METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

November 12, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Charles Becker, Herb Brown, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Andy Duyck, Dave Fuller, Bernie Giusto, Ed Gronke, Alan Hipolito, Tom Hughes, Kent Hutchinson, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Doug Neeley, Craig Pridemore, Martha Schrader

Alternates Present: Jim Bernard, Jack Hoffman

Also Present: Al Burns, City of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Kay Durtschi, MTAC; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Greg Miller, AGC

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons –Brian Newman, Council District 2; Rod Park, Council District 1. Other: Susan McLain, Council District 4; Carl Hosticka, Council District 3

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Kim Ellis, Tom Kloster, Gerry Uba, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

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

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Hughes reminded members that there was another meeting the following week to replace the one that had been scheduled for the day before Thanksgiving.

Doug Neeley asked to have action items early on in the meeting.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

Chris Smith, the Neighborhood Association for NW Portland, said that they had recently completed a 20-year update of their neighborhood plan for the City of Portland. He said that a late amendment to that plan was a rezoning of a section of the north side of Vaughn Street to allow office development. That land was inside the industrial sanctuary. It was done in order to accommodate Esco who wanted to remain in the area and build a headquarters office, which the neighborhood supported. The amendment went a little farther in that it also allowed speculative office space as part of that development. The property owner’s analysis indicated that the transportation in that corridor would fail. He said that this was a livability issue but also an issue for regional planning. Metro and MPAC was looking at industrial lands all over the region, so to take industrial land in Portland and put it to office use did not seem logical. He said that employment concentration should be put in 2040 centers. He said that their neighborhood was concerned because general transportation failure in that area would impact their livability, but also because there was no planning done to see how that could be mitigated, the only report was that of the property owners’ consultant. He said that Mayor Katz did not support that amendment.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for October 22, 2003.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Councilor Hosticka said that the Council had met on October 30^th and adopted the resolution pertaining to Goal 5 with several amendments. He said that the amendments had the effect of strengthening Option 1, adding to Option 2, and eliminating Option 3. They also changed the “no action” option to something to be studied. They adopted most recommendations from the various advisory committees. The action plan was now in place to do the studies of the various options, ESEE analysis, and then they would choose options in the spring.

Doug Neeley asked if Option 3 was eliminated.

Councilor Hosticka said that it was.

Doug Neeley asked if Option 4 was still essentially like Title 3.

Councilor Hosticka said that they were analyzing it since it was sort of the “no further action” type option.

Chair Hughes said that they would be emailing the amendments to the members and alternates.

Councilor Park said that JPACT was the next morning and they would have an update on the RTP, a discussion on the Bi-State charter, and discussion and action on STAs. He said that this work was important to dealing with town centers. There would also be a presentation on 3 layers of freight movement: national, state, and regional highway freight systems. He said that there would be another public hearing on Title 4 at the next Council meeting.

6.  TITLE 4 RSIA ORDINANCES

Chair Hughes read the ordinances titles for the members and introduced Mary Weber of Metro to review materials and the schedule for RSIA. She said that they had basically 3 more meetings before they could make the decision. She reviewed the Metro code and some suggestions that had been made to change the code. All materials were included in the packet and form part of the record.

Herb Brown said that the work on the regional significant industrial areas would affect water providers in the area.

Doug Neeley asked if the graph of the ordinances in the packet reflected the changes.

Mary Weber said yes.

Doug Neeley said that on Ordinance 1021, section E, number 3 should have a “non-industrial” inserted before the headquarters portion.

Andy Dyck said that he thought the first statement in that section covered that point.

Dan Cooper said that the Council had already directed the attorneys to write the ordinance a little more clearly and that he therefore anticipated refinements to that language.

Chair Hughes asked if, referring to Metro code, it talked about non-industrial as opposed to specifying the industrial use.

Dan Cooper said the council had decided not to define the term industrial because they didn’t want it to be too limiting. He said that it did specify financial, insurance, and real estate professionals were the type of businesses/offices that were on the “bad” list if they had less than 1000 employees.

