MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, June 22, 1999

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), David Bragdon (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Rod Monroe, Bill Atherton, Ed Washington

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:35 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, MAY 26, AND JUNE 8, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Councilor Bragdon did not vote on the minutes of the June 8, 1999, Growth Management Committee meeting, as he was not present at the meeting.

2.  Urban Growth Report: STAFF PRESENTATION OF FIRST-RUN NEED NUMBERS

Mike Burton, Executive Officer, introduced the 1999 Urban Growth Report. He said the region had exceeded its 2017 forecasted need by over 7,900 dwelling units and over 270 acres for jobs. He added as a cautionary note that there were many unknowns that could affect the need forecast, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Goal 5 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat), and steep slopes.

Elaine Wilkerson, Director of Growth Management Services, presented the 1999 Urban Growth Report. A written copy of her PowerPoint presentation includes information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and is included in the meeting record. A separate copy of the figures in the 1999 Urban Growth Report is also included in the meeting record.

Executive Officer Burton thanked staff for the many hours they spent confirming the numbers in the Urban Growth Report (UGR) to ensure that the report was understandable and defensible. He said the Urban Growth Report was mostly about numbers, and while the numbers could provide direction, they were just numbers and could change due to changes in assumptions, circumstances, policy directions and the economy. He also noted that the current surplus could become a deficit after the environmental placeholders were replaced with numbers. He added that people could not live in numbers; numbers were not places or communities, and they did not mean jobs or livability. Given those constraints, the real conversation was about building good communities, and the policy applications would make the numbers real for people living in the communities: protecting the air and water, having healthy streams and habitat, farm and forest lands, openspace, and safe and livable neighborhoods. He urged the committee to pause and consider the region’s transportation needs and the reality of what could be achieved, the region’s environmental needs and aspirations, the jobs/housing balance, and how growth was funded. He said he supported Chair McLain’s direction for the committee.

Chair McLain thanked the staff of Growth Management Services for its hard work, specifically Ms. Wilkerson, Mark Turpel, Long-Range Planning, and Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner. She said the 1999 Urban Growth Report was one of the finest pieces of work she had seen in her nine years on the Council, and it represented an extraordinary effort. She thanked Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, for helping the committee review all the components of the Urban Growth Report in a timely, logical manner. She asked for questions from the committee, and noted that no action was scheduled for today. She said the final copy of the Urban Growth Report was scheduled for completion at the end of the summer, after staff received comments from the committee, Council, and the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). She said she anticipated that the committee would hold public hearings in September.

Councilor Atherton asked staff if it could create a table for the existing supply of vacant buildable land by jurisdiction for housing units, similar to Figure 7, Existing Supply of Vacant Buildable Land by Jurisdiction-Jobs.

Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, said that would be possible.

Councilor Atherton said asked if the region’s reduced birth rates were taken into account in the Urban Growth Report.

Mr. Yee said yes, the regional forecast took into account the lower fertility rate in future years. He added, however, that the total number of births would increase due to the larger population in the region.

Councilor Atherton asked if the Urban Growth Report accounted for illegal immigration.

Mr. Yee said no, not explicitly. He said he did not know the amount of illegal immigration between counties or between states. He said he did not know if there was an accurate number for the United States, or if the U.S. Census Bureau could answer Councilor Atherton’s question.

Councilor Atherton said Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) estimated 50,000 illegal immigrants in Oregon, and people in the field estimated twice that number. He said there was evidence that having a tight urban growth boundary (UGB) and a land use planning process could stimulate investment and growth because it reduced uncertainty for investors. He asked if the Urban Growth Report took into account that stimulus.

Chair McLain tried to clarify whether Councilor Atherton was asking if the Urban Growth Report took into account economic conditions and factors.

Councilor Atherton said he understood the Urban Growth Report to be an econometric analysis based on Oregon experience, not national data or type of trending.

