METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

October 30, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Charles Becker, Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Andy Duyck, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Alan Hipólito, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Annette Mattson, Lisa Naito, Doug Neeley, Cheryl Perrin, David Ripma, Dan Saltzman

Alternates Present: Jim Bernard, Jack Hoffman, Dave Lohman, Roger Vonderharr

Also Present: Frank Angelo, Angelo Eaton and Associates; Linda Bauer, Citizen; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Tommy Brooks, City of Portland; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brent Campbell, Port of Portland; Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Rob De Graff, Portland Business Alliance; Mike Dennis, TriMet; Dan Drentlaw, City of Oregon City; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Elissa Gertler, Portland Development Commission; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Holly Iburg, Newland Communities; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Gregory Jenks, Clackamas County; Tom Johnston, Forest Grove City Council Candidate; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Elizabeth Graser Lindsey, Beavercreek CPO; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Gussie McRobert, Land Conservation and Development Commission; Lance Margeson, Beavercreek CPO; Hank Noble, Beavercreek CPO; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Doug Rux, City of Tualatin; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Susan McLain, Council District 4; Rod Park, Council District 1. David Bragdon, Council District 7; Rex Burkholder, Council District 5.

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Michael Morrissey, Tim O’Brien, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commission and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at
5:10 p.m. Those present introduced themselves. Chair Jordan welcomed former MPAC Chair, Gussie McRobert, Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), to the meeting.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were none.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said the Council had finished its public hearings for the Community Planning Committee, and was working on a method to make the right decision for the urban growth boundary (UGB). The Community Planning Committee would begin meeting on Tuesdays to discuss the policy issues and methods of resolving them.

Susan McLain, Metro Councilor, said the public hearings had been a good opportunity to visit the region’s communities. She complimented the cities’ staff on the help they provided. At every hearing, the public and the staff were unique, individual and very prepared.

Rod Park, Metro Councilor, noted that the public record closes on Friday, November 1^st at 5:00 p.m. He added his thanks for the help Metro received in holding seven public hearings that crisscrossed the region. Public testimony fell into two categories: we want in; we want out.

5.  PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE UGB

Jobs – Urban Growth Report

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, reviewed the Chronological Summary of Final MPAC Recommendations on Periodic Review of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and attachments. He walked through the recommendation from the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) to MPAC on the Metro Jobs Urban Growth Report, dated October 30, 2002. He also reviewed the table of MPAC Industrial Land Recommendations. Copies of the documents are included in the meeting record.

Richard Kidd, Mayor, City of Forest Grove, expressed concern that the proposed Forest Grove land swap was not explicitly mentioned in question eight of the MTAC recommendation on the Jobs Urban Growth Report. MPAC recommended the land swap, and he wanted to ensure that Forest Grove’s proposal was included in the ordinance that would go before the Metro Council. He did not want it to fall through the cracks.

Mr. Cotugno said Forest Grove was not included in question eight of the MTAC recommendation because the net capacity change to the UGB would be zero.

Chair Jordan said the Forest Grove land swap would be on the maps and was mentioned in the memo from Mr. Cotugno to MPAC regarding a progress report on MTAC discussion of Title 4 industrial lands and additional lands to be considered for inclusion into the UGB for jobs.

Doug Neeley, Commissioner, City of Oregon City, noted that in Attachment A to the MTAC recommendation, the historical housing and jobs capture rates did not necessarily track each another. If Clark County made policy decisions that increased its industrial land supply, he assumed that would increase the amount of available industrial land in the Metro region. Mr. Cotugno agreed.

Jack Hoffman, Councilor, City of Lake Oswego, asked how many acres translated into a one-percent change in the jobs capture rate.

Mr. Cotugno said he did not know.

Dave Lohman, Port of Portland, said item two of MTAC’s recommendation, regarding how much Title 4 would reduce the conversion of industrial land to commercial uses, would be a matter of judgment. In his judgment, 50 percent was probably high. On the other hand, if a lower number was chosen and the result was a net need of 1,000 acres instead of 705 acres, the region still could not yet identify where those additional acres of industrial land might come from. At this time, it was not possible to make a more informed decision. They could refine the decision during Task 3.

