MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Bill Atherton, Rex Burkholder, Carl Hosticka, Susan McLain, and Rod Monroe

Members Absent:  Councilor Bragdon was excused.

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 1:13 p.m.

1a.  ASSESSMENT OF UGB PUBLIC HEARINGS. John Donovan, Metro Council Communications Officer, said the hearings so far had generated a good turnout with more than 100 attendees at Forest Grove, more than 150 attendees in Beaverton and more than 250 attendees in Damascus. He thanked the committee for their attendance at the hearings and making them a valuable experience for the citizens. He said very few citizens were choosing to give their testimony in a separate room, even if it meant they would have to wait to testify before the committee. He said he thought those citizens’ basic philosophy was that by testifying directly to the committee, they got the best possible value from the experience.

Mary Weber, Community Development Manager, spoke to the map room experience for the citizens. She said planning staff was providing opportunities for citizens to ask questions and get help finding their way around a map. She said a range of questions and concerns arose at the map viewings. She said the experience was very real to people and that it helped to put a human face on the process.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF:

•  THE OCTOBER 1, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING:

•  THE OCTOBER 3, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING:

•  THE OCTOBER 8, 2002, COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING:

As the October 8, 2002, Community Planning Committee minutes were not completed in time to be considered by the committee, approval of the minutes was postponed.

3.  TASK 3 - DRAFT RESOLUTION 02-3236 - FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTION TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO REQUEST A MODIFICATION OF METRO’S PERIODIC REVIEW WORK PROGRAM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, spoke to the staff report in the agenda packet. He said the resolution was a direction to staff to file a proposal to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to approve a modification to the work program and a Task 3. He said a Task 3 would allow for the completion of the accommodation of need for the employment land that remained after the committee’s December 2002 decision on Task 2. He said there was no specific limitation in the statute for how long Task 3 could take. He said the statute provided general guidance that periodic review should take no longer than 3 years. He said Metro had been in periodic review for approximately two years and that if Metro sought an additional two years to complete Task 3, the process would be extended to about four years. He thought LCDC would approve a Task 3 with a two-year timeline. He said this was something that could be resolved in discussions between Metro and LCDC.

Councilor McLain said the language to which Mr. Benner referred was too general and she asked for more focus and direction. Mr. Benner responded that the language was to some degree from the statute. He said it was understood that when there was a task in Periodic Review, it fell within a sequence. During the fifth task, something might come up to prompt review of work already completed. Councilor McLain asked if the committee could go back and review completed work because something had arisen regarding industrial land. Mr. Benner assented.

Councilor McLain said, regarding the economic development strategy, that she didn’t want to give away any more of the dialogue than was needed. She asked when LCDC would set a date. Mr. Benner said the agency had said they wanted a resolution and a letter requesting the reformulation by October 17 or 18, 2002. He said final action did not need to be taken at this meeting. The specific timelines, if any, for subtasks was a matter of negotiation between Metro and LCDC. Councilor McLain said Metro needed to do some proactive work in-house that would produce a dialogue to share with LCDC. She said a full economic strategy was needed sooner rather than later.

Councilor Burkholder asked why the terms “industrial” and “employment” were being used interchangeably. Mr. Benner responded that an earlier draft used the term “industrial land” and after discussion with the Planning Department, he concluded it was more appropriate to use the term “employment land.” There had always been commercial uses in industrial areas as allowed by the code. He said that for consistency’s sake, the term “industrial land” ought to read as “employment land.”

Councilor Burkholder referred to page 2 of 3 in the staff report and the list of subtasks included therein. He suggested adding a subtask to investigate ideas in increasing the efficiency of use of land for employment, specifically how to increase jobs or development per acre. Chair Park said that if the piece regarding regionally significant industrial lands was adopted, there might be a shortage of commercial land. Councilor Burkholder referred more specifically to commercial office and retail land and recommended looking into using it more efficiently.

Councilor Atherton asked that on the first page of the resolution, in the 6^th Whereas, that the language “will almost certainly” be replaced with “may,” the word “substantial” be replaced with “an,” and that the word “industrial” be replaced with “employment.” There were no objections to this friendly amendment.

Councilor Atherton spoke to page 2 of the resolution and asked to strike the word “development” and to change the language reading “regional discussion of economic strategy” to “discussion of regional economic strategy.” There were no objections to this friendly amendment.