Mr. Yee said the economic forecast which drove the dwelling unit estimate for the Urban Growth Report and the jobs forecast imbedded in the acre demand for employment, in the Urban Growth Report, was based on econometric model, and the basic assumption were based on regional, national and worldwide trends. For example, the model accounted for interest rates, the national deficit, consumer consumption and investment patterns, international exchange rates, and import/export relationships. Those factors were blended into the model econometrically, and drove Metro’s estimate of employment and income flow that might be generated as a result of growth. He said there was feedback throughout the model.

Councilor Atherton asked if the current subsidies to encourage growth were also imbedded in the model.

Mr. Yee said by imbedded, he meant that the input/output ratios that were estimated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. He took the technical factors that measured how much goods and services, measured in dollars, were traded from one industry to another industry and into households, as well as the estimated parameters in the economic model related to economic variables such as exchange rates and interest rates.

Councilor Atherton asked if he was correct that the model did not allow staff to estimate the impact of removing the subsidies.

Executive Officer Burton said Councilor Atherton was discussing blue sky values, and it was impossible to determine the deciding factors a business used in its decision to locate jobs in an area. He said it was very hard to judge those factors, and they could not be measured economically.

Councilor Bragdon referred to slide 13, UGB Amendments. He asked if the 17,900 dwelling units referred to capacity.

Ms. Wilkerson said it was estimated capacity based on the productivity analysis.

Councilor Bragdon asked what factors were applied to derive that capacity, and asked if they were similar to the factors applied to vacant lands elsewhere in the region.

Ms. Wilkerson said the process was very similar and went through all the same steps. The consultants did the productivity analysis in two ways: one based on Title 3 and one based on 200 foot setbacks.

Executive Officer Burton noted that the Council required master planning for all urban reserve areas added to the UGB, and as a result, the land may yield a higher than normal productivity rate.

Councilor Bragdon agreed, and added that it may be easier to achieve 2040 Growth Concept goals in the urban reserve areas that were added to the UGB.

Councilor Park asked about the calculation of illegal immigration. He noted that staff calculated dwelling unit need based on the number of jobs, and the dwelling unit count would not change whether those jobs were filled by U.S. citizens or illegal aliens. He asked if his understanding was correct.

Mr. Yee said the model on the demographics population was based on historical data, which he received from Portland State University (PSU). He said he did not believe that PSU counted illegal immigration because it used a variety of administration records, one of which was not the INS records referred to by Councilor Atherton. The data included school enrollment, birth and death certificates, Department of Motor Vehicle records, and Social Security records. He said migration was tied to economic trends, and he received data on non-farm employment from the Oregon and Washington Employment Divisions, which he blended to get the employment base. He noted that employees were required to prove their legal status in order to hold a wage-and-salary job, so the model assumed there were be illegal wage-and-salary jobholders.

Councilor Park referred to slide 88, Employment Land Supply, and asked if the UGR assumed any underbuild number in employment lands.

Mr. Yee said no, it did not.

Executive Officer Burton said that was a concern about the UGR, and the new Zonal Employment Land Demand Analysis model (ZELDA) would look at employment types of lands, which would consider floor-to-area ratios (FARs). He said the new ZELDA model could result in an underbuild.

Mr. Yee directed the committee’s attention to Figure 6, 1999 Urban Growth Report - Environmental Sensitivity and Jobs. He said staff made some attempt to discount the employment capacity for steep slopes. Secondly, he said the FAR values used to convert the jobs forecast into acre demand were based on observed density ratios. Insofar as there were environmental constraints that businesses had to work around, the FARs would reflect that.

Councilor Park referred to slide 59, Dwelling Unit Supply Estimates, and noted it assumed an underbuild of 20 percent, while anecdotally, the underbuild appeared to be greater. He asked whether changing the underbuild assumption to 10 percent would reduce the underbuild to about 14,000 dwelling units in capacity.

Ms. Wilkerson said yes, it was a direct percentage of the dwelling units.

Mr. Yee added that it was a straight arithmetic computation, however, staff was capable of calculating underbuild on a parcel by parcel basis.

Chair McLain said the committee would discuss this issue in more detail at a later date.

