METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

July 23, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Andy Duyck, Dave Fuller, Bernie Guisto, Judie Hammerstad, John Hartsock, Alan Hipolito, Laura Hudson, Tom Hughes, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Mark Knudsen, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, Craig Pridemore, Martha Schrader

Alternates Present: Jim Bernard, Meg Fernekees, Jack Hoffman

Also Present: Pam Beery, Beery & Elsner; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Danielle Cowan, City of Wilsonville; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Elissa Gertler, PDC; Paul Gilles, City of Hillsboro; Rene Heade, City of Hillsboro; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinkerhoff; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Steve Kountz, Portland Planning; Hannah Kuhn, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Charlotte Lehan, Mayor of Wilsonville; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Leanne MacColl, League of Women Voters; Karen McKinney, City of Hillsboro; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Deanna Palm, Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce; John Pettis, City of Gresham; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Bob Terry, Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons –Brian Newman, Council District 2; Rod Park, Council District 1.

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Marci LaBerge, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Mayor Tom Hughes, MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

The consent agenda was deferred to the next MPAC meeting, as the minutes had not been completed from the previous meeting.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Councilor Rod Park said that Goal 5 was moving ahead. The Council had decided to move ahead with the alternatives analysis as was proposed by staff, which included the area south of Wilsonville.

Andy Cotugno said that MTAC had recommended for the alternatives analysis that they should study all the way to the county line, but Council decided not to go more than a mile as was recommended by staff.

6.  MPAC AGRICULTURAL SYMPOSIUM UPDATE

Chair Tom Hughes said it looked like the agricultural symposium would take place in October. The symposium was planned in order to consider the needs of agricultural as related to needs of industry. The Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce would provide expertise and had agreed to sponsor the symposium. They were planning for the symposium to have a series of panel discussions: one panel of agricultural folks, and one panel of businesses that operate on the edge of the UGB. They wanted to focus on policy issues and how to create a region where both industries could flourish. Chair Hughes introduced Deanna Palm from the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, Bob Terry with Fisher Farms, and Kimi Iboshi-Sloop with Parsons Brinkerhoff.

Bob Terry said he had an extensive background in three major areas of commerce: finance, industrial manufacturing and wholesale marketing, and the nursery business. He said they hoped to achieve a more proactive balance between agriculture and industry in the metro area. He said there was a lot of conflict between residential and farming, but that industry and agriculture could work well together. He said that they had already had a small forum with agriculture and industry that was very fruitful. They were planning another forum for September with the hopes of producing a white paper to help them work with the metropolitan decision makers.

Doug Neeley asked if he would discuss the impacts of where residential located in relation to agriculture.

Bob Terry said that at the forum they had discussed that issue. He said that they would need to learn to work with one another.

Chair Hughes said that Kelly Ross from the Home Builders Assoc raised the same issue. He said he thought that they would be looking at industrial clusters pertaining to the expansion much sooner than at residential clusters. The interface between residential and agriculture was a big issue that they should look at closely.

Bob Terry likened it to residential development next to the airport.

Mark Knudsen asked how old the industry was and who the owners were. He spoke about older farmers dying out and having no interested relatives to continue the farming. He wondered if they intended to address that issue at the symposium.

Kimi Iboshi-Sloop said that that issue had not come up in the preliminary work. They had not gotten into the age of farmers and the next generation taking over or selling off the farm. The focus for the study had been to get feedback from folks in agriculture; it wasn’t a statistical or technical study. She emphasized that they had just begun the process.

Bob Terry said that incorporating studies that had already been done into the process was a good idea. He suggested that the next forum include that topic.

John Hartsock asked if they were looking at viable products within the industry pertaining to distribution and markets.

Bob Terry said they were looking at the cluster business of agriculture. They were looking at historical land usage and thinking about where agriculture would go in the future. He said agriculture was a volatile trade that was at the mercy of nature and a worldwide economy. Agriculture was part of a real world economy much more than people often knew. At the last forum they were looking at how the agricultural region could influence the world market.

