MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:09 p.m.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES of the October 15, 22, 24, and 29, 2002, Community Planning Committee Public Hearings (Tualatin, Oregon City, Gresham and Portland), and the October 22, 29, and 30, 2002, Community Planning Committee

No action was taken on the Community Planning Committee minutes for October 22, 29, and 30, 2002. Copies of the approved minutes are included in the meeting record.

3.  PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. John Donovan, Metro Council Communications Officer, distributed a preliminary report on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) public involvement effort as of November 1^st when the public record closed. (A copy of the November 5, 2002, report is included in the meeting record.) He said a more complete report would be presented in the future, which would include all communications received from August through October. Mr. Donovan reviewed the public engagement process over the past few months, including “Let’s Talk,” the KGW Town Hall show, Coffee Talk discussions, and the public involvement efforts this fall. The Council Office took over the public involvement effort on August 2, he said, after receiving Executive Officer Burton’s recommendation on August 1. Mr. Donovan briefly reviewed the summary report. He thanked the Planning Department staff for their help with the printed material, the telephone help line, the web site, and other public outreach efforts. He thanked the Executive Office for coordinating bus tours of the recommended sites for elected officials. He noted that over 695 people submitted written or telephone comments, and said he thought this was the most extensive public outreach effort Metro had ever done. He specifically thanked Mary Weber and her group, Mike Hoglund, Sherrie Blackledge, and Amy Rose, an intern from Portland State University, for their hard work.

Chair Park asked that the Gresham Observer be corrected in the report to read the Gresham Outlook. He complimented Mr. Donovan on the quality of the report.

Councilor Burkholder noted that this was the first time he had been through this type of process as an elected member of government. He said he was very impressed with the staff’s work, in terms of both the volume and the quality of the information going out. He thought this public outreach was groundbreaking, in terms of the way Metro held coffee talks with all sorts of community groups to raise issues that affected everyone, and discuss them in a way that made sense in their own communities. It was an excellent effort and he was glad to have been a part of it.

Mr. Donovan thanked everyone on the Council staff, especially Rooney Barker, Council Assistant. He said it was an all-hands-on-deck effort, and he wanted them to know how much he appreciated it.

Chair Park added his appreciation and said there were too many people to thank as it was probably one of the largest public outreach efforts, bar none. He appreciated the work done by Executive Officer Burton and his staff. Of the 240,000 acres within the current urban growth boundary (UGB), he thought Metro had notified over 230,000 acres of this decision. If someone had not heard of it by now, he did not know what to do differently next time. He said they would receive more information as Mr. Donovan continued to compile the report.

4.  REVIEW OF FINAL MPAC UGB RECOMMENDATIONS. Chair Park invited Clackamas County Commissioner Michael Jordan, also Chair of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) to address the committee.

Commissioner Jordan thanked Chair Park for the opportunity to speak to the committee. On behalf of MPAC, he thanked Metro staff for their assistance. MPAC worked intensely on this issue for about two years, he said, and it would not have been possible without the quality work that was done both by Metro staff and by outside experts invited by staff. He particularly thanked Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, for his management of the staff and getting MPAC the appropriate information at the appropriate time. He also thanked Suzanne Myers Harold, MPAC Coordinator, for keeping him on track the past year. He thanked the Council and Executive Officer Mike Burton for their support of MPAC. He thanked the members of MPAC and the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC). He said he’d brought a whip and a gun to the MPAC Chair’s role in January and made people work much harder than they had done in the past. Everyone stepped up to the challenge, attended extra meetings and stayed longer. MTAC turned around recommendations on a weekly basis, and he said he could not thank them enough.

Commissioner Jordan spoke then about the flavor of the debates at MPAC and some of the issues with which they struggled. The decision facing the Metro Council had three broad aspects: the good planning aspect, the legal framework, and the political aspect. From a political perspective, the issue of fiscal capacity was a dominating factor like never before. In some cases, viewing the decision through a fiscal lens was from sheer, absolute, overwhelming necessity. Some jurisdictions had such diminished capacity to raise revenue to provide public services and livability, that they were struggling for any tool to try to alleviate that problem. The other piece of the fiscal puzzle to keep in mind was how to provide the public services that provide the livability in our communities in the future. To a great degree, it was a structural problem with which the State of Oregon must grapple, he said. One of the great judgment calls for the council to make in the next few weeks and months would be to what degree does the land use system have the ability to alleviate those structural fiscal capacity issues. There was no right answer to that question, and it would be a very difficult hurdle for the council to overcome. He said this only after watching the members of MPAC struggle with these questions for two years. In every policy aspect, there was the filter of fiscal capacity.