Ms. Wilkerson said Metro would be in a position to assess underbuild rates before the next Urban Growth Report, and at that point, staff would be better able to determine an accurate underbuild number. Staff was currently doing underbuild based on the upzoned levels, while people were still building on non-upzoned levels, and it became a very complex process. Once the region reached upzone levels, staff could then assess a reasonable underbuild, but until then, staff had to make mathematical assumptions based on what staff felt was defensible. She said the 20 percent figure was very defensible from the Functional Plan. Even with the anecdotal evidence, there was no good way to assess an alternative.

Chair McLain noted that Ms. Wilkerson said this was conservative number, because any variable that could not be defended was removed.

Councilor Washington noted that the UGR was not an exact science. He asked if there was a percentage of error, and if so, what it was.

Mr. Yee said the UGR was certainly not an exact science, and was based on a number of assumptions. He had not quantified a plus or minus error in a statistical sense, because he did not know the standard deviation or the statistical mean. On an anecdotal level, there appeared to be a plus-or-minus error of about 10,000 dwelling units, according to the work of one of his colleagues.

Ms. Wilkerson said staff produced slide 73, Sensitivity Analysis, to show the ranges and impact of adjusting certain variables that had been questioned. She said changing any of the of three assumptions would reduce the surplus, although none individually would create a deficit. She added that the environmental placeholder represented another range which could affect the total capacity. She said staff could not give a statistical percent of error, but could give an idea of the sensitivity of the capacity number. She said the surplus of 7900 dwelling units was not a large surplus, but according to the State Legislature, Metro had to show its potential capacity, and how it related to its potential need to see if there was a 20-year supply. She said in itself, the 20-year supply was quite a liberal amount of time, and had a margin of error. She said she was comfortable that Metro could use its numbers for the purpose of this mathematical analysis, but as Executive Officer Burton said, they were only numbers.

Chair McLain thanked Councilor Washington for his question, and said it was important to always remember that Metro was forecasting. She said Metro was to learning more about forecasting and refining its work all the time. Originally, Metro did its ranges in high, medium and low, but now the work was detailed enough to give a more specific range.

Councilor Washington said he appreciated Chair McLain’s comments. He said sometimes people refer to the forecasts as hard numbers, and it was helpful bring it into context by remembering that there were hard and soft numbers, variables and factors.

Mr. Yee added that instead of looking at a range of numbers, it could be converted to a sensitivity of plus-or-minus years. For example, instead of a 20-year plan, it could be looked at as a 18 to 22 year plan, and adjust according in 5-year increments for possible time lags or leads.

Councilor Bragdon asked Ms. Wilkerson to elaborate in the 100-year history on capture rate, which she mentioned.

Mr. Yee directed Councilor Bragdon’s attention to a memo from Sonny Conder to Mr. Yee, dated June 14, 1999, regarding increasing the 70 percent capture rate. The memo is Attachment 2 to Mr. Yee’s memo to Ms. Wilkerson, dated June 16, 1999, which is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the 100-year history was part of the earlier committee discussion on capture rate.

Ms. Wilkerson said no. Because of staff’s initial investigation of the committee’s questions, Mr. Conder looked at capture rate over a long period of time. Mr. Conder concluded that the capture rate marginally declined over the 100-year period he assessed, and on that basis, the fluctuations experienced by the region over the last 20 years should not be weighted too heavily.

Executive Officer Burton said that while looking at a much longer period of time may be useful for many reasons, the UGB was created in 1980, and to go beyond that as a factor for capture rate was questionable, in his mind. He said it did make sense to look at capture rate since 1980, once the UGB was in place.

Councilor Bragdon said it was interesting that several years ago, there was concern that having a UGB drove prosperity and growth away, and Clark County would benefit from residential and job growth. In the last few years, however, it looked like the capture rate had increased.

Chair McLain added that the discussion about capture rate included the entirety of Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington, and Clark Counties.

