METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

September 25, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Bernie Giusto, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Alan Hipólito, Tom Hughes,
Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Annette Mattson, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, David Ripma

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

Also Present: Kim Anderson, Sunrise Water Authority; Betty Atteberry, Westside Economic Alliance; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Tommy Brooks, City of Portland; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Rob DeGraff, Portland Business Alliance; Michael Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Rob Fussell, City of Gresham; Elissa Gertler, Portland Development Commission; Mary Gibson, Port of Portland; Holly Iburg, Newland Communities; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Gregory Jenks, Clackamas County; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; John Leeper, Washington County Commission; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Renate Mengelberg, Clackamas County; Mike Ogan, Portland Development Commission; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Doug Rux, City of Tualatin; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Andrew Solomon, Perkins Coie; Max Talbot, City of Gresham

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Susan McLain, Council District 4; Rod Park, Council District 1. David Bragdon, Council District 7

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Lydia Neill, Sherry Oeser, 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

Suzanne Myers Harold, MPAC Coordinator, noted that copies were available of the executive summary of the Let’s Talk Regional Conference and community workshops, held on March 15-16, 2002. A copy of the executive summary is included in the meeting record. She circulated a sign-up sheet for copies of the full public comment report.

Chair Jordan mentioned the bus tour last Friday of the region’s east side. There will be a tour of the west side and Portland on Friday, September 27.

Lisa Naito, Multnomah County Commissioner, distributed a letter regarding Multnomah County partnerships on urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion areas. She clarified that Multnomah County has not yet taken a position on the prospectus for Springwater, which was distributed by the City of Gresham at the last MPAC meeting. The Multnomah County Board is working with its partners in Gresham and will hold a round table discussion on the issue on October 1, 2002. A copy of her letter is included in the meeting record.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said the Council has set up its public hearings in October and is in a listening mode. This fall the Council will focus on transition and the UGB decision.

Rod Park, Metro Councilor, said the Council will hold a public hearing in Forest Grove on October 1, in Beaverton on October 3, and in Damascus on October 10.

6.  PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE UGB

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, said as a committee, MPAC is has been looking at how much industrial land is needed in the UGB, and where it should be located. The Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) has addressed the question of how much in terms of how to best use the existing industrial land inventory. The Regional Economic Development Partners have also provided a lot of input, which will be presented next. Secondly, MTAC members came forward with a suggestion on how to look at a framework for job land needs and suggested that MPAC focus on those concepts first before becoming enmeshed in the details of specific kinds of industrial land restrictions.

Comments from Regional Economic Development Partners

Betty Atteberry, Westside Economic Alliance, reviewed the membership of the Regional Economic Development Partners and the group’s purpose. A brochure about the Regional Economic Development Partners includes information presented by Ms. Atteberry and is included in the meeting record.

Gregory Jenks, Business and Economic Development Services, Clackamas County, noted that in the Regional Economic Development Partners’ zeal to identify additional lands, it failed to note its support for the good work done by MPAC, MTAC and the MPAC Jobs Subcommittee. The Regional Partners support the efforts to preserve the existing industrial land base. He emphasized that they want the December 2002 UGB decision to be made on schedule. Mr. Jenks reviewed the Regional Partners’ proposal, as outlined in a letter to Presiding Officer Hosticka, dated September 9, 2002. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting packet.

Doug Rux, Economic Development Director, City of Tualatin, reviewed the sites recommended for inclusion in the UGB. A copy of the map, Regional UGB Expansion Proposal, is included in the meeting record.

Ed Gronke, Clackamas County Citizen, asked if the Regional Partners have addressed how to meet the transportation infrastructure needs in Washington County if the proposed areas are brought into the UGB. He noted that significant “rush hour” congestion now begins at 5:30 a.m. To his knowledge, there are no financial means to provide transportation infrastructure in the next fifteen to twenty years. He noted that the Tualatin-Sherwood Road is absolute gridlock from 6:30 to 8:30 a.m.

Ms. Atteberry said everyone on the west side agrees that transportation is a big issue. There are two or three major projects for Highway 26 for which funding has already been identified, that will substantially improve congestion.