Commissioner Jordan reviewed a letter to Chair Park, dated November 5, 2002, regarding MPAC’s Recommendations on Periodic Review of the Urban Growth Boundary (a copy of the letter is included as a part of this record). He said MPAC spent most of its time last year learning about the different aspects of the periodic review decision. MPAC had spent the last ten months trying to grind through the different aspects of the decisions. They broke into subcommittees early in the year, and the subcommittees did wonderful jobs taking separate pieces of periodic review and then coming back to the full committee. He briefly highlighted MPAC’s recommendations on the capture rate, schools, and parks. The recommendations on schools and parks were interrelated, he said. Many communities now viewed school sites as primary recreational facilities, and there were many collaborative efforts across the region to integrate public recreation programs with school facilities. MPAC recommended that the Metro Council accept what it felt was a more defensible aspect to the school takeout, which amounted to about 200 acres. The recommended number was closer to the school districts’ “ideal” rate.

Commissioner Jordan said from MPAC’s perspective, the parks recommendation was the most important. The MPAC Parks Subcommittee had returned to MPAC recommending that 1,100 acres be taken out for park development within the boundary over the next twenty years. The subcommittee recommendation was based on the anticipated collection rate for system development charges (SDCs) within the region, and the assumption that it was all the money that could be counted on for the acquisition and development of park property within the region. MPAC had a lengthy discussion about this issue on a number of occasions. During MPAC’s meetings, he argued most vehemently, he said, for changing the parks rate. The region’s historical rate of active parkland development over the past 20 years has been slightly less than 2,300 acres. He felt that the historical rate was more defensible in terms of Metro’s legal findings because, 1) it reflected the region’s historical activity level, and 2) the region had never used just system development charges to acquire and develop parkland. There were numerous examples in which numerous tools were used, such as federal grants, state grants, and general obligation bonds. Nationally, system development charges only accounted for about 25 percent of all capital acquisition and construction of park infrastructure.

Commissioner Jordan said MPAC’s changes to the Urban Growth Report (UGR), along with some jurisdictional changes, left about a 7,645 dwelling unit shortfall in housing. MPAC discussed and confirmed the numbers and assumptions in the UGR, he said, and after an hour or two of debate MPAC voted 9/8 to recommend that the Metro Council look outside the current UGB to meet the shortfall. The issue appeared to mostly be a question of how aggressive the region could be with its Centers strategy. Regarding a Centers policy, MPAC did adopt a set of changes to Title 6. The biggest debate was when to impose those changes on local governments. MTAC recommended that each jurisdiction’s next periodic review serve as the trigger mechanism. MPAC amended MTAC’s recommendation to add that every jurisdiction should be in compliance within five years. MPAC believed the Centers policies were critical to the region’s success and needed to be in place as soon as possible.

Commissioner Jordan said for the past two years, everyone at MPAC has understood that the employment piece would be an important issue. Executive Officer Burton’s deficit number of 5,600 acres was generally accepted. MPAC recommended that Task 3 look at market factor and the inability to convert constrained lands into prime industrial to which the market would respond. Everyone on MPAC recognized that the Executive Officer’s August 1^st recommendation fell short of balancing the need for jobs land. MPAC, with MTAC’s help, adopted a set of principals through which to look at the question. Those principles would be applied to potential areas that could be brought into the boundary to meet the jobs need. MTAC did a wonderful job applying those principles and identifying potential sites, he said. MPAC’s recommendation still came up 700 to 1,500 acres short of the jobs need, depending on how Title 4 was interpreted. The deficit should be addressed in a Task 3 discussion that also incorporated how the Metro region related to the rest of the North Willamette Valley and how urban industry related to agricultural industry. MPAC adopted the Title 4 language recommended by MTAC. MPAC did not recommend a map or areas to which those significant industrial land regulations should apply. MPAC recommended that the map should be determined in 2003 as part of Task 3. There was a significant amount of anxiety at the local government level, particularly in small jurisdictions that have a fairly small inventory of industrial and commercial land. Small cities expressed concerns about whether they would have the flexibility they needed to use those lands to site new economic activity. Everyone at the table was concerned about the dilution of industrial land. Beaverton and Hillsboro also raised concerns about having flexibility within areas of employment, both in terms of industries already there that may have expansion plans, and in terms of not missing economic opportunities. The current economic state certainly colored MPAC’s view of the world and these issues.

