METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

August 28, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Paul Curcio,
Rob Drake, John Hartsock, Alan Hipólito, Tom Hughes, Richard Kidd, Doug Neeley

Alternates Present: Meg Fernekees, Jim Griffith, Dave Lohman, Michael McFarland

Also Present: Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Al Burns, City of Portland; Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Michael Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Chris Eaton, Angelo Eaton & Associates; Elissa Gertler, Portland Development Commission; Jon Holan, City of Forest Grove; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Gregory Jenks, Clackamas County; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Rod Park, Council
District 1. Mike Burton, Executive Officer

Metro Staff Present: Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund,
Marci LaBerge, Lydia Neill, Michael Morrissey, Mark Turpel

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

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

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, announced a change of date for the bus tours in September. Instead of September 13 and 27, the tours will take place on September 20 and 27. The date was changed to accommodate a number of elected officials from the west side who will be in Klamath Falls on September 13. He distributed a letter from Paul Curcio, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), regarding the periodic review process. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Due to lack of quorum, Chair Jordan delayed action on the consent agenda.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said the Metro Council has returned from its August recess. Its primary focus during the fall will be periodic review. Council will also devote time to Goal 5, technical work on the economic, social, energy and environmental (ESEE) analysis, and Metro’s January transition.

Rod Park, Metro Councilor, said next week Metro will mail notification letters to 103,000 property owners regarding periodic review. The Council is also tapping into billing notifications, such as water bills. The Council has chosen to implement the notification portion of Measure 26-29 before the mandatory compliance date of May 2003.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said the notice will go to all property owners in all of the study areas, including those areas that were not recommended for urban growth boundary (UGB) inclusion in the Executive Officer’s recommendation. In addition, all property owners within a mile of the study areas – both inside and outside the UGB – will receive the notice. The one-mile notification radius is based on Measure 26-29.

Councilor Park noted that maps of the possible expansion areas were posted on the Council Chamber wall. He asked for suggestions on how to improve the maps.

6.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-3197, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUESTING INFORMAL ADVICE FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING TAXI REGULATION ON A REGIONAL BASIS

Chair Jordan pulled Resolution No. 02-3197 from the agenda. He said committee members from the City of Portland were in a public hearing and unable to attend tonight’s meeting. He did not feel that it would be appropriate to vote on the resolution without Portland’s presence.

7.  PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE UGB

Chair Jordan said he received a request to hold the Task 3 discussion for last. There was no objection.

•  Introduce Centers Issues and Policies

•  Introduce Industrial Lands Issues and Policies

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, highlighted portions of the language related to centers and industrial lands in the Metro Report “2040 Refinement Report: Policy Recommendations” (pages 34-37).

Doug Neeley, Commissioner, City of Oregon City, expressed concern about the prohibition of schools in industrial areas. He noted the possibility of a community college or university developing a program that is synergistic with industrial activities. Would this limit a college from having a classroom structure in an industrial area?

Mr. Cotugno said yes, as written, the code would prohibit that type of use.

Commissioner Neeley said his second concern stemmed from a comment made by Executive Officer Burton about farmland being an agro-industrial use. He said there is nothing in the policy on industrial categories that would protect good farmland that is added to the UGB because it is surrounded by exception land.

Tom Hughes, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, said a committee that was formed a while ago to look at the issue of bringing land in the UGB for schools, based on a special land need. He noted an example in the Beaverton area and asked about its status.

Mr. Cooper said that site is included in one of the Executive Officer’s recommendations for a larger area to be added to the UGB for housing purposes. It will therefore be added to the UGB as a straight need.

Mayor Hughes said the disadvantage of that approach is that the site was going to serve as a case study for how easy it would be to meet the needs of fast-growing districts through the special land needs process.

Mr. Cooper said that if the policy recommendation to restrict schools from industrial land is adopted, some school districts that had planned to build in industrial areas may then be faced with a shortage of land for schools. If so, the district may approach Metro and request a UGB expansion based on a specific, identified land need.

Mr. Cotugno added that the Beaverton School District did submit a request for a special, identified land need with all of the supporting documentation. That package is part of the Executive Officer’s overall recommendation, and is subsumed into the broader Bethany UGB expansion. However, in the event that Council chooses not to adopt the broader Bethany amendment, the school site is proposed to move forward as a specific, identified land need.