Ms. Wilkerson concluded that over the past 20 years, the capture rate varied considerably. She said the last few years, which were reflected in the 1994-1997 period, were fairly consistently high, and reflected a very busy building season. The amount of development, both multi-family and single family, was higher than the region had experienced in a long time, and was very unrepresentative of period just before 1994. She said the high capture rate may continue, and Metro may have to revisit the rate, but currently, there was not the support to say that the 1994-1997 capture rate would continue. It needed to be looked at as part of Metro’s forecast and capture rate analysis and jobs/housing balance analysis that would be done in the next year. She said today, the most defensible number staff suggested to the committee was 70 percent, which was a little higher than experienced over the 20-year period. She noted that in the 1980s, the capture rate was 70 percent in some years. She said there was no conclusion evidence to support changing the capture rate. She noted that staff did a sensitivity analysis of the effect of using the 1994-1997 capture rate (72.6%) instead of 70 percent.

Chair McLain asked the committee for general comments.

Councilor Park asked if the seventy percent capture was within the Metro service boundary or the four-county county.

Ms. Wilkerson said the capture rate was the number of houses or jobs inside the urban growth boundary, as compared to the entire four-county area.

Councilor Park said he was concerned about the relationship between the jobs capture rate and the housing capture rate. He said as time went on and more people commuted into the area, given that the region was not building additional roads, it would become increasingly difficult for people to commute into the region. He said he would like to see Metro affect the relationship somehow. Secondly, he said that he recognized that the environmental placeholders were fluid, legally Metro could not calculate the 200 foot buffers as unbuildable, since in fact, they were buildable. He said the Council needed to count the land as buildable, see what happened with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings, and adjust then. He said he understood Executive Officer Burton’s concerns, but it was not legally defensible to extend a water quality bill to habitat. He said he also had concerns about how Metro treated people’s rights to develop their property.

Councilor Bragdon said one of the major challenges was the difference between the snapshot of what was, and the aspiration of what would be, especially in the area of environmentally constrained lands. He said the Council needed to pay careful attention to these areas, and he agreed with Executive Officer Burton’s comments about numbers translating into quality of life. He noted that there were pitfalls to watch for in how the lands were treated. He said for developers, the worst scenario would be to count all the environmentally constrained lands as buildable, then have the federal government decide they are not buildable, and remove the certainty. Likewise, it would also be bad for Metro to count all the environmentally constrained lands as not buildable, and then discover that the lands were being developed. Councilor Bragdon said that over the summer as the committee reviewed the Urban Growth Report, the attention should be on how environmentally constrained lands are analyzed, what is actually happening, and what should be happening.

Councilor Atherton said in the last Urban Growth Report, the need estimate ranged from 8,000 housing units to more than 40,000 units, and the Council chose to use 32,000 dwelling units. He asked what the range was now.

Ms. Wilkerson clarified that the 32,000 figure was based on the 1997 report, that predated the 8,000 and 40,000. She said the 32,000 figure was based on the 200 foot setbacks and assumptions of the day, using 1994 data. The figures of 8,000 and 40,000 dwelling units were from the Addendum Report published last year, which updated some of the factors, such as vacant land. In the Addendum Report, staff concluded that the need was about 8,000, with Title 3 assumptions, and around 40,000, assuming 200 foot buffers. Subsequent to staff, the Council amended the UGB and added 3,500 acres, which is itself added about 18,000 dwelling units. She added that the range of 8,000 to 40,000 units was the result of changing one factor; with the Urban Growth Report, there were many factors and many ranges. She said it was very complex, but staff and the committee assessed each of the factors and included what they felt was the most defensible position.