Commissioner Jordan said it was fairly unanimous among MPAC members to advise the Metro Council that they did not know enough yet about economic activity, particularly the conversion of industrial land to commercial uses and vice versa, and how the market drives that conversion. Nor did MPAC members know enough about how the regulatory framework interacted with the market and vice versa. He thanked the council for the unique and dubious honor of chairing MPAC the last twelve months, saying it was an experience he would not soon forget.

Chair Park thanked Commissioner Jordan for the report. He noted that there was nothing in MPAC’s bylaws to prevent a repeat performance as chair. Commissioner Jordan disagreed.

Councilor Atherton asked Commissioner Jordan to explain his comment that MTAC said the economic situation colored its view of UGB changes. Commissioner Jordan said his statement was that MPAC members’ views were perhaps colored regarding its debate on jobs issues, industrial lands, and flexibility at the local government level, primarily because members were so concerned about missing opportunities to increase jobs in a tight economic time. Had MPAC been having this discussion in 1996 or 1997, he was not sure the committee would have had the same concerns.

Councilor Atherton said his main concern was relating the jobs forecast to the population growth forecast. MPAC recommended a large expansion for housing, yet the region was not able to take care of the people living here now. He said Commissioner Jordan raised the issue of fiscal capacity, which was related to the carrying capacity language in Metro’s charter. The charter directed Metro not to expand beyond the economic resources of the region. Did MPAC discuss this, Councilor Atherton asked.

Commissioner Jordan said MPAC had numerous discussions at both the full committee and subcommittee levels about fiscal capacity and the concerns of some jurisdictions about that issue. Again, he said, there were two classes of discussion. First, some communities in the region, such as Cornelius, were in extreme fiscal constraints. The second concern was much broader and had to do with the structural capability of the region’s revenue system to support the services jurisdictions were trying to provide. He thought the region was on a negative glide path to real problems in providing public services. It was a structural question of whether it was appropriate to use the land use system to alleviate a revenue structure problem MPAC did not answer that question.

Councilor McLain said MPAC recommended inclusion of the additional industrial sites recommended by the Executive Officer. As she understood it, MPAC made this recommendation because the original Executive Officer recommendation did not address the full need for industrial land. MPAC did not comment on the individual sites nor had the committee compared the sites, she said. Instead, MPAC believed the sites appeared reasonable for the council to consider. Commissioner Jordan said MPAC talked about whether sites should be included in the recommendation or not, but he did not believe there was anything in the MPAC record that would indicate preferences of one site over another.

Councilor Burkholder reiterated that one of the major challenges facing the state was the fiscal issue. It was important to recognize that expansion of the UGB was not really a tool to solve fiscal problems. However, there needed to be a regional response of some kind to address the fiscal inequalities among the jurisdictions and the physical challenges faced by every jurisdiction. He said the council may wish to address this issue during Task 3. Councilor Hosticka reinforced Councilor Burkholder’s comment, but added that the problem would not be solved here. The region would probably have to join hands and to go to Salem in order to get the tools needed to work on it.

Chair Park asked Commissioner Jordan what he would have changed about what they were currently doing, if he had a magic wand.

Commissioner Jordan said he thought the region needed to think seriously about working with the state to discuss their goals regarding the region’s relationship to agricultural land, and how, when and where it was appropriate to get onto that land. He said Councilor Hosticka was also correct that because of its capacity, the region needed to be the harbinger of things to come for other regions of Oregon. The region had an obligation to work with the state to talk about these fiscal issues and what kinds of tools could be put back into the local government tool chest. Lastly, he said he would really like the region to talk seriously with the state about lengthening the cycle for this analysis, that to do this every five years was insanity. They did not get an opportunity to talk at length about the really serious policy issues, he said, because they were always grinding through this constrained, lockstep process. They needed an opportunity to get outside of those constraints periodically and speak freely about their vision, so that they would have an idea about where they wanted to head. Right now they were in the cycle so often that they never got a chance to talk about their vision and how it might have changed since the 2040 Growth Concept was adopted.

Chair Park said that was a good use of the magic wand. He praised Commissioner Jordan for the leadership he provided to MPAC and thanked him for the many hours he gave. He said Commissioner Jordan was able to keep a very good policy focus on the issues, which was a talent.

Councilor McLain said she had had the privilege of serving on MPAC since it began, and she had added Commissioner Jordan to her own personal hall of fame for MPAC chairs. She agreed with Chair Park that to be a good MPAC chair, you had to have agreement on what the tasks were going to be, and an ability to focus those tasks in such a way that MPAC’s decisions were useful to the Metro Council and the decision making process. Commissioner Jordan did a really good job both with the focus and with the timing, she said.