Judie Hammerstad said that sets up the classic dynamic between the individual farmer and his goals versus the good of world or local economy. When Oregon land laws were passed two resources protected were land based resources. Therefore, the agricultural industry was protected unlike any other industry. In planning for the future, they would not be able to produce more land whereas they could always get more industrial and residential land. She said that making good land use decisions was important and almost driven by agricultural land needs.

Bob Terry agreed with her.

Chair Hughes said that her comments were reflected in the focus group. People in the group wanted to see agricultural land protected forever. He said that they also needed to give attention to the economic circumstances that would impact the future of farming? Would future generations be able to continue running family-owned farms. Close proximity to a metro area would drive up the cost of land. Was it a viable endeavor now or in the future?

Rod Park said that the average age of farmers was increasing. Oregon did not have a lot of corporate farms. Capital gains tax and state taxes were detrimental to future generations taking on farming because they were forced to sell off the land to pay the taxes. Also, per the land use system they were not allowed to break off and sell parcels, so when they decided to sell, it would be the entire property. He said these were drivers on the debate which were currently out of Metro Council’s and MPAC’s control.

Alan Hipolito said that part of the question had to do with the labor pool. He said he thought a lot of farm workers would be eager to move up from entry-level positions to management and ownership if there were some sort of aid.

Vera Katz referred to Senate Bill 100 and the economics of agriculture, and questioned the kind of tax policies the legislature would need to enact in order to protect the agricultural land. She said it could be solved, but it was knowing what to do and safeguarding it.

Chair Hughes said the process should generate good information to help make decisions. He emphasized that it should be a region and statewide effort. Discussion should focus on how to create taxes and land use policies that help the industry thrive.

Bob Terry said that agriculture was made up of independent souls and thus had never pulled together as a unit.

Chair Hughes introduced Mary Weber to discuss expansion of the process in order to include the east and south.

Mary Weber directed the committee to read the paper from Stan Miles, The Changing Nature of Washington County Agriculture, which is attached and forms part of this record. Metro’s desire was to increase understanding about agriculture in-house. Councilor Park had volunteered to pull together representation through the Farm Bureau for Clackamas and East Multnomah Counties to hold forums for industry and agriculture. She said that she had briefly met with planning directors for each of the counties to discuss coding and land use responsibilities in their region. She said they had determined that the range of uses to undertake in the EFU zone was where they needed to focus. They should look nationally at the types of agricultural activity that could survive in urban areas. Jim Johnson from Department of Agriculture was moving ahead on material that would be presented at the conference.

John Hartsock asked how farming could continue in the urban growth area and suggested that they develop transitional zoning for agriculture to remain within the boundary.

Chair Hughes said there was a difference between the viability of those farms in Scoggins irrigation district versus those outside that area. He said they should look at expanding Scoggins dam to bring in higher quality and more viable farmlands and give up some of the dryer and less productive lands. Not all issues were region-wide issues.

Andy Cotugno said that they were aiming for the symposium to take place in the Fall. Now was a good time for questions pertaining to the symposium while they were still collecting information.

Chair Hughes said there would be more information about the symposium over the next few months.

7.  TITLE 4 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL AREAS FACTORS

Mary Weber said that this was just the beginning of the discussion and she thought there was enough time to refine the material. She introduced Dick Benner.

Dick Benner spoke about the principle changes made to Title 4. He said that LCDC had signed the acknowledgement order which included acknowledging Title 4 on July 7^th. There was a new category of employment land called regionally significant industrial area. Now there were three types of employment land: industrial, employment, and regionally significant industrial areas. Within regionally significant industrial areas there were limitations on 1) retail uses, 2) office uses, and 3) demand divisions. Pertaining to use limitations, during the discussion on development of Title 4, many people expressed the desire that Metro not write a zoning ordinance. Consequently, Title 4 did not try to define everything leading to flexibility. One of the things that Metro decided not to do was define industrial use. Most city and county ordinances had a definition for industrial use. Title 4, instead, generally stated they could have industrial uses, such as accessory uses, and research and development uses. There were certain types of office uses that couldn’t develop in regionally significant industrial land. Those would be insurance, real estate, and finance. The industrial land survey indicated a lack of large sites of 50 acres or larger. Land division limitations for regionally significant industrial areas were aimed only at large parcels. Any parcel smaller than 50-acres could be broken down into any number of smaller parcels. There were no limits on land divisions in industrial or employment areas.