Mr. Rux said in the south Tualatin area, there is a project to widen the over crossing of I-5 at Nyberg Road, which will relieve some of the congestion. In the area between Tualatin and Sherwood, the proposed UGB expansion would provide opportunities to create additional parallel routes to Farmington Road, as another route to I-5. Eventually, the region needs to address the issue of the I-5/Highway 99W connector: identify the alignment, start identifying the funding, and acquire the rights of way.

Jack Hoffman, Councilor, City of Lake Oswego, asked about the breakdown of commercial versus industrial land in the 2600 acres recommended for UGB expansion by the Regional Partners.

Mr. Rux said in Washington County it would be industrial land. In the Stafford area, about 100 acres would be industrial; 140 acres would be mixed commercial use.

Mr. Jenks estimated that of the 800 acres identified in Clackamas County, about 500 acres would be industrial.

Councilor Hoffman asked if they would agree with him that the region does not need additional commercial land right now?

Chair Jordan said if some of the proposed industrial land policies are adopted, the dilution rate of industrial land would decrease and could create a greater supply of industrial land but a shortage of commercial land.

Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland, said the piece that is missing is the region’s goal to strengthen town centers, which are opportunities for commercial development. Strengthening town centers is critical if the region is serious about meeting its 2040 goals. She noted that no one can predict what the economic structure and the employment land needs will be in twenty years.

Mr. Cotugno said due to the size of the residential land expansion in the Damascus/Boring area, town centers will need to be created. Therefore, commercial land will be needed in the Boring area, even though technically there is not a shortfall regionally.

Commissioner Neeley supported Mr. Gronke’s comments about transportation infrastructure. If the proposed jobs in Tualatin are filled by people from Clackamas County, the I-205/West Linn/Oregon City route is a real constraint.

Mayor Hughes said in answer to Councilor Hoffman’s earlier question, the land requested in the Hillsboro area is outside both town centers and adjacent to the industrial sanctuary. All 200 acres would be for large lot industrial, with no commercial use.

Chair Jordan noted that some of the proposed industrial land is zoned exclusive farm use (EFU). He asked if the EFU land would be added through the regular periodic review process or as a specific identified land need?

Mr. Rux said in the area between Tualatin and Sherwood, the City of Tualatin has submitted documentation and justification to add the rock quarry as an identified specific land need. He noted the advantages of developing the area as industrial land.

Ms. Atteberry said for the Hillsboro site, an economic study of the area found that there is a need for industrial land to accommodate the high tech industry cluster.

Mr. Jenks said generally, the Regional Partners superimposed a sense of market readiness on the priorities statute. As a result, they included the land in Boring because it is immediately market-ready or near-term.

Councilor Park asked why the area between Wilsonville and Tualatin was not included in the proposal, as it is large, flat, and serviced by I-5.

Mr. Rux said the area is not generally flat; there are a couple of creek drainages that run through it. Primarily, the issue is getting the route of the I-5/99W connector established first. Once rights of way have been acquired, it will be an appropriate time to look at what types of land use should occur adjacent to the new highway.

Councilor Hoffman followed up on Commissioner Neeley’s comments regarding the Southern Stafford Basin (area 42) and I-205. The City of Lake Oswego is concerned about increased traffic on Stafford Road, McVey Avenue and Highway 43 through the Lake Oswego town center. He asked if he was correct that the City of Tualatin was not advocating that area 42 be brought in now.

Mr. Rux said the Tualatin City Council submitted a letter to the Presiding Officer supporting the Regional Economic Development Partners’ proposal. The city council has not specifically identified area 42 for inclusion in the UGB, but it has placed the area on the table for discussion. The Regional Partners have identified area 42 as a mid-term property with a 20-year horizon.

MTAC Framework for Meeting Job Lands Needs

Mr. Cotugno introduced the MTAC proposal for meeting identified industrial land needs, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. He reminded the committee that the proposed code changes for limitations to industrial sites was introduced at the last MPAC meeting. MTAC formed a subcommittee to develop a framework for the discussion. MTAC discussed the subcommittee’s proposed framework at its meeting last week, and generally supports the framework although there are some concerns about specific details.