Commissioner Jordan thanked Councilor McLain and Chair Park and added that it helped to be a bit totalitarian. He may have run some risks early in the year, he said, but MPAC members were willing to respond and they really did all the work.

5.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-968, For the Purpose of Amending Ordinance No. 99-809, which Amended the Urban Growth Boundary to include Former Urban Reserve Area 55W of Washington County

Ray Valone, Senior Regional Planner, presented the ordinance and staff report, copies of which are included in the meeting packet.

Councilor McLain said it was important to state in the record how many conditions were completed and will be completed. It could be done in committee or at Council. Mr. Valone said he would add that information to the staff report prior to full council’s consideration of the ordinance.

Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, said Attachment B to the staff report listed each condition and commented on whether or not the condition had been satisfied. He asked Councilor McLain if that was sufficient.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Valone to add language to the comment column of Attachment B clarifying which conditions were met. She noted that much of the City of Hillsboro’s work to meet these conditions would be completed by the end of December. She questioned the usefulness of this document, and asked if they were setting a precedent that conditions would be taken off before they were completed.

Chair Park asked Dan Cooper, General Counsel, to interpret the role of Title 11 in this venue. Mr. Cooper said it was not explicit in the staff report or the ordinance itself, but this ordinance was adopted in July 1999. Later in 1999, the Metro Council adopted Title 11. Ordinance No. 02-968 brought the South Hillsboro UGB amendment, which was done with conditions in 1999, into synch with Title 11 and other UGB amendments.

Chair Park asked Councilor McLain to carry Ordinance No. 02-968 to the full Metro Council.

6.  UGB AREAS: ADDITIONAL COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER PROPOSALS. Chair Park invited Executive Officer Burton to present his additional recommendations regarding the UGB.

Executive Officer Burton thanked Mr. Donovan and the Communications Team and the members of MTAC and MPAC for their work on periodic review over the past two years. When he made his recommendation to the Council in August, he began by saying that there was no finishing line. The consensus from earlier that day, he said, was that they needed to continue to use the process and tools that they had, and to try to find additional tools to help build a healthy region. Perhaps some of the constraints on the process under state law were not the best way to do it, but Metro had done well in the past with those decisions. Mr. Cotugno and his department did a tremendous job putting together the technical data. Mr. Burton specifically thanked Mary Weber, Lydia Neil, Tim O’Brien, Ray Valone, Brenda Bernards, Sherry Oeser, Dennis Yee, Carol Hall, Mike Hoglund, Marci LaBerge, Amy Rose, and Sherrie Blackledge for their work. He noted that Ms. Blackledge received all the phone calls not received by the council, and took all the comments, both good and bad. She did an outstanding job. Over the last several months since August, there had been a tremendous amount of input, information and recommendations from the public and others. As a result of that, and in trying to accommodate both state law and Metro’s own aspirational goals, he said he was making additional recommendations. He noted that there were a number of things he would prefer not to be doing or recommending in this way. He said he thought as a regional government, they would all prefer to have the ability to do aspirational planning that really looked at a much bigger picture of how to protect and enhance the region’s health. Despite the constraints of state law, however, he said he felt they had managed to keep the big picture in mind.

Executive Officer Burton then reviewed his revised recommendation (a copy of which was distributed and is made a part of this record). As Commissioner Jordan noted, Mr. Burton said, MPAC made several significant recommendations that affected the final outcome of the need number. MPAC recommended the additional acreage to be dedicated for schools and park uses. He concurred with MPAC’s recommendations, he said. He added that current practices showed that schools were actually acquiring and developing smaller sites. However, he, Councilor Bragdon and Councilor McLain had attended meetings in Washington County and heard about the difficulties in finding school sites. Schools were using a lot of their facilities sites for community use on weekends and after school hours.

Councilor Hosticka clarified that the recommendation was not actually to dedicate any land for parks or schools. Instead, they were making assumptions about the use of land so that they could make other decisions.

Executive Officer Burton said in the case of the school sites, the school districts had talked about aspirational sizes as 10, 20 and 40 acres for elementary, middle and high schools. Achieving those sizes would use up an additional 200 acres inside the UGB. For parks, MPAC said it would like to double the amount of parks available to the jurisdictions. There were not specific sites, but there was an acreage deficit that occurred.