Mayor Hughes said the committee on schools let that issue rest because the next step would have been further legislative action.

Mr. Cooper said Metro is satisfied that there is no need for additional legislation in order to bring in a school site as a specific, identified land need, provided it can be shown that there is an absence of available land inside the school district boundary.

Hal Bergsma, Planning Services Manager, City of Beaverton, said at its meeting last week, the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) discussed the issue of appropriate uses in regionally significant industrial areas. MTAC formed a subcommittee to take a closer look at the language. The subcommittee has met and reached some agreement, and MTAC will address the topic again at its next meeting.

Mike McFarland, Clackamas County Citizen Alternate, asked about the language in 3.07.420 D(5), which addresses subdivision of lots greater than 10 acres but less than 25 acres. By definition, it seems that any lot between 10 to 25 acres will never be divided into lots, because it is already smaller than 25 acres.

Mr. Bergsma said MTAC has discussed the need for wordsmithing in this section. The intent was to clarify that parcels smaller than 10 acres are appropriate for subdividing, but lots between 10 and 25 acres are not.

Mr. Cotugno added that for lots over 25 acres, any subdivision would have to maintain parcels at 25 acres or above.

Dave Lohman, Port of Portland, said the code language implements a number of the recommendations made by the MPAC Jobs Subcommittee. In general they are good concepts, pushing more into the centers and raising the barriers around industrial land.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed proposed changes to Title 1 (Metro Report “2040 Refinement Report: Policy Recommendations” pages 38-39).

Al Burns, Planning Bureau, City of Portland, noted that the mixed-use target table is missing, and recommended that it be included.

Mayor Hughes asked about the affect of Measure 26-29 on Section 3.07.140 Measures to Increase Development Capacity.

Mr. Cooper said it applies to new requirements, not existing ones.

•  Introduce Housing Need and UGB Expansion Areas

Mr. Cotugno reviewed Table 1: 2000-2022 Urban Growth Report Dwelling Unit Capacity Estimate and Need (found on page 3 of “2002-2022 Urban Growth Report: A Residential Land Need Analysis”). It is through the series of calculations reflected in the table that the Executive Officer reached the bottom line conclusion that the UGB needs to be expanded to provide 38,700 more dwelling units. Comments on the housing component of the Urban Growth Report have been received from the Committee for the Future of Damascus, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Clackamas County. A copy of the letter from the Center for the Future of Damascus is included in the meeting record. Of the comments received to date, the big issues concern the capture rate and how Clark County’s limitations on residential expansion affect the region. There have also been comments that the assumed density for schools is too high, that the parks level is too low, and that the underbuild factor may be less than twenty percent.

Chair Jordan said he is still very concerned by the assumption that the region will not build parks just because there is no money. There is nowhere near enough money to implement the Regional Transportation Plan, yet lanes and transit lines have not been eliminated from the plan due to lack of money. A former member of MPAC used to say that, if the region is going to ask people to do the kinds of things necessary to hold the UGB tight, they have to receive the good stuff. The good stuff for many people is parks and openspaces. He realizes that it impacts the amount of land that is brought into the UGB, but it is a big concern. The potential Urban Growth Report numbers for parks are so disparate: the historical rate, what the comprehensive plans anticipate, and the current rate all result in much higher numbers than the number used in the Urban Growth Report.

Mayor Drake agreed, and noted that Metro has been discussing a new greenspaces program. The only way to partly deal with Chair Jordan’s concern and stay aspirational concerning parks is to broadly define “greenspaces” and “open spaces” to include active park land, such as sports fields. The Beaverton School District and the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District work together to co-use sites and there are simply not enough fields.

Chair Jordan said he is concerned that the region is asking developers to develop new areas at much higher densities and asking people to redevelop at higher densities. All of that takes away space inside the current urban growth boundary for recreation. The region needs pocket parks near people’s homes. While it is a local government’s job to build parks, and not Metro’s responsibility, the region should be aspirational about what it wants in its communities.

Mayor Hughes said Chair Jordan’s concern dovetails with the concern he stated earlier about schools. A lot of open space and recreation space will be lost around the region if high schools are built at density levels of 65 kids per acre. Historically, high schools of 3,000 students have used at least 40 acres. Smaller acreage means no ball fields and other open space. As a result, the region is taking a double hit on its parklands.