Chair Park said that missing from the resolution was the rural portion of a potential subregion as well as the urban portion. Since that area would most likely fall outside of the jurisdictional boundary, he was unsure how to trigger the discussion regarding agricultural interests. Mr. Benner responded that agricultural interests could address the council if they understood the council was considering adopting policy on which lands would come in for employment purposes. He said they didn’t have to own land inside the Metro boundary in order to come forward and have that conversation. It was a wide-open legislative matter.

Councilor McLain said that the council needed to know what the agricultural interests’ prime issues were in order to make reasonable decisions inside the UGB on issues that affected parties outside of the UGB, such as economics. Chair Park said that, regarding large-lot industrial land, the discussion had not yet proceeded to the point to decide whether the agricultural industry could be inside the UGB and still be considered protected, or whether the land had to be moved to a different use.

Councilor Atherton said he was playing off the Executive Officer’s original recommendation to look at the big picture. He said the committee already did that when considering the employment situation in Clark County, but his goal was to have a regional economic strategy that would look at agriculture, even regarding goods shipped in from eastern Oregon. He said the strategy would include other surrounding towns and he was hoping to find a way to have the deliberation without being so narrowly constrained within the UGB.

Lydia Neill, Principal Regional Planner, said the regional economic strategy might best be addressed through a subtask and fleshed out in the work program, as well as impacts on agricultural uses outside of the UGB.

Chair Park said that when considering subregions, he hoped to expand the discussion because the agricultural portion of the equation could be very valuable in one segment but not as valuable in another.

Councilor Burkholder asked if amendments could be made to the staff report. Chair Park said negotiations with the commissions were still underway. Councilor Burkholder asked how to make sure that the additional subtask he had proposed would be noted. He referred to the Concurrent Work Tasks item on page 3 of the staff report and recommended that the phrase “regional economic development strategy” be changed to “regional economic strategy” throughout the document. Chair Park said that staff had noted those suggested changes.

Councilor McLain said it was important to address the agricultural industry issue in the Whereas clauses. She proposed the following whereas: “The agricultural industry is impacted by urban activity and must be included in a successful economic strategy.” She said that would prompt a subtask to directly address the issue. Chair Park suggested accepting the friendly amendment with some latitude for wordsmithing. There were no objections to this friendly amendment.

Chair Park invited Al Burns, Portland Bureau of Planning, to comment on the resolution. Mr. Burns commented on the usage of “industrial land” versus “employment land.” He said the term “industrial land” was appropriate in the 6^th whereas, because priority 4 land was only being looked at for manufacturing production and distribution on the edge, and not for new commercial, retail or office uses. He said if there was a commercial land deficit, Metro’s preferred strategy would be to look at industrial land already inside the boundary. Chair Park said he was thinking of Damascus, and land that people wanted brought in for the town center on the south side. He suspected that land would be employment land and not industrial. If the proposed change was made to the Whereas, it might preclude the ability to complete the town center. Mr. Burns said it was a valid concern to pick up some town center support for commercial land, but that it was important to not telegraph the message that the committee was looking to add commercial land at the UGB edge. Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said the Whereas’s were a statement of present intent, and didn’t control Metro’s action. He said if the whereas only addressed industrial land, Metro was not precluded from considering other land.

Councilor Atherton said that the issue should be included in the regional economic strategy. Chair Park responded that the point was not to signal the intent for all types of employment land that happened to be industrial in nature, but to send a signal to LCDC and others that Metro was looking at Tier 4 lands for the purpose of industrial lands. He suggested that the resolution should refer to those lands as industrial. Councilor Atherton agreed but said a critical point for the regional economic strategy was that commercial land should not occur on the edge.

Mr. Burns said if there was a Task 3, he was concerned that the urban growth report did not have a calculated underbuild rate. He said in 1996 the calculated underbuild rate using 1990-1995 data was 25%, and the policy number in the urban growth report was 20%. He said if another two years was added to the process, there would be an opportunity to do a revised calculated underbuild rate for residential. Chair Park said that would trigger an automatic revision of the forecast and all the other factors involved. Mr. Burns said the underbuild rate and the lowering of Functional Plan targets were the kinds of concerns that Portland would likely bring up to LCDC. Ms. Neill responded that what stood before the committee at the meeting was a discussion of employment land, and staff was assuming Task 2 would be completed and that housing would be put to bed. She said the committee would then move on to discussing employment. She said that during the process with LCDC, Portland should feel free to address those issues. She addressed FTE and timeframe requirements to complete these tasks.