Chair Jordan said MTAC agreed that the number could be more or less than 50 percent, but there would be a deficit of industrial land regardless. Therefore, Task 3 would be the appropriate time to closely study the dynamics between industrial and commercial lands.

Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton, asked if the base assumptions in the Urban Growth Report would remain static during Metro’s Task 3 work.

Mr. Cotugno said the questions being raised challenged some of the base assumptions. For example, the commercial industry testified this morning that Metro understated the need for commercial land because the Urban Growth Report assumed a fairly high, aggressive density. They also recommended conducting a commercial lands study, like the industrial lands study, to better determine commercial land needs.

Chair Jordan said one of the major issues in Task 3 would be a regional economic development discussion. In the context of that discussion, which should include Clark County, changes to fundamental assumptions in the Urban Growth Report may result.

Councilor McLain noted that the factors in the 1999 Urban Growth Report update underwent a major revision. There was no reason not to update the assumptions as new information was learned.

Councilor Park said the Council would be focusing on the differential between the jobs and housing capture rates (Attachment A to the MTAC recommendation). The capture rates represented the four-county region, which meant that seven percent was going somewhere. One goal of the 2040 Growth Concept was to not create satellite cities. Were they doing that?

Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland, said MPAC needed to develop concrete methods and recommendations to build density in town centers. It would have a major impact on the commercial land shortage.

Reconcile Housing Need for Urban Growth Boundary Expansion

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the table of MPAC Residential Land Recommendations, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Mayor Katz said MPAC seemed to be always looking outside the UGB. She knew what Portland was doing to increase density inside the city, but she did not have a good handle on other jurisdictions’ capacity and the work they were doing.

John Hartsock, Clackamas County Special Districts, noted that none of the numbers in the Urban Growth Report included future Goal 5 regulations.

Mr. Cotugno agreed and noted that Goal 5 would make the numbers bigger, not smaller.

Chair Jordan invited Oregon City to present its UGB proposal.

Dan Drentlaw, Planning Director, City of Oregon City, said that at its meeting that morning, MTAC agreed to forward to MPAC the Oregon City Commission’s proposal for the South End, Livesay, and Beavercreek/Henrici areas. The Executive Officer had recommended adding 700 acres to the UGB in the South End area; Oregon City recommended reducing the expansion by 190 acres. Most of the proposed land was for residential, which impacted the housing need. Oregon City recommended reducing the expansion because the area proposed by the Executive Officer could not be served by sewer without pump stations. In addition, the area did not address Oregon City’s need for jobs, would not contribute to a compact urban form, and could not be adequately served by the existing roads.

Mr. Drentlaw said the Executive Officer had recommended adding 84 acres to the UGB in the Livesay area; Oregon City recommended adding 348 acres. The additional acreage would compensate for some of the housing loss in the South End area. The Livesay area was closer to services and shopping and would provide an opportunity to create a north-south collection between Holcomb Boulevard and Redland Road.

Mr. Drentlaw said in the Henrici/Beavercreek area, the Executive Officer’s recommendation included the area directly east of and down south to Henrici Road. The area to the east was primarily industrial; the area to the south was a mixture of industrial and residential. The big question was how far south should the expansion go? Oregon City felt it was important to include both sides of Henrici Road in the UGB due to infrastructure considerations. It made sense to develop services to city standards on both sides of the road. The line south of Henrici Road was a logical long-term end to the city limits, based on existing topography and water resource areas. This was a contentious issue during the city’s discussions. Beavercreek residents were concerned about the extension of Oregon City further south into their rural area.

Mr. Cotugno said MTAC recommended the Oregon City proposal in two actions. In its first action, MTAC voted unanimously to recommend Oregon City’s request to cut back the South End area expansion, to expand the Livesay area expansion, and to include the Executive Officer’s original Beavercreek/Henrici area recommendation. In its second action, MTAC also recommended Oregon City’s request to include the proposed area south of Henrici Road; Clackamas County and Portland abstained.