Chair Jordan said the trend will probably be more students per acre on school sites. In almost every community around the region in which he has lived, the municipality has relied heavily on the school district to supply space for recreation.

Richard Kidd, Mayor, City of Forest Grove, said in his community, existing recreational land on school property is disappearing as schools expand. Based on the numbers in the Urban Growth Report, there is no way to rebuild those fields and return to the status quo.

Chair Jordan asked how, in terms of process, MPAC could change a number in the Urban Growth Report?

Mr. Cotugno said an underlying evidence test is needed. The basis for the parks number is not the goal for parks, but what can be adequately demonstrated based on current resources.

Chair Jordan asked how aspirational the parks number can be, knowing that there is not enough money in the bank today to build those parks?

Mr. Cooper said if Metro picks an aspirational benchmark and someone challenges the number, the process is vulnerable. If it is not challenged, it goes to the Land Conservation and Development Commission without a problem.

Presiding Officer Hosticka noted that any change to the numbers in the Urban Growth Report will affect the final housing need number. Is MPAC obligated to say which areas it would recommend adding or removing from the UGB expansion, as a result of those changes?

Mayor Drake said school size has been an issue in some suburban communities. Schools have consistently argued that school space is more than just a place to park kids, it is a community amenity.

Mr. Cotugno said the school density assumed in the Urban Growth Report is driven by the experience of the Beaverton School District. The report is not trying to increase current density, it is trying to reflect the current situation. It does assume some degree of two-story buildings and some restriction on ball fields, but it does not assume four-story buildings or eliminate fields. School density varies around the region.

Mr. Cooper said if Metro could demonstrate that in the past five years, since Measure 50 went into effect, local jurisdictions have been approving either measures for parks acquisitions or measures for school acquisitions that included the purchase of land at a certain rate for mixed school/recreational use, then Metro may have a supportable basis for findings.

Chair Jordan said Metro has made assumptions in the Urban Growth Report about all the municipal and public facilities, and there is no money to pay for any of those facilities either (e.g. fire stations, police stations, libraries, city halls). The report assumes that those facilities will be built. Why are parks singled out?

Mr. Cotugno said the report assumes that the federal, state and municipally exempt land reflects what is in current public ownership, with no new land. In the same manner as the parks number, it is a conservative amount. As more land is consumed by fire stations and city halls, the numbers will self-correct. He noted that pages 19-20 of the housing report list the various approaches considered by the MPAC Parks Subcommittee. The existing ratio option requires 10,000 acres – in his opinion, this is not a legitimate option. It takes the current acreage of parks and open space per capita, but the current acreage includes Forest Park, Tryon Creek State Park, and other large parks that will not be duplicated in the next twenty years. If Metro takes the active parks ratio and applies that rate to future growth, the parks number is 2,290. In his opinion, the range of 1,050 to 2,290 acres is a legitimate debate. The historic rate is not a good option because in the past few years, significant amounts of bond measures have been used to purchase parks and open space. This level of acquisition is not likely to continue for the next twenty years. The parks-to-developed land ratio does not yield an estimate, and the fiscal resource option is the one currently in the report.

John Hartsock, Clackamas County Special Districts, said the MPAC Housing Subcommittee spent a lot of time discussing parks. He noted that even if the parks number was doubled or tripled, it would not come close to Goal 5’s impact, which has been deliberately left off the table. He suggested that the numbers are okay for the next five years. Five years from now there will be a concept plan for Damascus, which will not have a high-density yield because of the natural resource areas. At that time, Metro will also know how much of the Goal 5 land will actually be passive, and maybe some active, parkland. Then in the next cycle, the parks number can be properly adjusted.

Jim Jacks, Planning Director, City of Tualatin, said if MPAC recommends that Metro staff look at how many bond measures were passed in recent years, that information could be used to develop a factual basis for findings. In the early 1980s, Tualatin passed a bond measure to buy parkland, and a few years later another measure was passed to build parks. As a result, four parks were built in the last twenty years or less. That could happen again around the region, and there is no way to predict its occurrence until it does. But if Metro assumes that it will not happen at all, it may underestimate the land need for parks.