Councilor Atherton said Ms. Wilkerson’s answer underscored the extraordinary amount of work Ms. Wilkerson and her staff did, and he applauded their effort. He commented that, although the work could be interesting in the abstract, the fact was that the effort was driven by a mandate from the state legislature. He said the legislature was meddling with the region’s local affairs, and it was not based on creating livable communities, it was built on accommodating growth and keeping land in production for certain economic interest groups. He said Metro was trying to put a good face on it and use it to build livable communities, but the fact was, the mandate put pressure on communities and was not helping them to build livable communities. He said he had a suggestion for the Council. He said a number of communities expressed an interest in adding population and buildable lands inside their urban growth boundary, and that it made eminent good sense for Metro to survey those areas and add those to the lands for inclusion in the urban growth boundary, and remove those lands which had every indication would degrade existing communities.

Chair McLain reviewed that a final report would be produced after more review by MPAC and Growth Management Committee, and then the need assessment would be reviewed through a public process in September. She summarized the committee’s directions to staff. First, the committee was interested, in the future, in looking at subregional needs in the area of jobs and the relationship between jobs and housing in the capture rate. Secondly, in the future, the jobs analysis needed to be more sensitive to the different land needs of different industries. Third, the committee needed to consider how it addresses environmentally constrained lands: what it legally can count as protected, and how to position Metro so that it retains as many opportunities as possible in the future.

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 99-808, AMENDING THE FY 1998-99 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS SCHEDULE IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE PLANNING FUND TRANSFERRING $42,350 FROM CONTINGENCY TO PERSONAL SERVICES TO FUND ANNEXATION PROCESSING SERVICES PURCHASED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Ms. Wilkerson introduced Ordinance No. 99-808. A staff report to the ordinance includes information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon asked if Metro charged fees similar to those charged by the Boundary Commission.

Ms. Wilkerson said the charges were similar in amount, although the method of determining the charge was different.

Councilor Park will carry Ordinance No. 99-808 to the full Metro Council.

4.  UPDATE ON TITLE 3 COMPLIANCE

Mary Weber, Manager of Community Development, Growth Management Services, reviewed the Title 3 compliance status of local jurisdictions. A chart of Title 3 Compliance Status, revised on June 21, 1999, includes information presented by Ms. Weber and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain thanked Ms. Weber for her comments. She said Title 3 went through a separate process from the rest of the Functional Plan, but it was important to integrate it with the rest of the Functional Plan as soon as possible. She said at the Washington County Greenspace Acquisition update last night, Tracey Lee, City of Cornelius City Planner, approached her and Metro staff with the city’s “Green Book,” the report that shows what Washington County would like to do, versus the proposals in Title 3. She said Ms. Lee presented the Green Book in a very public way, and she asked staff to find out if she planned to present it at MPAC on June 23, 1999. She said Ms. Lee distributed it to elected officials for comment, and it was no longer a staff-to-staff document. She asked staff to find out where Cornelius planned to present the Green Book next so that Metro would be ready to respond to questions.

Ms. Wilkerson said Mr. Turpel attended many of the staff meetings and would follow up with Chair McLain. She said she was not aware of any plans to present it to MPAC the next night.

Chair McLain said the plan had been presented to city councils, and Washington County, and was no longer a staff-to-staff document. She said it now had a political life, and Metro needed to be prepared.

Mr. Turpel said he, Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, and Kenneth Helm, Assistant Counsel, all tried to make it clear that a number of items in Cornelius’s plan did not constitute as substantial compliance to Title 3, while still encouraging its progress.

Chair McLain said the Green Book was titled “Substantial Compliance to Title 3,” and the Council needed to formally comment on how the plan did not comply.

Councilor Park asked what Metro could do if a jurisdiction did not comply with Title 3.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said it depended on how the jurisdiction did not comply. He said legal counsel was following the City of Cornelius’s work on Title 3 compliance, and its earlier version of the Green Book included worse options. He said legal counsel had been fairly clear on telling Cornelius staff which aspects of the plan did not comply. The last memo he and Mr. Helm wrote said that not only was Cornelius not in substantial compliance, it was probably not a candidate for exception, and was really asking for an amendment of substantive portions of Title 3. He said after the Cornelius City Council adopted the plan, Metro had the option of appealing to the Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA). Before reaching the level of appealing, though, the Council could adopt a formal interpretation of Metro’s code, whereby some of the indications given to date by staff could be given by the elected Metro Council. In that case, if the Cornelius City Council disagreed with the Metro Council’s interpretation of its own ordinance, it could appeal Metro’s interpretation. If Cornelius did not choose to appeal the interpretation, it would have both a legal and political statement of an interpretation by Metro Council of Metro Council’s own code, and could not continue the fiction based on ignoring staff responses.