Chair Jordan said the Clackamas County Commission has had extensive discussions about the South Henrici area recommendation. The Clackamas County Commission represented two communities on this issue. They supported Oregon City in its desire to create new job opportunities in the community, but they also represented the community of Beavercreek. Beavercreek residents had been on the record many years about their concern about Oregon City’s encroachment into their community. The Clackamas County Commission was also concerned about transportation issues. They agreed with Executive Officer Burton, who made the statement that Metro may be creating the largest cul-de-sac in the world by extending the UGB out to Beavercreek, because there was only one way in and one way out. His biggest concern was Highway 213 and I-205. There was not another way out of the area and it would be unbelievably expensive to expand that interchange. While this particular expansion would probably not trigger an interchange expansion, it would exacerbate a traffic situation that was already bad. The Clackamas County Commission would be on record to the Metro Council in opposing any expansion south of the current boundary on Henrici Road. The Clackamas County Commission supported the other Oregon City requests.

Commissioner Neeley said the industrial land expansion to the east of Beavercreek Road was not contentious. However, the lower area south of Henrici Road was a divisive issue at the Oregon City Commission. The Commission’s vote was 3/2; he had been in the minority. He would abstain from any vote at MPAC. He said the argument for going south of Henrici Road was to provide urban infrastructure on that particular street. He asked Chair Jordan if that could be done in another way with intergovernmental agreements between Oregon City and Clackamas County, when one jurisdiction was not an urban jurisdiction.

Chair Jordan said Clackamas County was not supposed to be in the urban service business. His proposal was possible, but the County Commission had not discussed it.

Commissioner Neeley said there needed to a long-term boundary. There was a proposal that the area south of Henrici Road towards Beavercreek be zoned industrial, perhaps using the proposal designation of agro-industrial. Should that designation occur, could intergovernmental agreements be worked out so that Henrici Road met both needs?

Chair Jordan said that was a good question that he had not thought through. Nearly anything was possible except the extension of urban services or the changing of land uses to an urban level outside the UGB.

Commissioner Neeley said he would not be a spokesperson for or against anything at MPAC. He asked if Chair Jordan could invite comments from anyone in the audience.

Chair Jordan said MPAC could, however, this was not a public hearing and there had been an opportunity earlier in the meeting to address MPAC.

Commissioner Neeley noted that this motion was neither the Executive Officer’s recommendation nor the Oregon City Commission’s recommendation.

Chair Jordan said was an MPAC recommendation. MTAC’s first recommendation was to accept everything except for the Henrici Road area.

Recommendation on Urban Growth Boundary Additions or Deletions

Mayor Katz said the easiest way to meet the additional need was to raise the density number a few percentage points, but that was like putting one’s finger in the air. She would like more discussion about what the jurisdictions were doing and what they could do to add height in centers. She noted that the City of Portland was approving 325-foot buildings in certain areas.

Chair Jordan said MPAC did not have to do anything with the reconciled need number. It was felt that it was somewhat inappropriate for MTAC to make policy recommendations of one area versus another to meet the deficit. MPAC could discuss whether the region should look further inside the UGB and reconsider the factors in the Urban Growth Report. MPAC could also look outside the UGB. As he said at the last meeting, his goal has been to give the Council as nicely wrapped a package as possible, so that if the Council adopted MPAC’s recommendation without change it would be sufficient for the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). He did not expect to meet that goal, however. He asked for committee discussion.

Councilor Hoffman said he would like to focus on what the region could do inside the UGB. He was uncomfortable with a focus on adding 7,000 units by looking at just a few specific alternative study areas. He noted that Metro staff spent months studying 96 alternative analysis areas. He did not think anyone at MPAC, including himself, had analyzed and prioritized all 96 sites in the alternatives analysis. He felt very uncomfortable with people having Stafford in the bull’s eye. He questioned the parks issue. If MPAC could not revisit the parks number, then he felt the committee should look at infill and focus its efforts on Title 6 and the role of centers.