Andy Cotugno said they needed to differentiate between regionally significant industrial areas versus industrial areas versus employment areas. They had not yet designated the regionally significant industrial areas. Last December the code was adopted to define regionally significant industrial land and set a deadline of one year, December 2003, to actually delineate where those areas were to be located. Metro was working on establishing the right criteria for this, and MTAC had expressed some uneasiness about the restrictions on office and parcelization. He distributed a letter from Wink Brooks, and a corresponding map, both of which are attached and form part of the record.

Dick Benner referred the members to the explanation of Title 4 distributed at the meeting and forming a part of the record.

Charles Becker commented and reviewed the Gresham handout, Suggested Revised Title 4 Regionally Significant Industrial Areas, which is attached and forms part of the record. He also referred to a letter from John Pettis that was included in the packet and forms part of the record.

Doug Neeley said that if Title 4 was adopted, Gresham had identified an area for study that the jurisdiction did not want included as regionally significant land, he wondered if it would be imposed upon them.

Charles Becker said that he thought he had heard that it would be left up to the local jurisdictions.

Andy Cotugno said that the Council had a self-declared deadline to adopt it rather than the local governments. Council was looking for input from the local governments. Any map that was adopted must have a recommendation from MPAC. At the same time, they were working on the industrial portion of the expansion. They had defined the need for 2000-acres net and 2700-acres gross. That expansion was predicated on implementing Title 4 and reducing the amount of conversion of vacant industrial land for commercial purposes by 1400-acres. If they didn’t limit the conversion then they would need more expansion and they did not know if the state would allow more expansion onto farmland.

Dick Benner said that toward the end of the process of adopting Title 4 language was added stipulating that Metro would derive a map from generalized designations that would take into account the location of existing uses that would not conform to the limitations of non-industrial uses. They would also take into account the need of individual cities and counties to achieve a mix of types of employment uses. The Metro Council must take that into account.

Brian Newman asked if the industrial land already acknowledge by LCDC had a Title 4 restriction on it.

Andy Cotugno said yes.

Brian Newman asked if the discussion was about the new areas that had not been designated within the existing boundary or were they revisiting the decision from December and those decisions?

Chair Hughes said that the Shute/Evergreen site had specific restrictions greater than those of Title 4. He wondered if they should superimpose the restrictions for the master planning for Shute/Evergreen.

Brian Newman asked if they were talking only about new areas or were they concerned about the Springwater area as well.

Mayor Becker said they were concerned about Springwater also.

Doug Neeley said that the map they were viewing was pre-expansion urban growth boundary. He said that MTAC’s map looked like it included the Damascus area.

Andy Cotugno said that there were regionally significant designations in the expansion area including within Damascus.

Doug Neeley said that Oregon City was surprised that it was not circled on the map because they did have land in the pre-expansion area. He said that it had not been annexed in yet, but it was still part of the pre-expansion urban growth boundary.

Andy Cotugno said that under the old Title 4 there were two designations: industrial and employment. Industrial areas already had a limitation on big box retails. Employment areas required some traffic analysis for big box retail, but did not prohibit it. He said that all the purple areas on the map were designated as employment areas.

Doug Neeley said that he didn’t see Oregon City included on any map as regionally significant and he said that no one from Metro had ever came to them to talk about the issue.

Andy Cotugno said that back in December Oregon City was given the designation of employment area.

Doug Neeley said that Oregon City had an interest in having some of those lands designated as regionally significant.

Chair Hughes said that every piece that was brought in on the previous UGB expansion would not qualify as regionally significant.