Mr. Cotugno said it is important to separate what people want to accomplish with parks from what the UGB decision needs to be. Mr. Hartsock made a good point about adjusting the number in five years. Metro may assume something, and then self-correct it next time because the assumptions were wrong.

Mayor Drake said Chair Jordan’s concern about parkland is a real concern to the actual people who see the changes in the region. The region made a decision to grow up, not out, and people become concerned when they see patches of land develop around them. He liked the word “aspirational” because people realize that they cannot get back open space once it has a development on it. While he supports development in the community, the real issue is what will the region give back to its citizens in exchange for changing their world?

Chair Jordan said he struggles with the disconnect between the Urban Growth Report number and the number of parks that get built inside the UGB. One side could argue that the number in the report is almost completely irrelevant to how many parks are actually built. On the other hand, MPAC has talked a lot about how the UGB line constrains the real estate market and drives activity inside the boundary. The municipalities inside the UGB are struggling to acquire enough land to maintain their recreational facilities. If they have to compete with a progressively warmer real estate market because Metro is constraining the UGB, then the number in the Urban Growth Report does impact the number of parks that are actually built. If Metro does not account for parks when determining the size of the UGB, the market will drive municipalities away from building them because competition will be stiff.

Councilor Park said if, for example, Metro adds 7,000 more acres for parks as suggested in a letter from Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, but there is only funding for 1,100 acres, has Metro just created 7,000 more acres of development and further exacerbated the shortage of parkland? The real fix is to come up with a funding mechanism to construct and buy parks.

Chair Jordan said the real number is a lot higher than 1,100 acres, because the region has been doing more. Service development charges (SDCs) are not the only source of revenue used by local governments to buy parks. In his opinion, using a number that is too low is just as detrimental. He asked Mr. Ross to respond to Councilor Park’s question.

Mr. Ross said there is a strong history in the region to create parks using mechanisms other than SDCs. For example, a large amount of acreage is donated every year. In West Linn, a neighborhood recently created a local improvement district to buy a piece of property for parkland. In Beaverton, a number of parties came together to purchase a park. Metro cannot ignore that component of the equation.

Mr. Cotugno said the active parks ratio of 2,290 acres accounts for those types of actions. The historic rate of 8,000 acres, on the other hand, includes a lot of open space purchases, which are tied to Goal 5 questions.

Mayor Kidd said parks should not be tied to the issue of available money. If jurisdictions want parks, they will find ways to pay for them. In addition, SDCs will decrease and stop as the region gets closer to the urban growth boundary.

Mr. Cotugno said Chair Jordan’s original question was about process. MPAC has the prerogative to recommend whatever it wants to the Metro Council, and the Council will have to make the judgment call. That judgment call is part policy and part technical. From a technical aspect, there must be findings to support the decision. To the degree that there is latitude within the information, the Council makes a policy choice within that range. He suggested that if MPAC makes a recommendation that affects the final need number, then it should state which lands should be added or removed from the UGB expansion as a result.

Chair Jordan agreed. If MPAC decides to tinker with the Urban Growth Report, it needs to try to accommodate the consequences of that tinkering. He suggested asking MTAC to look at the range between 1,100 and 2,290 acres for parks and tell MPAC the ramifications of the choices. The committee agreed.

Mayor Hughes said MPAC also needs to take another look at the issue of schools. As someone who lives in a school nine months a year, he believes the “constrained” site size option creates ineffective schools. He is not sure how Beaverton is counting its acreage per student, but none of the five high schools in the Beaverton School District meet the “constrained” level of density.

Mr. Cotugno said under the “constrained” option, the density could be any format of schools. It does not mean that Metro assumes that all schools will be 40 acres with 2,600 students and a density of 65 students per acre. The experience in Beaverton has been roughly 20 percent smaller sites for the same number of students, not the same size sites for even bigger schools. The density is just an overall, average density.

Mayor Hughes said he understands that. However, if Metro is assuming x number of students coming into the region, with x number of parents, and figures those densities for school sites, it will wind up with either too few school sites or odd school configurations that are not practical. In Beaverton there are some alternatives that create higher density levels, but in terms of creating schools that are community centers, it cannot be done with the “constrained” density levels.