4.  SPECIFIC LAND NEED PRIMER. Mr. Benner spoke to the memo on Specific Types of Identified Land Need included in the agenda packet. He asked the committee to keep in mind that he was providing his estimate of likely success in defending an identified land need before the LCDC and the Court of Appeals. He gave examples of specific land needs, such as the need of a school district for a school site. He said the closer the proposal was to very specific locational characteristics, the more likely it would be sustained by LCDC or the Court of Appeals. He said more general needs were more difficult to defend as a specific type of land need, and less likely to be upheld.

Councilor McLain spoke to the example of Bethany cited in the memo. She said the Bethany area had been remanded to Metro because Metro had improperly concluded that the subregional need for housing in the area was a specific type of identified need. She asked if the rule could be better defined. Mr. Cooper said that “similarly situated” was a term the council adopted in the Metro Code. He said the council struggled with it and had then removed it from the Code. He said the language was in a statute adopted by the legislature. Since it had not been litigated and was not defined specifically either in a rule or in the statute, Metro attorneys had to say they didn’t know for sure how to apply the term. He said the council could decide how to apply the term as it went through the process and if Metro wanted to add something to the Metro Code in the future to provide guidance, and that was acknowledged as being consistent, the council could place more limits on itself. He said the council couldn’t approve something that the reviewing body said stretched the statute too far. He said that if the council adopted the more restrictive interpretation, others followed suit and it was adhered to consistently, then he didn’t think there was a challenge to the council.

Councilor McLain said her comment to the committee was that there was a very general application in place that hasn’t been tested. She gave an example of school districts having a limited area of enrollment, limited budgets, bus routes, and particular needs for particular types of schools. She said that in that case, there might be some specificity from which the council could draw. She suggested that the same rules could be applied to industrial.

Mr. Cooper, said that industrial, as a broad category, did not fit a specific identified land need. He said a specific identified type of land for a specific identified type of industry with locational characteristics would be closer to the mark. He said it was a question of defining how specific to get. He cited some past examples.

Chair Park said the council would rely on legal staff to give parameters and give an appraisal of where an issue fell on the specificity continuum and then the council would make the judgment call on its own.

Councilor Atherton asked the attorneys if there was any provision in the law for the concept of clustering. Mr. Cooper responded that there was no case law interpreting the statutory provision that dealt with the clustering concept. The past council decision he had referred to was an industrial cluster, and was not a binding precedent. He said that didn’t mean the policy argument wasn’t valid for the council to consider.

Councilor Hosticka said that so far there were no specific proposals before the council in the formal sense. He asked whether, when there were specific proposals, the council had to state that it found a specific identified land need and whether it would became the council’s findings to defend. Mr. Cooper said the council’s adoption of the findings made it the council’s findings. Councilor McLain said it was the council’s responsibility to have staff review work that had been handed to council from somebody else. She said the council could also give direction for additional staff work to be done on a particular finding. Mr. Cooper agreed. He said if a majority of the council wanted to go ahead, legal counsel might give them yellow flags and hope the council would take that into account. He said legal counsel’s job was to defend the council’s decisions, not tell the council what decisions to make. He believed planning staff would likewise be happy to review factual cases. The greater the specificity of findings and the more detailed the support, the greater the likelihood that the case would be upheld.

Chair Park asked the attorneys if any of the informal data they had seen qualified for this type of consideration. Mr. Benner said one had been submitted but he wasn’t certain whether they had yet seen the applicant’s findings. He said preliminary analysis of the proposed school site in the Bethany area indicated that a case could be made that this was a specific type of identified land need.

Councilor Hosticka clarified that when he said “formal” he meant in ordinance form before the committee.

Chair Park asked the council to avail itself of legal counsel on this issue.

5.  HOUSING UGR / JOBS UGR. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, spoke to his distributed September 16, 2002, memo, Feedback on Metro Jobs UGR and the separate sheet Commercial Land Need, distributed and made a part of this record. He spoke to the Urban Growth Report (UGR) and said it contained analysis related to different sized lot needs, and land use conversion. He said the memo was intended to call out some of the areas where questions had been raised in order to adopt a final UGR. It was not just a matter of adopting the two tables in the memo but of peeling back the underpinnings much like the committee had done with the housing UGR to identify other factors. He suggested getting acquainted with some of the job-related issues so that the council would be in a position to conclude what the job-related urban growth needs would be. He spoke to the questions raised in the memo.