Mayor Drake said he supported Chair Jordan in expanding the region’s aspirations for potential parkland. In the effort to find places to put people, they should not lose sight of the fact that not everyone in the region was excited about going up. Some people were still looking for yards and a more suburban look to their housing. Beaverton was putting its money where its mouth was in terms of building mixed-use and higher-density housing, but he was concerned about simply saying that they would find a way to put people within the existing boundary, knowing full well that the boundary was tight and that they would not be able to accommodate certain lifestyles.

Charles Becker, Mayor, City of Gresham, noted Gresham’s success at infill and increasing densities in Gresham Station. Gresham was looking at how to increase density within the UGB and provide affordable housing, and also how to look on the outside for expansion of the UGB in order to provide housing choices. Gresham believed it needed to look inside the UGB to increase density and increase value and make services more affordable to its citizens.

Commissioner Naito said she would prefer looking at strategies within the UGB. Certainly it had been the struggle for Metro to look at retaining a balance of different housing options. However, there had been a lot of different kinds of development to accommodate different kinds of residential housing needs. She saw the parks number that MPAC recommended as being somewhat aspirational, and MPAC could revisit that number. She recommended that MPAC also be aspirational in terms of its housing mixes inside the boundary.

Mayor Katz reminded committee members that one of the guiding principles adopted by MPAC was that Metro and local governments should encourage suitable non-industrial uses to locate in centers and main streets by allowing mixed-use development and relaxing restrictions on development intensity such as building height. These were not easy issues, but they were a critical component. Cities’ tax bases would increase inside the UGB if they replicated the actions of Gresham, Portland, Beaverton and others.

Commissioner Neeley said the Oregon City Commission felt that the expansion that occurred in Oregon City should be basically job-related. The city realized its responsibility in terms of residential, and was looking at development within the city boundary as well. The Oregon City Commission was concerned that the city’s sense of identify not be lost in an outward expansion, and that the identity of adjacent, non-city communities not get lost. Oregon City was reworking its comprehensive plan and focusing on greater densities in the city center and along some of the connector roads. The city felt it could meet its 20-year responsibilities within its current urban growth boundary.

Mr. Hartsock expressed concern about changing the science at the eleventh hour. It was already two points higher than the scientific average. Would it be hard to legally defend a decision if Metro changed the science at this late point?

Mr. Cotugno said two things were informing Metro about what could be reasonably expected: past history and future forecasts. Past history showed the region had improved its refill rate over the past six or seven years. In MetroScope, they designed a series of scenarios to account for the real estate effects of different transportation investments and different land use decisions, relative to major versus minor UGB expansion, and relative to providing incentives in the centers versus not providing incentives. Refill rate was one of the outputs that could be gleaned from MetroScope. The base case condition showed a continuing refill rate of about 26.5 percent. On the other hand, MetroScope tested a centers-oriented scenario that reduced the amount of UGB expansion, and accompanied that with more incentives in all of the town and regional centers. In his opinion, the centers strategy that staff tested was about as extreme as could be assumed, and yielded a refill rate of 44 percent. The question was, how aggressive was Metro being relative to these two bookends? The Urban Growth Report assumption was a couple percentage points above the bottom number, not a couple points below the top number. There was also a relationship between how much the UGB was expanded versus how much of the non-expansion was redirected into centers versus how much exited the region. If the boundary was held too tight, part of the growth would go elsewhere and the capture rate would go down.

Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, said as a legal matter there was not a requirement that it be scientific. Metro could state that the historic data said 26.3 percent, for example, and as a matter of policy, Metro would like it to be higher, such as 28.5 percent. Under the statute, Metro would have to demonstrate a likelihood that an action, such as a centers strategy, would accomplish the goal of 28.5 percent. MetroScope demonstrated a relationship between the rate of infill and an investment strategy. It was particularly difficult to be precise with incentive-based strategies. Based on data in the record, Metro could probably justify raising the refill rate a little bit.