Executive Officer Burton said in his previous recommendation, he had included Boring. He reviewed the reasons for his new recommendation, which are outlined in his memo. The changes to the Urban Growth Report and his recommendations increased the need for dwelling units from 38,700 to 45,500. To meet the increased demand created by MPAC’s recommendations, he said he’d asked staff to scour the region for additional areas that met state law. His revised recommendation met the projected housing need, although it still fell short of the need for employment lands. He reviewed his specific recommendations for adding residential land to the UGB in the Stafford Basin, the area south of Sherwood, and areas 83 and 84 in the Bethany area, as well as his recommendations for additional employment areas. He also reviewed the letter from the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners to Councilor Hosticka, dated October 31, 2002, which states their recommendations on the UGB decision (a copy of the letter is included as a part of this record). Executive Officer Burton said it was clear to him that study area 42 should come into the UGB. The land was exception land for employment and should probably become a Town Center eventually. Study area 37, he said, which was the shelf area at the top of the Stafford Basin, would assist West Linn in the completion of its Town Center. There should be planning for the entire Stafford Basin area, and Clackamas County seemed willing to undertake that process with Metro. (Also included in this record is a copy of a letter and accompanying maps to Tim O’Brien from Clean Water Services).

Councilor Burkholder asked if the portions of areas 47 and 48 in Tualatin that were recommended for inclusion were part of the Tualatin Quarry about which the council had received testimony from a working quarry that desired not to come into the UGB. Executive Officer Burton said it was not. Councilor Hosticka added that the recommendation from the City of Tualatin included the working quarry. Executive Officer Burton’s recommendation did not.

Executive Officer Burton noted that his additional recommendations for employment land would provide over 2,700. The remainder of the employment land needs would be about 1,500 acres, and would be fulfilled during Task 3. He referred to a slide of an aerial photograph of the St. Mary’s property (no copy included in this record) and said the region really should be planning for that whole area. What was the future of that area, he asked. What was the future of the Tualatin River? What was the future of those resource lands in the middle? Was there a way, in fact, to look at the utilization of this land in relation to the urbanization that had clearly crowded up against it?

Councilor Monroe said in the long-term future, he knew they needed large lot industrial lands. He asked if anyone had talked about the potential of the St. Mary’s property to meet some of that long-term industrial need.

Executive Officer Burton said he had not talked to anybody about St. Mary’s for a couple of years. He understood that the property owners had a development plan that was mostly residential. He noted that this property was not part of his recommendation, that it was just an example of how the piecemeal planning process needed to change. He recommended that the council outline a legislative strategy now for the next legislative session of how to address the questions of how Metro can protect natural resources that are extremely valuable economic resources and extremely valuable animal and human habitat areas, and protect those as well as allow us to develop in this new economy. That strategy should be ready to go when the next legislative session begins on January 14, 2003. It should be a high priority issue for the council, he said, and it was why there was no finish line. He said he made his recommendations based on the input received from local governments and private individuals.

Councilor McLain said she appreciated all the information he brought to them and said she was quite sure this last piece was one of his very good ways of making a point, and not as a serious recommendation for the council to include 14 isolated acres of St. Mary’s in the UGB. The Metro Council did not back away from the St. Mary’s property or concept planning or urban reserves. The only time she voted for the St. Mary’s piece was as an urban reserve for a 50-year land supply. As Commissioner Jordan and Executive Officer Burton both noted, there was one piece of the conversation that she had been trying to get Metro to complete for twelve years: the use of agricultural land, and talking with the agricultural community and industry about what they need in their vital corridors the way that Metro has talked with the high-tech industry about its needs for industrial land or large lot industrial sites. Before the Council developed a legislative package, it needed to complete its conversation with the agricultural part of its community, and then combine and analyze that information with the other industrial studies being done in Task 3. Then they would know what needed to be put in that legislative package. She noted that Executive Officer Burton gave three scenarios for the Bethany area. She believed there were four or five scenarios from the information given by the public. At the public hearing in Portland, she said, four or five people testified that Abbey Creek would be the sensible boundary in order to protect the rural area and create a logical buffer between agriculture and urban use. There were a lot of things other than sewer pipes running through any of these given scenarios.

Executive Officer Burton said she was correct. The difficulty he was trying to point out was that Metro was not allowed to stand on the ridgeline and plan for the valley. Instead, they had to label lands as exception land or not. This was an issue across all of Oregon. In the 1970s, counties were asked to zone their land based on soil types. He did not know if soil type was the way to make urban and rural decisions. How could they best revisit those zoning decisions, he asked. That discussion needed to be held with the farm community, water districts and cities.