Commissioner Neeley said in Oregon City, any schools built within the last two generations are one-story buildings, with the exception of the new high school campus. Under those conditions, it is important to think about starting to build up and not out, and that needs to be taken into account.

Chair Jordan said he appreciates the expertise of Mayor Hughes on this issue, but he is sure that if MPAC polled people in all the school districts around the region, it would find a myriad of standards for how they are building schools. In his community, for example, he does not know of an elementary school with an enrollment beyond 570, yet they are all on sites larger than ten acres.

Mr. Cotugno said that is why the actual student land need ratio is lower – it reflects what is happening on the ground. The actual numbers account for many places where there are increasingly smaller school populations on the same site.

Charles Becker, Mayor, City of Gresham, noted examples of schools in Gresham that are built on small sites and have little or no outdoor facilities. However, if MPAC is going to err, he would rather err on the side of too much school land rather than too little, which might impact curriculum and services. He recommended going to the schools to find out their site demands.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro has gathered that information and a summary is available.

Chair Jordan asked Mr. Cotugno to provide that information to MPAC members. He suggested referring the school issue to MTAC. The committee agreed.

•  Recommendations on Task 3

Chair Jordan said at the last meeting, the committee discussed various big-picture issues that will not be accomplished by December. The suggestion was to create a new periodic review task, which would not have a one-year deadline. On page 15 of “Growth Management of the Metropolitan Region: Executive Officer Recommendation,” there is a list of potential Task 3 topics.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the letter from Mr. Curcio regarding Metro’s periodic review process. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record. In his opinion, Metro should request a Task 3 that addresses urban reserves and applies the subregional rule (pending its adoption). The employment land need shortfall is not a Task 3 issue, it is a matter of completing a Task 2 issue.

Mr. Cooper said according to Mr. Curcio’s letter, because employment land need is not subject to the time limitations, Metro could take more time to develop a regional economic development strategy, which could include subregional analysis or not.

Chair Jordan said there is some interrelationship between the issue of extra acreage and the notion of an economic development strategy. He hopes they are included in a Task 3 so that Metro does not accidentally stumble over a timeline.

Mr. Cotugno agreed, but said he did not think Metro should include a regional economic development strategy in periodic review. Metro should make the remainder of its employment land decisions based on a regional economic development strategy. It should relate to, but not be in, periodic review.

Mayor Hughes disagreed with Executive Officer Burton’s statement that there is no long-range economic development strategy for the region. Many jurisdictions have participated in creating a strategy based around the cluster concept, loosely led by the Portland Development Commission (PDC). The question might be whether that economic development strategy is broad enough to include everybody? But to state that a strategy does not exist implies that Metro cannot add employment land until an economic strategy has been completed to justify the addition. Enough work has been done by the Westside Economic Alliance, PDC and others to proceed with the addition of employment land to the UGB prior to the creation of a Metro-developed economic development strategy.

Chair Jordan said in his opinion, there is not a regional economic development strategy. There are 27 strategies that may be loosely affiliated with each other.

Mayor Drake said Mayor Hughes was referring to a group of regional partners that includes PDC, the City of Beaverton, and others. There is a framework in place already that can be used, rather than creating a new one.

Councilor Park said Mayor Hughes talked about what land to bring into the UGB in terms of economic development strategies. He thought Executive Officer Burton was trying to look at the broader issue of how the region wants to exchange one type of industry for another, such as exchanging agriculture for high-tech or manufacturing. Even if it is not directly included in Task 3, it is certainly a driver for how to do things in Task 3.

Mayor Becker asked how long Metro projects Task 3 to take?

Mr. Cotugno said the question on the table is how long would MPAC like to propose for Task 3.

Mayor Becker said if Metro is looking at a regional economic development plan, it has to recognize that some jurisdictions that have moved forward on this topic. It is not fair to penalize them by holding back on land that is needed for industrial development. Work has already been done to justify an expansion for current needs.

Mr. Lohman said the answer to whether a regional economic development strategy exists depends on how the term is defined. There is no unified consensus regarding target industries, but he hoped the UGB process did not demand that type of consensus because it would never happen. The process should only demand the region to identify land needs, which does require some discussion of what kinds of industries the region desires. He recommended asking Metro’s regional partners to translate their strategies into land use requirements.