Councilor Hosticka said Metro was under a 20-year law and he asked how the council could take into account short-term need, as posited in question 4. Chair Park referred to alternatives analysis information and said that even if land was brought in that might be a short term need, there was no way to guarantee it. Mr. Cotugno said the alternatives analysis information provided basic information about how easy it was to extend infrastructure and allowed for interpretation of which areas would be available for short-term expansion, but it didn’t obligate the jurisdiction to extend the infrastructure.

Councilor McLain suggested that a ninth question address transportation infrastructure cost, and what the balance and tradeoffs would be.

Chair Park asked about requirements of short-term need and long-term need. Mr. Benner responded that the discussion about short-term need and long-term need was not addressing any specific kind of need. The record indicated that there was a supply of land inside the boundary for employment, although it was not a 20-year supply. He said if the discussion was about a general short-term need, more land would not be able to be brought into the boundary to satisfy that need if land serving that purpose was already inside the boundary. He said the question couldn’t be answered in the abstract; it needed to be addressed more specifically in the analysis.

Mr. Cotugno continued to speak to the questions raised in the memo. Councilor McLain suggested that a tenth question address what trade-off conversation would be needed to talk about the impact on other industries of providing 100- 200-acre lots in a particularly rich resource area.

Councilor Burkholder said he felt the committee was falling into the trap of only having a hammer, which was expanding the land supply, and looking at everything was a nail. Instead of looking at the various ways of creating large lot industrial areas, he said that through a regional economic strategy there would be many ways to come up with a large lot. He said the council should look at the best tools they had and look more closely at a regional economic strategy in order to do expansion the way it should be done. He said some issues fell outside of Metro’s purview, such as pollution, which created a barrier to redevelopment. He said those issues were still worth discussing with other groups in the area to come up with the best solution.

Mr. Cotugno suggested an 11^th question to address the conclusion of the Regional Industrial Lands Study (RILS) that created an analysis of Tier B, C and D lands. He spoke to the tiers and said all those lands were included in the analysis as available supply. He said action was needed to discount those lands and thus create a land need larger than the identified 5600 acres.

Councilor Atherton asked if the Metro Charter allowed for Metro to establish redevelopment districts for the purpose of assembling larger parcels of land. Mr. Cooper responded that the charter limited Metro’s ability to provide local government services. He said Metro could declare a need of greater metropolitan concern and get Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) or voter approval. He recommended caution in pursuing that route.

Mr. Cotugno continued to speak to the questions raised in the memo. He spoke to the map in which MPAC had made its recommendations, some of which fell within the hierarchy and some of which were predicated on the special identified land need approach. He said whatever was not accomplished in the UGB decision should be tied to the regional economic strategy. He said some issues needed conclusion to finalize what the overall land need would be. He said if the full need was met, documentation would be necessary to document that need. He said finalizing the full need might be a Task 3 rather than a Task 2. Mr. Cotugno displayed the map and described the areas recommended by MPAC.

Councilor Hosticka asked about the process in which the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) was able to make recommendations. Mr. Cotugno responded that after August 1, 2002, MPAC had set deadlines for jurisdictions to submit proposals for housing or job-related amendments. MPAC collected those amendments and then asked MTAC for their recommendations.

Councilor Burkholder said he would like to see something from the recommendations’ proponents that connected with the 2040 Growth Concept, and how the areas would serve the development of centers. Mr. Cotugno responded that supporting development of centers was one of the three criteria established by MPAC and should be part of their plan.

Mr. Cotugno said several meetings had been dedicated to discussing the housing UGR and not as much time had been spent on the jobs UGR. He suggested that the committee engage in more discussion on this topic. Chair Park asked what the effect would be on the regionally significant industrial lands policy. He asked if staff would have any time to generate numbers to assess what adjustments might be needed in balancing the commercial and industrial needs. Mr. Cotugno said that Dennis Yee, Chief Economist, would need about a week to do that analysis. He said Mr. Yee was busy pulling documentation on other regional forecasts from the state and /WEFA as per the committee’s direction.

