was standard nonconforming use language. The Title 4 code language was a template. If there was a situation in which a jurisdiction wanted to avoid spot zoning, and the H exemption was not big enough for a particular use, a local government had the opportunity to make a larger exemption for a particular property, and submit it to the Metro Council for approval.

Commissioner Naito said that was the worst possible result, that MPAC and Metro would do all this work on designating regionally significant industrial areas, but not decide an appropriate standard for a preexisting use to expand, and then jurisdictions would have to request exceptions from Metro. That undermined everything MPAC was trying to do. Every business that wanted an exception would have to organize its lobbyists and come to Metro. She would rather spend more time on it now. She would be comfortable with MPAC moving forward with the language, if it noted that work would continue on the standard. Either MPAC would do some prescriptive regulations to accomplish its goals, or not.

Chair Jordan said if Metro changed regulations, no matter where it drew the line someone would be on the wrong side. If one felt strongly enough about the dilution of industrial land in the region, then one would recommend adoption of some kind of regulation. If regulations were adopted, then there ought to be language about preexisting uses, and that language needed to include thresholds. He noted that there was a route for exceptions in the Functional Plan.

Mr. Cotugno said Commissioner Neeley had a similar amendment that may be appropriate to include in Mayor Drake’s motion: “unless mandated by new government regulations.” Both amendments addressed the question of how much expansion was allowed.

Commissioner Neeley said the only other alternative was for the business to relocate, which was a more expensive endeavor.

Commissioner Naito said that situation would fall under the exceptions category. The business would need to make a compelling case. How could a business prove that a government’s requirements made it grow?

Commissioner Neeley said government regulations might require a business to expand spatially, to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or pollution-control regulations, for example.

Chair Jordan asked if Mayor Drake and Mayor Hughes would accept language that would allow for a regulatory mandate for expansion.

Mayor Drake said no, he would prefer a separate motion.

Mayor Hammerstad said if the point was to preserve the efficient use of land, why was there concern about the 20 percent more floor area? Why would someone care if a business wanted to expand its floor space by using its land more efficiently, such as by expanding onto its parking lot?

Mr. Burns said it was a concern because of use conflicts. The most likely scenario was an office use in an industrial sanctuary. A more efficient office in a warehousing and distribution area may result in conflicts with the loading and unloading of trucks.

Mayor Drake called the question.

Mr. Cotugno repeated the motion. On page 1, Section 3.07.420(A), of the Title 4 code language, there was a reference to the Potential Regionally Significant Areas Map. Under Mayor Drake’s motion, there would be a period after “zoning district boundaries” in Section 3.07.420(A). The language “of the areas from the general locations on the Potential Regionally Significant Areas Map” would be stricken. Section 3.07.420(B) applied to new UGB expansion areas that would need to have Title 11 concept plans. Section B was not proposed for deletion; land in those expansion areas would be designated as regionally significant industrial areas. On page 2, under Section 3.07.420(H), language would be added to the effect, “unless the expansion is part of a previously approved master plan by the local government.”

Commissioner Neeley said the reason for his motion was that future regulations may require an expansion beyond the level allowed in Section H. If such a regulation affected a number of businesses, it would be better to allow the expansion under the code rather than petition Metro on a case-by-case basis.

Chair Jordan asked if Metro had the regulatory authority to preclude a state or federal regulation. He could not foresee a case in which a regional or city/county regulation would be a problem.

Dan Cooper, Metro General Counsel, said the problem was not that simple because it depended on whether the state or federal law clearly preempted local Metro regulations.

Chair Jordan restated the motion: Under Section H there would be language to the effect that an expansion that was required by outside regulatory action would be excepted from the limitations.

Mr. Burns said it might be better to include the amendment language in Title 8 (under general exceptions) rather than under Section H of Title 4.

Commissioner Naito said is was hard for her to envision how a preexisting business might need to expand more than ten percent, based on regulatory impacts. If so, the business would have the option of requesting an exception. Would the language only apply to state or federal laws?

Commissioner Neeley said yes, the intent would be state or federal regulations.

Mayor Drake said this question should and could be discussed under Task 3. If there was something solid before MPAC, he could support it.

Mayor Hammerstad said in Section 3.07.410(F(2)), the last few words needed to say, “parcels so long as the resulting division yields the maximum number of lots or parcels larger than 20 acres,” to make the language consistent with Section F(1). If the language read “at least 15 acres,” then those parcels may be re-subdivided under Section F(1), and everything under 50 acres could just be subdivided and re-subdivided.

Commissioner Neeley said he would like to include the following language in Section 3.07.1110 (D(2)): “A school would be permitted if it meets regional industrial needs or serves people who work in the industrial area.” There could be an industry that wanted to contract with a college to offer a course in quality control, for example. The current language would exclude this type of use because the students might not all work in that industrial area.