Councilor McLain agreed that the issue regarding high-value farmland was not just soil types, but also what the term high-value farmland meant. She asked if there were staff reports to accompany the additional pieces of information on the dwelling units and productivity analysis. Executive Officer Burton said there were, and that the staff report would be distributed to the council and added to the notebook.

Chair Park noted that he could show Executive Officer Burton pieces of farmland within the city limits that still grew good stuff, too. Executive Officer Burton said the point there was, did that necessarily mean that those uses could not occur inside of city limits? He would argue that horticulture/agriculture was an industry and a valid piece of the economy. Could it be done inside or close by cities, he asked. He said he thought it could.

Councilor Hosticka said it was interesting that both Commissioner Jordan and Executive Officer Burton talked about the insanity of the legal framework under which Metro was operating. He thanked them for bringing it to the committee’s attention. Both men talked about how the legal system prevented Metro from doing things that it ought to be doing. On the other hand, he said, it tended to force Metro to do things that it ought not to be doing. For example, by requiring expansion onto exception lands, the council had to go to places where people lived and disrupt established rural communities. It also forced the council to act as if it knew things that it could not know, such as what would happen in the next 20 years. He concluded that they should try to fix the situation. In the meantime he thought the council should act very cautiously in order to keep its options open. He would be looking at all the decisions made by the council from now on within that framework.

Councilor Bragdon asked for clarification on how the Executive Officer’s supplemental recommendations overlaid his original recommendation, particularly the Bethany area. Chair Park said when the committee begins to look at the ordinance, Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, would review documentation that should assist the committee with the process. It will help show the Executive Officer’s recommendations from August 1^st and today, MPAC’s recommendation, individual councilor’s recommendations, and how they overlapped. Chair Park thanked then Executive Officer Burton for speaking to the committee.

Executive Officer Burton said he would be available for all of the committee’s meetings and would try to make sure that the recommendations and study areas were clear. The council had the final decision, he said, and he wished them well.

7.  DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 02-969, For the Purpose of Amending the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, the Regional Framework Plan and the Metro Code in Order to Increase the Capacity of the Boundary to Accommodate Population Growth to the Year 2022; and Declaring an Emergency.

[Due to a recording tape malfunction, the remainder of these minutes has been reconstructed from notes taken at the meeting.]

Mr. Morrissey reviewed a table entitled, “Periodic Review and Related Legislation Decision Products Checklist,” undated, (a copy of which is included in this record), which noted that Exhibit L, the map, was part of Ordinance No. 02-969. Chair Park asked Mr. Morrissey to verify the dates on the table with Ms. Oeser in Planning.

Councilor Monroe explained his motion, and that a yes vote would be a positive vote. He clarified that in talking about parcels, he thought they needed to be done cohesively, that there possibly might be a motion that might include contiguous areas. Some of the properties were divided into different study areas, he explained for the audience, and the committee would need to look at them as a whole in order to have the findings and the justification for bringing them into the UGB.

Chair Park told the committee they would be referring back to this ordinance as they worked through the process.

8.  JOBS POLICY. The committee’s attention was called to Exhibit D of Ordinance 02-969.

•  Framework Plan 1.4.1 Designate Regionally Significant Industrial Areas, and 1.4.2 Protect Same From Incompatible Uses (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit D). Councilor Burkholder said he had questions regarding the protection language in this exhibit. Councilor McLain said somewhere on the page, maybe as a new section 1.4.3, she suggested adding language regarding protection (or incorporate it into 1.4.1 or 1.4.2). Chair Park asked her for language, she said she’d ask the lawyers to do it. Mr. Cooper said he needed to know where Councilor McLain wanted to go with this in order to give her language. She gave an example of her concern, in that she wanted standards. Mr. Cooper told her that the way this was laid out it was a Functional Plan amendment, and that this Exhibit came out of MTAC and MPAC to identify how to “protect.” Councilor McLain said she had ideas for tightening up that language, but for this one, at least, it needed reference. Mr. Cooper told her it would be repetition. Councilor McLain said her point was that they needed to be specific about what the protection means. Compatible uses takes it back to zoning and comprehensive plans, and she said she didn’t like that. Chair Park asked Councilor McLain to work with the attorneys to draft language.

Councilor Bragdon said he thought they all agreed that water transportation, etc., were important to the to economy, and asked if this vehicle could also be used for whatever emerging industries of the future might be. Chair Park said yes. Councilor Bragdon said he was talking about a concept.

Councilor Monroe said his read on section 1.4.2 was that it looked like pretty strong language, i.e., “Metro and local governments “shall,” and he said it didn’t give any latitude.