Chair Park asked about local entities being able to hire FARs for their warehousing areas, which could affect question 2. He said it should be an interesting discussion in which Metro, for the purpose of maintaining warehousing areas, might not want to mandate densities. He asked when Mr. Cotugno expected to revisit the discussion. Mr. Cotugno responded that, dependent on whether the issue received closure at MTAC the next day, the discussion could continue two to three weeks out.

Chair Park said that, given the fact that there was a deficit in the area, the committee had a little more time.

Ms. Neill spoke to the October 11, 2002, memo, Follow-up, 2002 Urban Growth Report Methodology (distributed and made a part of this record) and its attachments. She said staff was very interested in ensuring that the committee had the best information available to make their decisions.

Councilor McLain asked how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) could be counted within the refill factor. Ms. Neill responded that the refill rate was a percentage and that staff had completed two redevelopment and infill studies in the past, which established the rate. She said that ADUs weren’t specifically counted but they were a refill product and should be included in the refill rate. Councilor McLain asked that the report reflect the information as something that was known and not unknown. She said she would like a list detailing what Metro would want to see from the local jurisdictions so that the jurisdictions would have a head start. She suggested developing an administrative tool that would help deal with the data from the local jurisdiction permits. Ms. Neill responded that staff needed to a better job of getting data from local jurisdictions and figuring out how to streamline the building permit process.

Chair Park said that, in trying to identify the underbuild rate, there had been efforts to standardize forms. He asked how that could fit into the current conversation without adding a burden to the local jurisdictions. Mr. Cotugno responded that some work had been done in that area, including raising reporting requirements in centers and investigating the integration of Department of Land Conversation and Development (DLCD) and Metro reporting. Councilor Burkholder asked why the refill rate had dropped 4% from its last assessment. Mr. Cotugno responded that a factor in the previous refill rate was the ramp-up of 2040 densities. He said all those actions were predicated upon implementing 2040, which was adopted to be more aggressive in both vacant development and redevelopment. Now that local plan reviews and implementation were completed to accomplish 2040 requirements, the results were less aggressive than had been originally projected. Councilor Burkholder said that some information was based on forecasted trends and other information was based on what had occurred in the past few years. He said he was concerned that two different approaches were being used to come up with the refill rate number.

Mr. Benner spoke to Chair Park’s previous question regarding whether the Executive Officer’s package addressed the quality of the data coming to the council from local jurisdictions. He said there was a provision in the proposed revisions to Title 1 that spoke to Metro working with local governments to improve their reporting to the Metro Council on all inputs to the housing UGR. The provision did not prescribe a particular format but did say there would be development of a form in cooperation and coordination with local governments. He spoke to Councilor Burkholder’s question regarding the refill rate and said that past experience gave a refill rate that could be used to forecast the future. If the committee wanted to pursue a higher refill strategy, the statute required action to be taken. He said other sources of information could be projected into the future, such as using the centers strategy as the basis for going from a lower refill rate to a higher refill rate. He said this kind of option was the general rule for all of the UGR ingredients. Chair Park said this might be an item to be included in Councilor Burkholder’s requested review of line items.

Councilor McLain said that inspectors could be the feedback loop for identifying ADUs. She said she was more comfortable in using national trend information rather than a regional average. Councilor Hosticka asked if there were specific requirements to include certain items in the UGR, and whether items could only be included if they were based on sound data. Mr. Benner assented to both. Councilor Hosticka asked if the statute required the inclusion of a vacancy rate. Mr. Benner responded that there was no mention of a vacancy rate in the statute.

Councilor Atherton asked if documented demographic trends could be used to justify erring on the high side of needed ADUs. Mr. Benner responded that, regarding ADUs, the statute required accurate, complete and reliable data. He said that although there wasn’t complete data on ADUs the data that was available could be used.

Councilor McLain said that there was now an awareness of codes for ADUs, that ADUs were being built and that reporting was low. Councilor Burkholder said that the national level, an unnoticeable 1 ADU per 1000 units, was larger than what Metro was reporting. Councilor McLain asked, regarding the underbuild factor, whether assumptions from the previous factoring process were rechecked. Ms. Neill said a subdivision study had not been done as it had in the past. Mr. Cotugno said the same approach as last time had been used. Councilor McLain said she wanted to make sure the need assessment was as clean as possible. Chair Park recalled that staff had provided a new reporting form from local jurisdictions, and that perhaps this discussion could point to changes to that form. Councilor Burkholder said he was concerned that if an extra margin were to be created for providing land, the market would be depressed in the areas where higher density was desired. Chair Park suggested the councilors individually talk more with staff if they had further questions.