Councilor Park asked if there were not any opinions before appealing to LUBA.

Mr. Shaw said the Council could be proactive and do an interpretation action, which would be a final land use action. This way, the Council would have a discussion at MPAC and the Growth Management Committee about the interpretation action, which would give the City of Cornelius the opportunity to defend its plan.

Chair McLain said she liked Mr. Shaw’s suggestion because it continued the conversation about Title 3 with Metro’s partners, and did not automatically go to an appeal process.

Councilor Bragdon noted that the two largest cities in Washington County, and Washington County itself requested extensions, and he asked if there was a pattern there.

Ms. Wilkerson said Washington County and its cities were working as a unit, and staff has tried to address it as a unit at a staff level, but before long, staff would need to discuss it with the Council. She said staff wrote and told the city what it thought of the proposals, with a follow-up legal opinion on the question of substantial compliance. She said staff had been very clear. She said she did not know if Metro staff had seen the latest version of the Green Book, but it may have been amended due to Metro staff’s comments. She said Mr. Turpel would follow up on it, and it may be a topic for further discussion at committee.

Councilor Bragdon urged staff to stay on top of it.

Chair McLain said one section had been changed in the Green Book since the presentation to the managers on June 16. She said she did not know if the changes reflected staff’s comments or reflected Cornelius’s own creativity.

Ms. Weber said she believed the comments from legal counsel were based on what the planning managers saw on June 16. She said she thought the additional work done by United Sewerage Agency (USA) concerned the table, encroachment into the buffer, enhancement and the credits.

Chair McLain said the changes were on the credits. She asked if the plan proposed that she could, for example, fill a flood plain, and then enhance something else, or if it was like a pollution credit, where she could give her pollution credit to another industry.

Mr. Turpel said the plan identified a number of different factors contributing to the problem, so it could potentially address the problem through a number of options, including disconnecting roof drains, sod roofs, and storm water discharge. The plan proposed that if some of those options were done, then the setback from the stream could be reduced. if a portion of a riparian area was already degraded.

Chair McLain said she would work with Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Morrissey to add the issue to the committee’s agenda at an appropriate time. She said she hoped to at least have an update in July or August.

Mr. Shaw asked if the City of Cornelius submitted the Green Book for the June 18, 1999, deadline, or if it asked for an extension on submitting anything.

Ms. Weber said no, the Green Book was not a submittal. The Green Book was done by USA; Washington County did not submit it as its compliance work, but said it needed further refinement.

Mr. Shaw asked if the jurisdictions working together in Washington County submitted anything by deadline.

Ms. Weber said yes, they submitted work plan concerning timelines and portions on necessary amendments to their codes.

Mr. Shaw asked if the jurisdictions submitted a work plan submission for an extension, but did not submit the substance.

Ms. Weber said yes, and added that they were not required to submit the substance.

Chair McLain said she would also like to discuss that further at committee.

5.  JULY - DECEMBER 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKPLAN

Chair McLain said the work plan was not set in stone, and she was not asking for a committee vote. She noted that under July, the plan should include Metro jurisdictional boundary criteria, and she said she would explain it further to MPAC. She said she was required as chair to have Dan Cooper, General Counsel, and Mr. Shaw review it by the end of July.

Ms. Wilkerson said the last draft, which was reviewed by the attorneys, already incorporated some aspects of reflecting new legislation into the work plan. She said staff would have to create a new section of the Code.

Chair McLain agreed, and said to add it to the July list.

Councilor Bragdon said during the committee’s discussion on residential refill rate, the committee asked staff to quantify the obstacles to infill. He said the next step would be look for policies the Council could implement to overcome some of the obstacles.