Mayor Katz said the language could include a community college or general education.

Dan Saltzman, Commissioner, City of Portland, asked if Commissioner Neeley intended the exception to include only post-secondary education. Did he intend for the language to encompass high schools?

Commissioner Neeley said the exception would also include trade schools that might not require a high school diploma. He did not intend for the exception to include high schools.

Mayor Drake asked if the language would apply to a truck driving school, for example. Was that an appropriate use for a regionally significant industrial area?

Commissioner Neeley said a truck driving school was permitted under the current wording.

Mayor Kidd said he would support Commissioner Neeley’s motion because he saw some necessity for training, including university-level classes and training specifically for an industry that might be in an industrial area.

Chair Jordan suggested that if these types of training institutions were allowed, they be subjected to the limitations within the different employment areas. For instance, if it was a regional industrial zone, the inclusion of training facilities could not go beyond the five percent total limit for retail use.

Mayor Drake asked if he was correct that, for example, the five percent limitation on retail could be two percent for a daycare and three percent for construction related to industrial?

Chair Jordan said the daycare was an allowed use if it served the industrial area.

Commissioner Neeley said he had no objection to subjecting schools to the space limitations.

Charles Becker, Mayor, City of Gresham, asked for clarification. Was Chair Jordan thinking of a formal institution whose sole purpose was for preparation or instruction of the people who were working in that industry or who would work in that industry? He thought of that type of training more as in-service preparation rather than a formal preparational program.

Commissioner Neeley said it would not necessarily be that. In the case of a quality control course, an industry might be a great location for the course, but students from various other areas might want to take the course, too. The course could be offered by either an institution or by the industries in the area.

Recommendation on Additional UGB Expansion for Jobs

Mr. Cotugno reviewed MTAC’s recommendation on the two outstanding sites (Stafford Basin and Southwest Damascus/Keller Road) proposed for inclusion in the UGB to meet jobs land needs. MTAC recommended to not include either area in the UGB. Stafford was not recommended because the charge to MTAC was to make further recommendations on land to meet the industrial shortfall. The Stafford Basin area was not proposed to meet the industrial shortfall, although a portion of the land would be available for industrial purposes. A much larger portion of the area, however, would be available for non-industrial purposes. The Southwest Damascus area was proposed for inclusion for large lot industrial use. However, it was EFU land; therefore a special case would have to be made in order for the land to be eligible for large lot industrial use. Also, the site was about 50 percent constrained by steep slopes and was marginal for large lot industrial use. Therefore, MTAC recommended against its inclusion in the UGB.

Mr. Hartsock said another outstanding issue from MPAC’s prior meeting was MTAC’s review of the industrial lands in the Executive Officer’s August 1^st recommendation.

Mr. Cotugno said MTAC had not yet made a recommendation on the Executive Officer’s original recommendation.

Chair Jordan said a few months ago, MPAC made a couple of changes to the assumptions in the Housing Urban Growth Report. Those changes impacted the need number for housing. In addition, there had been discussion at MTAC and changes in some of the local jurisdictional recommendations, which also impacted the housing balance number. Therefore, at its last meeting MPAC asked MTAC to take a look at the rebalance of the housing need number. However, it was not very fair or appropriate to ask MTAC to make a recommendation on where or how to fix the rebalance. These were policy discussions, not technical discussions. He expected to receive from MTAC a rebalance discussion to state the status of the housing need number. At that point, MPAC was not required to act. However, he would like MPAC to give the Metro Council a nicely tied-up package of recommendations, as much as possible. He asked the committee to start thinking about where land should be added to the UGB if there was a housing shortage on the rebalance. If MPAC could not come to agreement, then it could not come to agreement, and that would be part of its recommendation to the Council. But the Council would be stuck with a housing number that it would have to address, based on state statute.

Councilor Park asked if MPAC would have a final recommendation on October 30, 2002.

Chair Jordan said that was the goal.

Draft Goal 10 Housing Needs Analysis and Periodic Review Related Performance Measures

Mr. Cotugno said the Goal 10 Housing Needs Analysis met a requirement that Metro document the availability of housing types (single-family versus multi-family) at different income levels. The performance measures met a requirement that Metro demonstrate its progress in any area in which it adopted an expectation during the last periodic review, such as development levels in centers and the level of mixed-use development. Both reports needed to be adopted as part of periodic review. They were both data/documentation-oriented measures, not policy direction/implementation-oriented measures. He distributed two maps as attachments to the Periodic Review Related Performance Measures. The maps are included in the meeting record.

Chair Jordan said MPAC would continue to work on the Goal 10 Housing Needs Analysis and Periodic Review Related Performance Measures. At its meeting next week, MPAC would adopt the Jobs Urban Growth Report.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR OCTOBER 23, 2002

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