Mayor Kidd said in answer to Mayor Katz’s question, the communities near him have worked very hard to work inside their communities. Most of them were in compliance with the Regional Framework Plan and the 2040 Guidelines. A lot of the communities had drastically changed their signatures in order to accommodate those goals and guidelines. Forest Grove recently extended its ability to provide fire suppression and rescue at 105 feet, at tremendous expense. He noted a number of actions taken by the city to create higher densities, such as redevelopment and permitting granny flats. In his community, they had done a very good job trying to meet those goals and go to those higher densities without drastically slashing the community’s signature. As a result of its actions, Forest Grove had moved from a housing supply of eight to nine years to a supply of 20 to 25 years. No one had taken advantage of the higher height limits yet. He noted that Forest Grove had the highest density of assisted living facilities per capita in the United States.

Presiding Officer Hosticka noted that from the perspective of a social scientist, any time a forecast was made twenty years into the future, the result would not be a number. It would be a range of possibilities and a range of probabilities. Within that range, policy makers, lawyers, and representatives of the public would make judgments about what type of future was likely and what kind of future they wanted to make.

Roger Vonderharr, Mayor, City of Fairview, noted that two-thirds of Fairview had been built in the last five years. Therefore there was a multitude of housing types such as townhouses and attached housing. Fairview had already met its housing and density requirements, even though there was still available land. His concern was that when MPAC talked about multi-story apartments and higher-density living, there must be a corresponding opportunity for entertainment, shopping, and transportation to those opportunities. As you moved to the outlying areas, those opportunities lessened and densities naturally dropped off. A region could only support a certain number of performing arts centers and stadiums.

Mayor Drake said he thought they were being so driven by technical criteria and trying to meet numbers that they were loosing sight of the fact that they were planning for real people. They needed to offer choices in housing, and not try to fit everyone into multiple-family, common wall housing. Many people wanted and expected a house with a yard.

Councilor Park said according to the MetroScope scenarios, as the infill rate was raised above 28.5 or 30 percent, the housing capture rate dropped off dramatically. At the same time, the jobs capture rate stayed around 72 percent. The result would be people commuting from outlying communities, such as Sandy, into the metro region. It would create the San Jose, California, model that the region was trying to avoid. He understood the desire to raise the refill rate as much as possible, but it needed to be balanced.

Ed Gronke, Clackamas County Citizen Representative, said they were talking about accommodating growth, and most of that growth would come from outside the region. It was important to take into account what type of people would be moving into the region, because people of different ages had different housing needs. If they were not careful, their actions would exacerbate the commuting patterns mentioned by Councilor Park. The region might keep a tight boundary, but the roads might be clogged far beyond their current state.

Commissioner Neeley said people made housing decisions by balancing their desires with what was available. No one was talking about eliminating single-resident housing with yards. People would balance their decision making in terms of how they would use their space.

Alan Hipólito, Multnomah County Citizen Representative, said he supported the effort to increase the density within the UGB. Underlying all this was the notion of what happened in the center as the boundary continued to moved outward and pulled resources away, and what the region lost irrevocably as the boundary was expanded. He excused himself from the meeting due to family commitments and expressed regret that he could not be part of any formal decision making tonight.

Natalie Darcy, Washington County Citizen Representative, said no one had mentioned Metro’s existing policy regarding neighborhood protection during the discussion about whether it was good policy to do additional infill inside the existing UGB. Speaking for many Washington County citizens, there was a lot of infill occurring in certain areas of urban, unincorporated Washington County. In her opinion, any additional infill would conflict with Metro’s policy of protecting existing neighborhoods. She seconded Mr. Gronke’s comment that people’s housing needs changed over their lifetimes, and at some point people with families needed houses with yards. She supported Metro’s work to increase the use of centers and to very carefully expand the UGB.

Annette Mattson, Governing Board of School Districts, reiterated Mayor Drake’s reminder that they were talking about people and where they lived and their lifestyles. David Douglas School District, which she represented, was wholly located within the City of Portland. East Portland had been subjected to tremendous infill in the last decade. Enrollment in the David Douglas School District had increased 30 percent and the existing neighborhoods had changed dramatically. There was no room to build more schools or parks in the area. A City Club report about ten years ago found that East Portland was already deficient in parks. Now there were more people but no more parks. Their quality of life had declined. She was not a big supporter of dramatic infill. Her area had a great deal of subsidized housing. Sixty percent of elementary students qualified for free and reduced lunches, yet their families did not even have a little plot of land for a garden to supplement their small budget for groceries. She did not want sprawl any more than anyone else, but they needed a balance of looking at additional land so that existing communities were not destroyed.