Dave Lohman, Port of Portland, noted that the proposal is a work in progress and was developed over the past few weeks by a diverse group of planners. Their work originated from the realization that attempting to simultaneously address short-term and mid-term industrial needs would unduly complicate the December decision.

Brian Campbell, Planning Manager, Port of Portland, reviewed the MTAC proposal.

Gil Kelley, Planning Director, City of Portland, said the subcommittee tried to pick the easy parcels for the December decision; therefore its proposal will be similar to the Regional Partners’ proposal. One of the goals was to present a balanced proposal that would preserve industrial land inside the UGB. In addition to providing a map, MTAC plans to define regionally significant industrial vis-à-vis office, and flesh out restrictions on retail and commercial use in industrial areas. He noted that the subcommittee arrived at its tentative conclusions without using subregional analysis. Future work over the next year or two will need to identify industry clusters and industrial needs, look at the needs and behavior of new industry, and address the question of agriculture as industry. He is confident that MTAC can make a defensible proposal to MPAC for its deliberations in October.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, agreed with Mr. Kelley. She added that there is some advantage to not bringing in all the needed industrial land in 2002, because it forces the region to address the hard questions in the next few years. The subcommittee also expressed frustration that Metro and its staff are constantly working on five-year cycle and never have the opportunity to address other issues such as how to preserve industrial land and how to make the centers work.

Doug McClain, Planning Director, Clackamas County, noted the congruencies between the MTAC Subcommittee’s framework and the work that has been done by MPAC, the MPAC Jobs Subcommittee and the Regional Partners. He said there is agreement that long-term, difficult discussions need to occur, but that there is also a critical short-term need.

Richard Ross, Manager, Community Planning Division, City of Gresham, said the City of Gresham likes the concepts proposed by the MTAC Subcommittee.

Mayor Hughes asked for clarification on the criterion that expansion would have to support the Region 2040 Growth Concept by reinforcing an existing or future center. In the case of Hillsboro, there are town centers on both sides of its industrial sanctuary. If the city adds to the industrial sanctuary, it will not be doing much for the town centers except possibly providing additional demand for housing and commercial use in the town centers. How can this criterion be applied to expansion of industrial land outside of centers?

Mr. McClain said the subcommittee was thinking in a positive sense when it wrote that criterion: what can be done to reinforce the centers by adding land to the UGB? There was also some concern that industrial land should not be added to the UGB that will make it more difficult to successfully develop centers.

Commissioner Neeley recommended looking at both agricultural production and processing as industrial use. This might facilitate the definition of rural reserves: agricultural needs may be similar to industrial needs, such as proximity to transportation corridors.

Mr. Cotugno said in general, MTAC adopted the memo as a work in progress with the clear understanding that it is a framework on how to proceed. The question before MPAC is whether to use this memo as the framework for the next couple of months. The framework states that there should be further additions of industrial land over and above the Executive Officer’s recommendation, but only if they meet the guiding principles for 2002, as listed in the memo. Alternatively, MPAC can decide that 2,234 acres is sufficient for December, and the remaining need can be addressed in Task 3.

Mr. Lohman said MTAC would not have reached agreement on the guiding principles for 2002 without including the work elements beyond 2002 as a package deal.

Chair Jordan said this is the second of three meetings regarding the employment piece of periodic review. He had expected a recommendation from MTAC on specific lands today. MTAC needs to know whether this framework is sufficient instruction with which to develop a specific proposal.

Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton, asked when the MTAC proposal would return to MPAC? He expressed concern that a lot of work may be done without MPAC’s input. There is some sensitivity to some of the issues about how much land and how soon. Many of the people on MPAC are also members of the Regional Economic Development Partners, and the amount of check-in and buy-in along the way is critical.

Chair Jordan said MPAC will meet twice between now and the end of October, unless additional meetings are scheduled. Assuming MPAC approves the proposed framework tonight, he expects to receive a recommendation on the lands from MTAC at the next meeting. At that time, MPAC may wish to query MTAC about its choices.