Councilor Hosticka said there were two conversations taking place, and he wanted to respond to Councilor Bragdon, so he asked for closure on Councilor McLain’s point first. Councilor McLain said she would concentrate her efforts on 1.4.2 language, adding Functional Plan to the text.

Councilor Hosticka said in 1.4.1 we may be being unnecessarily restrictive by putting those four categories in the industries of things we’re trying to protect. He suggested “especially suitable for . . .” and then listing them. Councilor Bragdon agreed, giving as an example the metal industry which wasn’t listed.

•  UGMFP Title 4 – Industrial and Other Employment Areas (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit F)

Mr. Cotugno referred the committee to MPAC’s Title 4 code recommendation which would substitute for the Exhibit F in the packet, and the October 23rd DRAFT AMENDMENTS, Title 4 (these are included in the MPAC recommendation memo, noted above). As a draft, Mr. Cotugno said, this proposed a new area of Regionally Significant Industrial areas and was the majority of this Title 4 recommendation, but it also proposed to add designations on remaining industrial lands. He spoke to the three different categories for design type. He spoke to 3.07.420 A and B (on p. 1). Mr. Benner, Mr. Cotugno said, had said Metro ought to adopt a map, and items A and B refer to the map.

On page 2, F – Councilor Hosticka said he thought it had been changed, and he asked Mr. Cotugno to make sure the final change was made so the committee could vote on the right thing. Mr. Cotugno said he would. Mr. Cotugno then spoke to F. 1, 2, and 3 regarding parcel sizes. He said one was amended, and he needed to get the actual language.

Councilor Burkholder asked about the prohibition on churches and schools and Mr. Cotugno said that was accounted for in item C. It came out that there was an allowance for a chapel inside a factory, but not standalone big churches, he explained, and item J. called for a deadline on conditions for adoption. Regarding industrial-related research and development, Mr. Cotugno said it should be allowed in the industrial categories. Where he thought there was disagreement, he said, was where to allow general-purpose office functions. In direct support of the industry, yes, it should be allowed, but other uses, no.

Mr. Cotugno next spoke to p. 4 of the document regarding Title 11. Councilor McLain said she wanted a map, and said she hoped the first thing done was to straighten it up.

Chair Park suggested discussing Exhibit E before voting because that might take care of that issue. Mr. Benner had some language, he said, that may address the larger issue of MPAC’s discomfort with the regionally significant map. Mr. Benner distributed a one-page explanation of the linkage between the map and the compliance of the decision with statewide planning goals (dated November 4, 2002), and the second item he distributed was the language Chair Park just mentioned, he said (both included as a part of this record).

Mr. Benner explained to the committee the proposal to add land to the UGB for one kind of industrial use or another. As you know, he said, when you consider expansion of the UGB, among the things you need to think about first is can you accommodate the use inside the existing boundary before you expand it. You have evidence in your record, he said, that there is a shortage of land for industrial development, and you have very detailed evidence about the kinds of shortages and parcels, etc. You also have evidence in the record that in the past land that local governments have designated for industrial development has, over time, converted to other kinds of uses, principally to commercial uses. So there is a supply of industrial land within the boundary that is being converted to other uses. In order to make sure that you’ve got things in the right order, if you choose to expand the boundary to bring in new industrial land, you really need to demonstrate some effort to conserve the land inside the boundary that’s already available for industrial use. He said he made reference to a Goal 2 Exceptions Requirement about consideration of alternatives inside the boundary, and to the requirement in Goal 14 Factor 4 about trying to use land efficiently, and, he said he believed that by enacting something like Title 4 and a map that tell you which lands inside the boundary and newly coming into the boundary are protected, you can then fulfill your requirements under those two goal requirements. It’s part of the discussion about whether you need to map land, he said, and the new language is an effort to reflect the discussion at MPAC that was raised by the several members who represent generally speaking smaller local governments who were concerned about a couple of things. One, they may have some land in their city limits that is currently designated Industrial. If the map showed that it would then become Regionally Significant Industrial, then all of the industrial land in that community would be subject to the limitations on Regionally Significant lands that are subject to the limitations in Title 4, and that might disadvantage them. It might cut down on their opportunities to do other kinds of industrial development on smaller lots, depending upon their factual circumstances. The second thing they were concerned about was the precise drawing of the boundary that Title 4 talks about. It has a concept map that this committee has looked at, he said, and then calls for the precise drawing of boundaries of Regionally Significant Industrial Areas within a year. They were hoping, he said, for some flexibility to make sure that if there were parts of their industrial land base that really would not conform to the requirements of Title 4, they’d be able to draw the lines appropriately. So the language he said he would suggest adding, at every point in Title 4 that talks about deriving a specific boundary from the concept map, talks about flexibility in the drawing of that line. That’s what is in the new language, he concluded.