Dick Benner said that non-industrial offices/headquarters besides being allowed in regionally significant industrial areas under the conditions laid out in the ordinance, they were also allowed in industrial areas, employment areas, centers, station communities, corridors, and main streets.

Ed Gronke asked if a company wanted to build a non-industrial headquarters in an RSI area, then the new building would have to accommodate at least 1000 employees. He also wanted to know if the company could sub-lease under the ordinance and count those employees as part of the 1000 required employees.

Mary Weber said that under the ordinance they would have to have at least 1000 employees, but as for the sub-lease question, that was a local code issue. She said that there was always circumstances that the Council could not anticipate, and they would have no way to screen or monitor who occupied a building.

Dick Benner said that it could not be a company with less than 1000 employees. The ordinance was written with the intention of the large company with a large employee base, and possibly the headquarters all on one campus.

Rob Drake said that there had been a work group that had gathered to discuss some of these issues and that group had included CP Bragdon and some Metro staff. He asked if after the ordinance went into effect there was then a non-conforming use of an employer with approximately 500 employees who wanted to expand to perhaps about 700 employees, would that employer be limited by Title 4? If they were increasing their employees and building another building, why would we make them move?

Dick Benner said that Title 4 was adopted with a condition that covered expansion and non-conforming uses. When the council directed that staff prepare a revision, it was to eliminate the non-conforming use status of those existing offices altogether. He said that staff would draft an amendment that would give Council a choice of whether to authorize and expansion of an existing office that did not meet the new regulations, or to allow expansion beyond the non-conforming use provision.

Rob Drake said that some of the larger employers and property owners were expressing concern about the 1000 employee minimum. He said there was also concern related to transit for those type facilities. He said that there was concern that these perceived limitations would cloud the ability to attract future business and prohibit expansion of existing business.

Doug Neeley said that the ordinance stated that transit could be either public and/or private.

Rod Park asked if a non-industrial user could bring employment/headquarters of less than a thousand into a non-RSI area that was also zoned industrial. He was told yes. He said he wanted to clarify that the regional industrial lands partners had wanted to hold out areas for employers who needed 50 acres or more. Then the question came up about if a corporate headquarters would fit in a regional center and so that exception was made. He said that the region had been viewed as being business unfriendly and that was why they were trying to preserve large lot lands.

Dave Fuller said that they could not dictate to the customer what they should buy. The three mayors for Wood Village, Troutdale, and Fairview had attended the Council meeting the previous week to voice opposition to including their cities in the RSI designation. He said that about 80% of the land being looked at in their area was developable land. While those three cities needed new business and an economic boost, making their land RSI land would restrict them to only large lots that might not fill up quickly. Also, there was concern that a buyer who wanted a 50-acre lot might not be good for the local economy because business would be too specialized. If those big lot companies were of the same industry or employed a huge portion of their population and went out of business, such as had been happening (Fujitsu) that could ultimately do more damage to the local economy. He said that they felt that they needed more flexibility and smaller sites. He requested that their land not be included.

Charles Becker said that maybe using the word “sites” would be better than using “building” because some buyers want to come in by building an additional building on their current site.

Susan McLain said that RSI land designation was a tool that could not be used helter-skelter. She said they would have to figure out how to use the findings and criteria arrived at over the last year in making a valid tool that could be used in a regional approach that also included the needs of the jurisdictions. She said that they had to figure out how to stay true to the tool they were creating and still allow for protection with flexibility.

Dave Fuller said that each city should have the right to have an individual destiny.

Bernie Guisto said that state code used populations greater than 50,000 people to determine specific speed limits. He suggested that cities might be able to use that system to figure out what areas could support large lot employers.

Doug Neeley asked staff to make sure that educational/training and development facilities and related development had clear language in the ordinance in order to prevent misunderstandings about permission.

Mary Weber said it came up at MTAC and that there was no disagreement on that issue.