Commissioner Naito said the Multnomah County Board is holding a hearing on Tuesday, October 1, about the site east of Highway 26 in Gresham. There is a large nursery business in the area, and it may be possible to work together with Gresham and craft additional UGB expansion creating a protective barrier between the industrial area and the nursery. She hopes information from the hearing can be included in the MTAC discussion at its next meeting on October 2.

Chair Jordan noted that Multnomah County and the City of Gresham both have representatives on MTAC and could share information on any collaborative effort or input.

Mayor Becker said the City of Gresham and Multnomah County want to fortify some of the comments to which MPAC has already tentatively agreed. The goal is to avoid moving into the horticultural industry, which is economically valuable to the community.

Commissioner Naito added that it is not necessarily zoned EFU. One of the options before Multnomah County is to rezone it in the next few years.

Bernie Giusto, TriMet Board of Directors, asked for a definition of “quickly available for industrial development.”

Mr. Cotugno said the point behind that criterion is that, if the land will not be available for development for five years, why must it be added to the UGB this fall? Why can’t it be added a year from now?

Mr. Giusto said the discussion at MTAC needs to include asking local governments if they are ready to develop the land and necessary infrastructure now.

Chair Jordan said MTAC is trying to get a feel for which lands can be developed in one to three years, three to five years, beyond five years, and which are long-term.

Commissioner Naito said on the flip side, if there was land ready for development but no jurisdiction willing to service it, that would be an issue of regional concern to MPAC.

Mr. Lohman said in response to Mr. Giusto’s question, the second bullet point under the first guiding principle for 2002 should conclude with “or” not “and.” There is potential industrial land that will not be ready for development within five years, but for which planning needs to begin soon. He cited Damascus as an example.

Mayor Drake agreed. He noted that it will take time for the planning to go through all the necessary processes. The regional industrial lands study acknowledged that the region is nearly 6,000 acres deficient now. The more the region delays, the less likelihood there is of meeting future economic demands. Some of the smaller cities are in dire straits financially; adding industrial land will help them to increase their tax bases and to provide basic government services.

Mayor Hughes said this discussion reminds him of Goal 5: he did not know if he liked the proposal until he saw the map. Some of the principles are vague enough that he will not know how much he is concerned until he sees them applied. It may be necessary to schedule an additional MPAC meeting in October in order to fully address MTAC’s map recommendation.

David Ripma, Councilor, City of Troutdale, said the argument that the region needs lots larger than 50 acres has never been compelling to him, and he is concerned about it being a point of agreement. What kind of industry is the region trying to attract with large lot industrial land? For established cities that are not in line for expansion of industrial lands, redevelopment is a way of assembling property. He is concerned about the need for lots larger than 50 acres driving a UGB expansion, when there may be adjacent 30-acre lots that could be redeveloped instead.

Commissioner Neeley asked if it would be beneficial to schedule a joint MTAC/MPAC meeting?

Chair Jordan said it might be, though he noted that about half of MTAC was in the audience. He said his goal is for MPAC to give MTAC direction tonight, and for MTAC to meet next week and return with a proposal. If MPAC has significant problems with that proposal, he is prepared to schedule an additional meeting the following Wednesday to further discuss the issues.

Commissioner Neeley suggested adding to the proposal the potential of identifying agro-industrial as an industrial use. He would be willing to move the proposal if it included the notion of bringing agro-industrial land into the UGB as an industry.

Mayor Becker said Commissioner Neeley’s point is well taken, as many of the businesses are container nurseries and do not use the soil.

Chair Jordan suggested that Commissioner Neeley’s recommendation should be addressed after the December decision. He suggested amending the work elements beyond 2002 to explicitly state that Metro should examine agro-industry as a potential urban use.

Mr. McClain said MTAC had two thoughts on the matter. Sooner or later the region will be faced with the difficult question of which agriculture land. Land that has been zoned EFU will be necessary for industrial purposes. Historically, land has been zoned EFU based on soil type. It may be time to reexamine that practice.

Mayor Katz said she is ready to move the proposal as a concept for further work. However, MPAC will need to spend time thinking through the future of industry in order to finalize the amount of expansion needed and the type of lands necessary.

Mayor Becker agreed and said he was ready to move acceptance of MTAC’s proposal.