Doug Neeley said that they had looked at the criteria and did not understand why it did not fit. He said they had noted one potential exception, which had to do with proximity to the highway. He said they had an expressway that came up through 205 to within a mile of the employment area. He said that they wanted to be part of the decision on that issue.

Andy Cotugno said that Mr. Neeley had raised an issue of wanting to move land from employment to regionally significant, whereas others wanted to go from regionally significant to employment.

Doug Neeley said he was making an assumption that there was some benefit to being regionally significant and that would have to do with marketing land.

Judie Hammerstad said it would also be more than 50-acres.

Doug Neeley said there were other jurisdictions that would consider some large parcels for regionally significant designation.

Vera Katz asked what had changed since the last time they had discussed that issue.

Charles Becker said things had changed such as: the compatibility of businesses, and the rate that large corporations were brought in. If restrictions were placed now, that would limit what could be done in the future.

Chair Hughes said he wanted to see the map before moving forward in order to really see what needed to be done. He said that once they got down to refining the decision on what constituted regionally significant industrial land there were sites that would give them heartburn. He said it would limit what a landowner could do and could create a non-conforming use.

Judie Hammerstad said that what she had heard previously was that they did not have large enough sites in order to accommodate major industrial uses. They had been looking for 50-acre plus sites and that Clackamas County did not have any sites of that size. She said that they should not break up the larger sites into smaller parcels until they had taken advantage of all available smaller sites first. She said that she felt that was a bad direction to go because they could never re-capture the larger site. She urged them to continue to be careful about this.

Vera Katz said that she hadn’t wanted to expand the boundary in the last decision, but that good arguments had been made for more industrial land now, regardless of the current market. She said she was disturbed by the notion that they would go back and rezone industrial land that they had specifically designated for that purpose.

Bernie Guisto asked Dick Benner to expound on the requirement to have public and private transit for industrial areas.

Dick Benner said that MTAC and MPAC had decided that offices in regionally significant industrial areas should have public and private transit access. Offices with research and development or corporate headquarters would have a higher density of employment than, as an example, manufacturing. If these types of businesses were to be allowed in regionally significant industrial centers then it made sense to require that they be served by transit.

Chair Hughes said there were other members of MTAC that would like to speak on this issue. He introduced Hal Bergsma from the City of Beaverton.

Hal Bergsma said he was speaking for Mayor Rob Drake. There had been a lot of discussion at MTAC on Title 4. He responded to the Wink Brooks letter pertaining to policy issues. If they were going to add more land to the UGB they should be certain that the industrial land that they already had couldn’t be inappropriately developed for non-industrial uses, thereby creating additional need for industrial land and for further UGB expansion. He said that was what Metro had represented to LCDC and loosening on partitioning large industrial lots and on commercial development could damage Metro’s credibility. There had been concern that allowing too much non-industrial development in industrial areas could reduce development options for real industrial uses, but also provide additional site competition for development in centers. Until the centers project/discussion was complete there should be no major changes to Metro regulations that could jeopardize development centers. It was determined that for corporate headquarters a reasonably high minimum needed to be set. Transit service could be private. They were attempting to level the competition between centers and industrial areas. Rental costs were higher in centers partly because of the public transit system costs. They were also attempting to reduce potential impacts on streets serving industrial areas by providing auto access and lower cost options for employees to get to work. He said that he did not agree with the argument that Metro would be forcing office developments into centers if they didn’t locate in regionally significant industrial areas as was in Wink Brooks’ letter. It was Beaverton’s position that there should be no changes to the Title 4 language, other than to clarify certain terms of provisions, until after they had a clear idea of what areas would be proposed by Metro staff for an RISA designation.