Chair Park said he received a fax from the City of Fairview that he looked at that language (and he believed copies had been distributed to the committee; it should be noted that this letter was received after the close of the public comment period and is not included in the public comment record for the committee, but will be included in the public record for the Metro Council; a copy of the letter is included as a part of this record). Fairview was one of the concerned entities Mr. Benner referred to. Their concern, Chair Park paraphrased, was that they have one large lot of industrial of about 90 acres. If the Metro Council passes this, they have no ability to create the infrastructure to actually make that happen so it will just sit there. Their concern is that they will only have the opportunity for warehousing, period. They’re concerned about having some type of cooperative method and would be happy if PDC would put the money in for them. They would maybe then accept something different. Also, Chair Park said that this committee needed to keep in mind, as they tried to match jobs with town centers, how these would actually interact.

Councilor McLain said there were two different issues here. On the memo, she said Mr. Benner indicated that if the committee couldn’t figure out how to do a map that will be satisfactory to the council and to the local jurisdictions, that maybe the Regionally Significant Industrial issue should be put off until periodic review Task 3. That was not where she was headed at the beginning of this meeting, she said, but in looking at this language and where MTAC and MPAC have come in, that would be where she would go versus trying to wordsmith this if this body couldn’t come to an agreement to have a map, both in and outside, because there are other regional maps that have been produced by this agency as well as the local partners. They were more than happy to draw a boundary and a line, and be specific about what they thought were regionally specific additions. She said she would be more than happy to adopt any language the Metro attorneys felt was appropriate.

The committee asked Chair Park to restate for the record the friendly amendments. The first was Councilor Hosticka’s friendly amendment to Exhibit D., 1.4.1, regarding a language change (see above) and his request to Mr. Cotugno to check the wording in Exhibit F; the second was Councilor McLain’s motion that Exhibit D be amended to include reference to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, with language to accompany the map.

•   Map of Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Exhibit E). This agenda item was postponed to November 7.

9.  JOBS UGR – Employment Capture Rate, Employment Refill Rate, Market Availability Rate, Tables (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Appendix Item #4. Mr. Cotugno spoke to the purpose of the Jobs Urban Growth Report and called the committee’s attention to the October 30^th memo from MTAC to MPAC re Recommendations on Metro Jobs UGR (distributed and made a part of this record), specifically the tables. Councilor Hosticka asked Mr. Cotugno if he could give a thumbnail sketch of the order in which the committee was to consider those issues so he could understand how they related and have a context of the discussion. Chair Park asked if that could be held off as he said he would not be calling for votes on this at this meeting, but that he would do that before the committee was called on to vote. He said he would like to finish the discussion and then have a brief synopsis, and he asked the committee to reflect on the policies of what was before them.

Mr. Cotugno said the overall forecast was a linked population/migration forecast. [Due to the tape malfunction, Mr. Cotugno’s briefing was not captured.] Councilor Hosticka asked why this was being discussed before the forecast, and Chair Park replied that whether or not the UGB is moved, what was being suggested was just good policy. It would affect all the need and the supply, he said, and when the committee got to the last piece, they would come up with a need number, either a positive or a deficit number. Councilor Hosticka asked if the committee would be voting on capture rates, etc., or just looking at the impact of the policy decisions they would make. Chair Park said everything the committee was working on and would be working on would continue to build toward the final need number.

Mr. Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, told the committee that the councilor amendments would soon be on the table for their consideration, and he asked them to let him know what they were planning to include in these. His reason, he said, was that he needed to make certain Metro was meeting public notification requirements to any affected property owners. Mr. Cooper added to Mr. Morrissey’s request, and explained that the newspaper ad needed to be set up ahead of time. It was a formality, he said, one more step in the process.

10.  ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Appendix Item #3). This agenda item was postponed.

11.  RESIDENTIAL UGR – Finalize Flagged Items from October 29 Committee Discussion (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Appendix Item #6). This agenda item was postponed.

12.  REGIONAL POPULATION FORECAST – NEED (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Appendix Item #2. This agenda item was postponed.

13.  REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT FORECAST – NEED (Reference Ordinance No. 02-969, Appendix Item #2). This agenda item was postponed.

14.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. None.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002

The following have been included as part of the official public record. Councilor Hosticka requested that items 15. and 16. be included in this record.

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.