Chair Park spoke to the UGR findings and said the Community Planning Committee record would need to close on November 1, 2002. Councilor McLain clarified that November 1, 2002, was the date that councilors needed to give amendments to the chair. Chair Park said that if someone were trying to build a case, they would need to turn in their information by that date. Councilor McLain said that Metro would be building findings until December 20, 2002. Chair Park said that if the information wasn’t in the record by November 1, 2002, the case could not be built.

Chair Park reviewed the following topics that needed to be addressed:

1)  ADU question

2)  vacancy rate question

3)  underbuild question

4)  parks

Mr. Cotugno said that MPAC and MTAC had recommended using a 2200-acre take-out based on their assertion that 1100 acres was a conservative take-out. Chair Park asked the committee if it wanted to extend the discussion, accept MPAC’s recommendation or send it back for more information. Councilor McLain said that there were two discussions still outstanding: whether the 1100-acre number was one the committee could support, and whether the 2200-acre number was attainable. She said she thought 2200 acres was a bit generous, and was looking for a compromise. Chair Park said the committee would need a policy reason to pick another number. Councilor McLain said that since the 1100-acre number was based on current system development charges (SDCs), she was comfortable with it and would support it. She asked how the 2200 acre number would be justified. Chair Park said that one way would be to ask MPAC how they would guarantee that land. He asked Mr. Benner how LCDC would receive the number. Mr. Benner said he thought LCDC would give a good deal of latitude on that number.

Chair Park asked if there was any additional methodology, such as donation of lands, that could help with establishing guidelines. Mr. Cotugno said that was the basis for MPAC’s recommendation. He said that SDCs for parks were a relatively recent phenomenon.

Ms. Neill asked for clarification that the committee would continue the discussion and that additional information was not yet needed from staff.

Mr. Burns testified that Metro staff was very professional and gave the best information as any planning outfit in North America. He said the information derived from building reports was an area that could improve. He said the city of Portland tried very hard to do an enumeration on ADUs from the years 1999 and 2000, including identifying items that were suspected ADUs and visually locating them. He said they were identified in the computer as infill and redevelopment, but that the amount of work that went into identifying them as ADUs was not justified.

Chair Park said that another outstanding policy question was the separation of communities issue.

Councilor Atherton asked if there was any data reflecting impacts on parks from changing demographics. Mr. Cotugno said the 2200-acre estimate was based on the existing inventory of active parks. He said staff could show what types of parks were accounted for in that list and could segment that 2200-acre figure into pieces.

Chair Park asked how many more housing units of land would have to be found if the committee accepted MPAC’s recommendation. Mr. Cotugno responded that the 38,000 shortfall would go to about 45,000. Chair Park asked the committee to consider how to engage the public in that particular discussion. He asked how to signal to citizens that certain areas would be in play. Councilor McLain agreed that citizens should not be notified at the last minute, but said she believed that Metro had already done its notification. She suggested reminding those attending the hearings about the notification that had already occurred.

Councilor Atherton spoke to ranking impacts of various issues. Mr. Cotugno said the impacts could be measured in unit or acreage terms. Chair Park said it was important to focus on policy issues regardless of which impacts would occur.

6.  JOBS POLICY - TITLE 4. This item was delayed until the next committee meeting on October 22, 2002.

7.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Chair Park reminded committee members that amendments needed to be in the hopper as soon as possible. He spoke to the proposed swap of Forest Grove property, which hadn’t been noticed a mile out. Mr. Cotugno said that staff operated under the resolution adopted by the committee authorizing evaluation of Tiers 1 through 4. He said everything within those tiers was noticed, even though the Executive Officer recommendations only recommended a subset. He said the Executive Officer recommendations covered 17,000 acres and Metro noticed 85,000 acres plus a mile out. He said Tier 5 was not authorized for study, and the Forest Grove amendment fell within Tier 5. Councilor McLain said it was her understanding that those who might be affected by the proposed Forest Grove swap were noticed. Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said he had a list of amendments that councilors were considering. He said the committee chair had asked committee members to be more formal in submitting their amendments so that notification could be efficiently carried out. He said everything that was in play would be noticed at the same time.

8.  ADJOURN. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.