Mr. Ross said there is a very difficult issue before Multnomah County and Gresham on the east urban edge: how to establish a strong rural/urban edge when there is a large arm of exception land which is occupied by a solid block of nurseries.

Mr. Cotugno proposed two friendly amendments based upon committee discussion. Under the first “Guiding Principles for 2002,” he suggested adding “and” to the end of the first bulleted point and changing the “and” in the second bulleted point to “or.” Second, under “Word Elements Beyond 2002” he suggested adding another bullet point: “determining the role of agricultural industry relative to urban industrial needs.”

Mayor Becker said he was concerned about changing “and” to “or” because it changes it from three guiding principles to two. He thought all three principles were substantial and should be included.

Mayor Hughes said that, reserving the right to complain later on, he supported the process. He did not think there was a serious inconsistency between the work done by the Regional Economic Development Partners and the MTAC subcommittee. He suspected that many of the same sites would show up on MTAC’s recommendation.

Chair Jordan said as he understood it, Mr. Cotugno proposed that any land that was proposed for UGB expansion must be justified under state law and Metro Code. But then, it should also either be available quickly for industrial development, or it should reinforce existing or future centers in the 2040 Growth Concept. The word “and” would require that both of those criteria be met.

Mr. Kelley said it is important to have all three guidelines, but the seconded bullet point may be deficient. The MTAC subcommittee thought that the land should be either immediately available for industrial use, or that planning for services to make it available needed to begin immediately. But in both cases, land should reinforce the centers concept.

Chair Jordan suggested the language “or that planning begin immediately to make the land viable” after the words “available quickly.”

Mayor Becker agreed to the friendly amendment as revised through committee discussion.

Councilor Ripma asked if the vote was to endorse the proposal as a discussion start?

Chair Jordan said MPAC is voting to endorse that MTAC take the proposed principles, go back and look at the maps and the submitted proposals, grind them through these principles, and bring MPAC a recommendation of what ought to be included in the boundary. MPAC will have an opportunity to discuss each specific piece of land.

Councilor Hoffman said MPAC was also agreeing that more land should be included within the UGB to satisfy some of the unmet industrial land need. What is the alternative to this approach – meeting the industrial need in Task 3?

Mr. Cotugno said there are three options: 1) do it all this time, 2) do no more this time, or 3) approve MTAC’s proposal and add more industrial land now, but leave some of the need to be met in Task 3.

Mr. Cotugno added that at MPAC’s last meeting, the committee discussed code amendments for centers. MPAC will need to reopen the centers code to address the two additional recommendations.

MTAC Recommendation on Industrial Lands Policies and Map

Mr. Cotugno reviewed MTAC’s proposed revisions to the Title 4 requirements (Periodic Review of the Urban Growth Boundary: Discussion on Industrial Lands Policies and Map), a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. The MTAC recommendation on the text is about 80 percent complete. MTAC has not yet discussed the map. He noted that if MPAC chooses to make the map very broad, then it will be important to allow enough flexibility in the language to encompass the various circumstances that could occur. If the map is very tight, then the restrictions can be very tight and specific. He noted the link between the map and the fourth guiding principle in the proposal for meeting identified industrial land needs, which is that regional transportation investment should be focused on serving centers and regionally significant industrial areas.

Chair Jordan said in terms of transportation funding, MPAC can make a recommendation, but the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) and the Metro Council determine transportation funding allocations.

Mr. Cotugno said yes but JPACT and the Council have asked MPAC for its input the past few times.

Commissioner Neeley said the restrictions in Section 3.07.420(D)(4) appear to be site-specific. Some exception should be made for a community college that wishes to offer a course at an industrial facility, even though the course may have a broader context than that particular industrial site.

Mr. Cotugno said that is what the language is intended to allow.

Mayor Drake asked if a software business can be defined as industrial? Is it considered office-based production? Mr. Cotugno said yes.

Mayor Katz noted that software production does not need to be located in an industrial area.

Mayor Drake agreed, but said if the businesses want to cluster then they need to have that option.

Chair Jordan said he understands Mayor Katz’s argument to preserve the industrial space for more traditional industry and locate office-based production in town centers. It is a tough question. How aggressive does the region want to be?