Mr. Burns spoke in favor of a work program but against Task 3. Portland took thirteen years to complete its first periodic review: from 1987 to 2000. While he agreed that Metro should have a work program for economic development, the concept is easily unlinked from the codependency of having it as part of an LCDC periodic review board. Specifically, he did not think it was implied in the Executive Officer’s recommendation that Metro would make the remaining industrial lands allocations two or three years from now, based on better understanding of economic development strategies. There are immediate needs that need to be met this December, and there is sufficient data to support that decision. The City of Portland does not want a discussion in Task 3 to be an excuse for not making Task 2 as complete as possible.

Chair Jordan said he in no way meant to imply that by having an economic development strategy discussion as part of Task 3, MPAC would delay looking at whether there are further opportunities to add industrial land in the December decision.

Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction, said he went to two meetings at PDC last week regarding an economic development strategy. He recommended reviewing the summary on PDC’s Web site, as the plan is somewhat contrary to Metro’s goals. For example, its strategy proposes legislative fixes and bringing in farmland.

Mayor Drake said one of the region’s goals is to not slip back economically. Obviously, Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. The region has lost great opportunities because it did not have large-lot industrial. He agreed with Mayor Hughes that the basic framework for developing a regional economic development strategy exists. In the short term, however, the region needs to stay above water. He supported inclusion of industrial land in Damascus, but the area cannot accommodate short-term demand due to difficulties building the infrastructure. There is available land in Gresham and on the west side that can help keep the region stable in the next five to ten years.

Chair Jordan informally asked the committee if there are enough big-picture items to justify requesting a Task 3 periodic review? He noted that Mr. Burns has suggested that most, if not all, of the items could be done outside of periodic review. Should MPAC recommend that the Metro Council consider asking LCDC for a Task 3 periodic review work program? MPAC does not need to immediately determine what items would be in a Task 3, because it will partly depend on the decision made in December.

Mayor Hughes asked if there advantages to doing a Task 3 process versus not?

Mr. Cooper said in a periodic review process, the final decision is voted on by LCDC. Therefore, any appeal goes directly to the Court of Appeals. There is great deference given by the Court to rule interpretations by LCDC. If it is not part of a periodic review, then the final decision is made at Metro and an appeal would go to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), and from LUBA to the Court of Appeals. The standard of review is different for the second approach.

Chair Jordan added that in periodic review, there is a definitive timeframe to which Metro will be held accountable. In his opinion, that is an advantage because these types of discussions take as long as they will take, unless there is a deadline.

Mr. Cotugno added that the question of whether to add farmland to the UGB for industrial use would be better addressed in the LCDC venue.

Mayor Drake asked if LCDC would be receptive to the fact that the region has a constrained urban form and there is not a lot of exception land for industrial use? Is the Commission’s answer to the question of adding farmland for industrial use likely to be, “No, never”?

Meg Fernekees, DLCD, said she could not speak for the Commission, but staff’s directive is to try to balance all the state land use goals. The Commission’s decision this fall on subregional rule should give some indication of its position.

Mr. Cooper said at the LCDC meeting last Thursday regarding the subregional rule recommendation, he received the impression that the Commission is very interested in making sure that everybody has enough tools in the toolbox to solve problems. In his opinion, it is as much a question of what the statutes allow as it is what the Commission would allow.

Chair Jordan said his impression is that the seven Commission members are very interested in trying to help the region solve its problems. The issue for Metro and LCDC will be how to deal with statutes and rules.

Mayor Hughes said there is a definite advantage to addressing urban reserves and a subregional analysis tool within the periodic review process. He asked if the process would allow enough time to complete the work?

Chair Jordan said the timeline is determined through a negotiated work plan.

Ms. Fernekees said Mr. Curcio’s letter outlines a series of consequences, not advantages and disadvantages, for each approach.

Councilor Park said Mayor Drake’s question about the Commission could be partially answered by looking at North Plains. In this instance, LCDC has recommended taking farmland over exception land based on separation caused by Highway 26.

Mayor Drake said his read of the Commission is that they are more willing to balance all the goals, but the region has gone down this path before.

Chair Jordan asked for a straw poll regarding Task 3. Everyone present supported the idea. Mayor Hughes said yes, with the assurance that creation of a regional economic development strategy will not hold everything up.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR AUGUST 28, 2002

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