Gil Kelly, City of Portland, said that there were two primary elements to the program 1) code changes that the Metro Council made in December, and 2) the map. It was time to try the mapping and not to revisit the code. He said that he had read through the letters from both Gresham and Hillsboro and the theme he read in both of them was flexibility. He said they all knew of examples where they had designated or zoned industrial areas that had been converted for big box retail. That disturbs traffic patterns and weakens centers. There were many places in the region where there was a low scale industrial park in an industrial area. That had occurred in areas where the locals now regretted that it happened. Industrial land for true industry was a bit like habitat. Those industries needed long-term security about where to locate, they needed to know that transportation investments were available, and that land policy provided for long-term tenure. A supply of large sites near transportation infrastructure was also needed. He suggested that they move on to the mapping portion of the process.

Chair Hughes said that he did not feel that the bubble map was a definitive representation of industrial lands in Hillsboro, or any jurisdiction. It did not make sense to remove parcels but rather to make the case why the regional government would impose additional restrictions on local governments. The burden of proof ought to be on the regional government as to why those parcels should be included.

Gil Kelly said that they had heard from most jurisdictions that the large site industrial areas brought in were important for that purpose.

Chair Hughes said he had no problem with the large sites that had been brought in. He said his recommendation was that there was additional conversation that MTAC should have and additional information that they should consider. The state regional land study and a study by Metro both indicated the intrusion of office/commercial into the industrial area had not been that significant. All those things should be considered before the mapping took place. He would also like to see a better definition of “industrial” land.

Rod Park said that Metro had brought in 200-acres of class 1 and 2 land based on the need for large lot industrial land founded on criteria established by Metro staff and approved by MTAC/MPAC. On the eastside, large lots had been brought in for the same purpose with the same restrictions in order to assist regional centers to function better. Office development within regionally significant industrial areas was detrimental to centers and that was one reason why they had expanded the boundary. Metro pitched to LCDC why they were going into farmland prior to exception land, and he said it would not be prudent to now go back in front of that same body and say they did not mean it. He said that it was now up to jurisdictions to prove why it had to be kept out rather than up to Metro to prove why those areas should be put in.

Meg Fernekees said that the remand order specifically set exact acreage that was developed by Metro for the industrial shortfall. She said that she did not know how the commission would react to a proposal by Metro in response to the remand that would require Title 4 code amendment changes and a request for additional land. She urged Metro to reduce or eliminate any disconnect between that remand order stipulation.

Chair Hughes said that they were not at a point of decision and asked for direction on a timeline for further consideration of Title 4.

Charles Becker asked what the current time frame was.

Chair Hughes said it was to send it to MTAC, then have it before the MPAC committee by the end of October, reaching a decision by the end of December.

Charles Becker asked if the mapping would be done before further action was taken on the standards.

Chair Hughes said they would map under the current standard or they would need to wait.

Charles Becker said that he would like to see the mapping and then make decisions off of that.

Chair Hughes said there were application criteria that would develop as they were applied to specific sites.

Judie Hammerstad asked if mapping provided Metro the opportunity to talk with local governments. She said policy had been discussed and decided on a global level although there might be local variations when the mapping occurred that could be discussed and clarified without having to come before MPAC again.

Charles Becker said it would be beneficial to have some type of justification pertaining to the industrial base and trends for industrial development.

Rod Park said that they went with the current timeline, where it was to come before MPAC in October and be completed by June of 2004, he was worried that they would not be able to finish the work and roll it out for the public hearings in a timely fashion. He suggested that they review the timeline and make sure that they had a good product to present to the public and still be able to meet the June 2004 deadline.

Chair Hughes said that he had outlined his suggestion with David Bragdon and it did not appear that they would have a problem.

Andy Cotugno said the schedule was workable if they did not change the standards of Title 4 and they continued the mapping process. With a draft proposal completed by December, they would be able to determine is they wanted to revisit any part of the process. Making changes would add another 4-month cycle to the process, however.

Chair Hughes said that until the criteria was applied to specific sites they would not know what sort of problems they would have with the criteria.

Jim Bernard said it sounded it like everyone wanted to move on to the next step.

Chair Hughes said that it looked like they could move forward with the timeline that Andy Cotugno had suggested which could eventually result in some modifications.

There being no further business, Chair Hughes adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR July 23, 2003

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