Andy Duyck, Commissioner, Washington County, said while he supported higher densities, the problem was its effect on existing neighborhoods. He was concerned about the effect of upzoning older neighborhoods. In relation to encouraging density in centers, that statement was made in relation to jobs, not so much residential. The goal was to encourage jobs to locate within centers as much as possible.

Chair Jordan said MPAC had discussed both issues, but predominantly MPAC had talked about jobs in the recent past.

Mr. Hartock said based on Mr. Cotugno’s comments regarding MetroScope, a change of one to two percent did not seem out of the norm. Therefore he suggested raising the refill number two percent but lowering the parks and schools number by 50 percent. He thought they would make up a lot of the park open land in the next few years due to Goal 5 regulations. Also, there would be time in the next cycle to correct this, because they would then know more about the direction of centers and densities.

Councilor Hoffman said the 7,100 dwelling unit shortfall was the result of the aspirational parks number MPAC recommended. He noted the irony of adding 1,200 acres of rural land to the boundary so that someday, some jurisdiction would buy parks. He did not know of any current bond measures for parkland except in the cities of Lake Oswego and Troutdale.

Chair Jordan said he was the proponent of increasing the parks number, but at no time did he say anything about being aspirational. In his opinion, the number recommended by the MPAC subcommittee was not realistic. In was unrealistic to believe that the only acquisition of parkland in the next 20 years would be done with system development charges (SDCs). There was a 20-year history of adding about 2,200 acres of active parkland; that was the argument in support of the parks number. While the numbers could be shifted around to make the dwelling unit shortfall disappear, he did not want to go back and change the assumptions to make shortfalls disappear. He thought MPAC had been very honest with itself as a group about how it arrived at the numbers in the Urban Growth Report. The question before MPAC could be as simple as whether to recommend that the Council look inside the UGB to meet the dwelling unit shortfall, or tell the Council that it was okay to look outside. MPAC did not necessary need to mark an X on the map.

David Ripma, Councilor, City of Troutdale, said he could not support a proposal to further increase the density inside the urban growth boundary while cutting the acreage for schools and parks in half. While that may not be how Mr. Hartsock meant it, that was how it would sound to people outside of Metro. One of Metro’s mandated functions was to decide on expansions of the UGB. He favored preserving existing neighborhoods.

Jim Bernard, Mayor, City of Milwaukie, said Milwaukie was experiencing budget problems, and his citizens had made the choice to increase density downtown in order to increase the value of the community. Density was also a financial issue.

Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor, noted that last spring, voters approved Measure 26-29, which prevents Metro from increasing density in existing, single-family neighborhoods that are zoned inter and outer neighborhoods. Local jurisdictions may increase densities, but Metro’s intent was that any new capacity inside the UGB would occur in the 2040 centers, corridors and main streets.

Councilor Ripma noted that Metro’s Functional Plan set aspirational goals that cities must achieve. While Metro would not mandate higher densities in existing neighborhoods, it would adopt goals in the Functional Plan that increased the densities of cities. Then the cities may increase densities themselves if they wished. He added that increased densities in the centers spilled into neighborhoods.

Mayor Becker clarified that Commissioner Neeley’s motion did not delete the responsibility of local entities to determine densities within their own city or county limits.

Chair Jordan said that was correct. The motion did not imply anything about the machinations to make that happen. He asked if Commissioner Neeley intended his motion to include the newly expanded boundary?

Commissioner Neeley said yes.

Mayor Katz noted that prior to leaving, Mr. Hipólito had stated his support of looking for additional capacity inside the existing UGB.

Chair Jordan thanked MPAC and MTAC for their hard work on periodic review over the last ten months. There being no further business, he adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR OCTOBER 30, 2002

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