Mayor Hughes noted that software companies are already locating in centers. He said the question is complex. For example, what should be done with a company located in an industrial area that evolves from manufacturing into something else?

Mr. Gronke asked if Metro has the authority to legally exclude churches from regionally significant industrial areas?

Mr. Dan Cooper said under the Federal Religious Freedom Act, Metro must be very careful.

Mayor Drake recommended hearing from the high-tech industry before making a decision. He noted that MPAC cannot predict how industry will evolve and what the next industry will be. Collectively, opportunity needs to be preserved. If industry prefers to cluster, and clustering means walking across the street even if there is not a town center located there, then the region should not shoot itself in the foot. He has no difficulty with MPAC defining that industrial areas should not include schools and that it should be large lots.

Chair Jordan said MPAC is scheduled to vote on the map and Title 4 language at its next meeting.

Councilor Ripma asked who will decide the final map: the individual cities or will it be decreed from on high? He recognized that it is a regional issue, but do cities have the final say? He noted that the Oregon Science Technology Center in Troutdale is located in a proposed regionally significant industrial area. Based on his reading of the proposed Title 4 language, it may not qualify as an approved use. He likes the approach, but has questions about the map.

Mr. Cotugno said the language is proposed to be adopted as a mandate by Metro, and would be in the Functional Plan. The questions on the table are should it, what should it require, and where should it be required?

Nathalie Darcy, Washington County Citizen Representative, asked if the limit on vehicle trips (Section 3.07.440(E)(1)) is intended to be accumulative or an individual development within an employment area?

Mr. Cotugno said it is not specified either way.

Jim Griffith, Mayor, City of Tigard, said he had assumed that this would be a recommendation to the cities, not an edict. That is apparently something MPAC will have to determine.

Chair Jordan said that as it stands now, MPAC would recommend that the Metro Council adopt this language into the Functional Plan, which would make it a requirement that cities’ comprehensive plans conform to that language in areas specified on the map. If the restrictions are tight and the map is large, then the impact will be significant.

Mayor Griffith said that is his concern. He does not believe that boards should micromanage and he has trouble with MPAC telling him how to zone his city. He has concerns about implementation of the restrictions.

Councilor Hoffman asked if cities will have the opportunity to request that land be added or removed from the map.

Mr. Cotugno said yes, cities will have an opportunity to comment through MTAC. He noted that if MPAC is going to recommend adding more industrial land to the UGB, particularly farmland, then it is very important to protect the land inside the current UGB. If no more land will be added this year, then there is less pressure to act immediately.

Chair Jordan said the discussion at MPAC for the past few years has been that the region needs to be more aggressive about preserving job-producing industrial land and basic industries, and not allowing that land to be diluted. He realized that when these goals become code language it gets scary, and when restrictions are added cities lose flexibility.

MTAC Recommendation on Job Lands Needs

Mr. Cotugno reviewed a series of questions about Metro’s assumptions and methodology behind the non-residential urban growth report. The questions are listed in a memo from Mr. Cotugno to MTAC, dated September 16, 2002, regarding feedback on Metro Jobs UGR. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting packet. Regarding question two, he recommended that once the restrictions on industrial land is determined, the industrial land need should be recalculated. In his opinion, the answer to question three was yes, Metro’s overall industrial land need should be met through a greater reliance on medium and large size parcels. It would change only the mix of lot sizes, not the bottom-line acreage requirement. In terms of market factor (question five), he did not think Metro had the authority to add more than a 20-year supply of land for job growth. He said the answer to question six was no, the Executive Officer’s recommendation did not meet the need for land for either warehousing and distribution or high tech. MPAC’s vote to approve the MTAC framework for meeting identified industrial land needs answered question eight. He noted that if the UGB expansion this December did not come close to meeting the full job lands need, then resolution of these eight issues would become less urgent and they could be addressed in Task 3.

Chair Jordan asked the committee members to think about the questions in the memo and discuss them with their MTAC representatives. MPAC has discussed most of the issues to some degree. He noted that MTAC will give MPAC a specific recommendation on jobs land at the next meeting, and said he also expects to receive MTAC’s perception of these policy questions in a Task 3.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

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