Jack Hoffman asked about non-conforming use. He said that the ordinance stated that non-conforming use meant that it only applied to new buildings built after July 7, 2004, but the way he read the code language was that the building only had to be authorized by final land use approval prior to July 2004, which meant it could be built as late as 2005 or 2006.

Mary Weber concurred with that assessment.

Rob Drake said they were trying to do the right thing but he had not heard from the business sector until recently. Ultimately they were trying to meet the needs of the customer and the community. While the work done so far was good work with good intentions, he said he felt that if it was adopted today it would not do that for either sector.

Chair Hughes said that the perception of labor laws in Oregon was that those laws would allow incoming companies to be unionized. This drove businesses to decide to locate elsewhere. He said he had concern about the perception and customer service so interested buys had for the region.

Susan McLain said that they had responsibilities to make sure that document and the language would work for future business prospects. They needed to make sure that the document was understandable and not detrimental to growing industry.

Dave Fuller said that to make the ordinance work for the region they needed to exempt certain cities from the land size requirement, or they would not be able to compete.

Dick Benner pointed out language in Title 4 section 3.07 420, paragraph A, that was added by Council late in the process. He said that there had been concern that in the mapping process for RSIAs they might unwittingly have the effect, for a small town, of including virtually all of the employment land for that community. The goal was to achieve a mix of types of employment uses, therefore the ordinance allows that staff can take into account the very concerns that Dave Fuller had expressed about small towns.

Jack Hoffman asked if a public use airport could expand its boundaries and therefore include all of cascade station?

Dick Benner said that the airports had facilities master plans as opposed to master plans. Facility master plans allowed for boundaries to expand over time, although it was not extensively done. It would have to be done in coordination with local governments and Metro.

Chair Hughes said that the issue would be addressed again at the next meeting on November 19, 2003.

7.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Andy Cotugno said that last spring they had published their first attempt at performance measures and they were now starting to work on the second round. He introduced Gerry Uba, Metro Long Range Planning.

Gerry Uba reviewed the materials included in the meeting packet, which are attached and form part of the record.

Ed Gronke said that changing the word “ensure” to “encourage” for Fundamental No. 7 was a very significant change that everyone had agreed to before finalizing.

Doug Neeley said it was a voluntary effort which did not ensure anything and using encourage might be reflecting reality.

Ed Gronke asked if they should crank back their values when the goal was difficult to achieve.

Gerry Uba continued his presentation.

Jack Hoffman said that he wanted to disagree with MTAC that the balance of economic growth was the same as high quality jobs relating to 2040 fundamental values. Economic growth could be a growth of $7 per hour jobs in Clackamas County and $20 per hour jobs in someplace else. There was a difference between economic growth and high quality jobs and it should stay in the document.

Dave Fuller said that the use of the word “enable” in the document would tend to make Metro a partner whereas if they used “encourage” rather than “enable” it meant that they were on their own but that Metro would be there to back them up. He said he preferred the word enable.

Susan McLain said that the Council had also liked those words but they were now trying to reflect back the comments they had heard from MPAC previously.

Jack Hoffman said he supported Fundamental No. 7 to be “ensure the availability of the diverse housing options.”

Doug Neeley said he agreed with Ed Gronke and Jack Hoffman.

Andy Dyck said that he disagreed as there had even been a lawsuit.

Charles Becker said that when they say “enable” there was some responsibility that went along with meeting that goal whereas when they use “encourage” they do not have to facilitate the accomplishment.

Doug Neeley said he preferred “enable” rather than “ensure” or “encourage” for Fundamental No. 7.

Andy Dyck said he could support that reasoning.

Chair Hughes said that the three terms had different meanings and that “enable” was the one that was most collaborative.

Richard Kidd said that if changing the word helped bring funds to the jurisdiction then he was in favor of changing it.

Andy Dyck asked if the motion was to change the word “enable” or to change the meaning of the sentence.

Chair Hughes said that Metro would attempt to provide resources to local communities as well as encourage them to strike a balance. It was different that “encourage,” but not quite “ensure.”

Andy Cotguno said that fundamental number 7 would read “enable communities to provide diverse housing options etc.”

Andy Dyck said they could just add the word “help” then.

Rob Drake also asked that the word “help” be added before “enable etc.” to what Andy Cotugno had suggested.

Rod Park said that one of the concerns from the homebuilders last year pertaining to the UGB decision was that there was a requirement under House Bill 2709 about the diversity of housing and accounting for that. There was a responsibility by state that Metro must inventory and make available that list.

Dick Benner said that when urban growth report was making its way through the Council the homebuilders criticized it for failing to comply to the letter about the inventory of buildable land. That legislation was very particular about the types of vacant land, partially vacant land, redevelopment development land, and mixed-use land. For each of those categories Metro had to be able to demonstrate how much land was available, density, price range, etc. for those lands developed. Metro did not have all that information when the urban growth report was making its way through Council. LCDC sent back that report to Metro for completion of that detailed information.

Rod Park asked if “help enable” was enough to provide sufficiently for the performance measures when it came back on the next expansion. He said that he believed that Andy Cotugno’s suggestion would provide that but not the use of “help enable.”

Andy Dyck said he was okay if the word “help” was not included.

Gerry Uba continued his review of the materials.

8.  DRAFT 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE

Andy Cotugno introduced Tom Kloster, Metro Regional Planning, and gave an overview of the RTP.

Tom Kloster gave his presentation and reviewed the handouts he had provided at the beginning of the meeting. Those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Doug Neeley said that they had corridors in the Metro region that were highly challenged and if they had things that fell behind that he didn’t want them brought down to a lower tier just because they were identifying two regionally significant industrial lands. He said he feared that they would develop everything wonderfully in the regionally significant industrial lands and then see industries pulling out of existing jurisdictions only to end up with unoccupied industrial areas.

Chair Hughes said that it should go back to MTAC and then come back to MPAC with their comments.

Richard Kidd said that all industrial areas should stay in top category prevent them losing federal funding. Many jurisdictions did not have regionally significant industrial areas and that means that their industrial area would always be a lower priority.

Herb Brown asked to have comments from MTAC at the November 19^th meeting.

Andy Cotugno said that there were three parts to the hierarchy and that central city, regional centers, and industrial areas comprised the highest tier. The next tier was town centers, main streets, and light rail station communities. Single-family neighborhoods was in the third tier. The effect would be to move it from the first industrial tier down to the second tier, but then it would be in the mix of town centers, main streets, and light rail communities. It was a priority emphasis and not a priority exclusion. The funding that was allocated across those tiers got weighted towards the highest priority and less towards the second and less towards the third, but it had never been used to say they would exclusively in the first tier and not at all in the second or third tiers.

Richard Kidd said that the third category of his comment still stood.

Bernie Guisto asked if TriMet was part of the groups that had discussed this.

Tom Kloster said that they had worked closely with TriMet because part of their task had been to update the transit model. They had updated the capital projects that were proposed in the plan.

Chair Hughes said it was referred to MTAC for comments and would come back at the next MPAC meeting.

9.  BI-STATE COORDINATION COMMITTEE

Chair Hughes introduced Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner.

Craig Pridemore reviewed the materials included in the packet. Those materials are attached and form part of the record.

Andy Cotugno said that the two bodies of Clark County and the Portland area, historically dealing with the Bi-State Transportation Committee in dealing with their individual agendas, had to consciously recognize that issue they were dealing with might have an impact on the other side of the river and need to ask that Bi-State Committee to take up that issue and deal with it and come back with a recommendation. There had been some experience with that in the transportation world but not in the land-use world. We tend to be inwardly focused in Oregon and they tend to be inwardly focused in Washington. The challenge would be to recognize that an issue might have an impact on the other side of the river and actually reach out and consult with the Bi-State Committee.

Chair Hughes said that both sides needed to be mindful of each other as they made decisions.

There being no further business, Chair Hughes adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2003

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