Ms. Wilkerson said MPAC talked about writing guidelines to help people on how to get to refill.

Chair McLain said Councilor Bragdon raised the issue, after he returned from a conference by the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, of having a growth conference to discuss regulatory, design, and financial barriers. The Council talked about how it could work in coordination with a national conference to further Metro’s mission and work plan by tapping into the national brain trust. She asked staff to add his issue to the work plan.

Councilor Bragdon said the next CNU Conference would be held in Portland in June 2000, and would include designers, developers, and financial people. He said Metro may wish to try to make that expertise available to people in the local area.

Ms. Wilkerson said that would be very interesting, almost in a charrette format, where people could take examples of difficulties they have experienced and ask a small group to work with them for a short time.

Councilor Bragdon said there was a lot of emphasis on charrettes at the recent CNU Conference.

Ms. Wilkerson said design tended to work well with the charrette format, and added that architects especially enjoyed the format.

Chair McLain asked staff to add “neighborhood and livable designs,” to the work plan for 2000. She suggested working toward a discussion of livable design work and livable density issues, in a charrette planning conference. She said it could be part of the Council’s outreach to the public.

Ms. Wilkerson said it would be a positive way to interact with some of Metro’s work on the 2040 Growth Concept. She said she would add it to the list as a first step or update.

Chair McLain asked Ms. Wilkerson to note that it was a Council initiative. She said the Council wanted to showcase Metro’s staff and get a brain trust from other areas.

Mr. Morrissey said as an inner-city resident, watching the recent growth in the Lloyd District, and now the new housing by the railroad station, he was concerned about the lack of including park or openspace in the designs. He said if part of the concept was making development more amenable, then development of parks and openspace should occur along with development.

Chair McLain agreed, and said livable design meant there was openspace, and there would be a component on openspace and park needs and services.

Ms. Wilkerson said the list could also include making a linkage to the Greenspace and Parks Functional Plan work.

Chair McLain agreed, and asked Ms. Wilkerson to talk to Heather Nelson Kent, Regional Parks and Greenspaces, about her recent draft work on the next step after the parks inventory.

Ms. Wilkerson said there was the parks component, but there was also significant work on the master plan for greenspaces, openspace, connectivity, and regional expectations. She said they did a very interesting piece in which they surveyed other communities on their parks initiatives: what worked and did not work. She suggested adding an update to a Growth Management Committee agenda when time allowed.

Chair McLain said for an internal consistency issue, when the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department took its master plans to the Metro Operations Committee, it was thinking of it in terms of management, but Growth Management Services would make the connection integration into long-term planning.

Ms. Wilkerson said the piece done by the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department was called a policy review, and it was a background document to the Functional Plan the department will do. She said Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department had to find a way in the work plan to identify certain times when it can update the Growth Management Committee. She said she would add that to the work plan. She said she also thought of the upcoming work on jobs, capture rate, jobs/housing balance, and forecasting, which would not necessarily come through in this period. She recommended adding those to a running tally, without a date, so that they would not be forgotten.

Chair McLain agreed.

Councilor Park asked whether economic factors were built in under Goal 5. He said it would require significant volunteer cooperation, and the Council needed to determine economic incentives.

Ms. Wilkerson said one of the case studies they had showed that a developer did better economically after he did the set aside for openspace and natural resources, because the property values raised due to the enhanced natural resource area. She said staff could research it further, if the committee wished. She said there was quite a bit of discussion about transfers of density, and the ability to do transfers of density, and staff surveyed land owners in the Metro region. She said it was still in draft form, but she would forward it to the committee soon. She recommended making that connection early.

Councilor Park said he was concerned about the takings issues and private property rights. He said it was the timing of how it was done: if the Council said the property was not buildable, and therefore devalued it prior to the property owner donating that property to a greenspace, versus the timing of allowing that it was developable, yet the property owner would transfer the density and give away a portion of the property, allowing the owner to make the economic incentive to want to do that. On one hand, the Council was taking away all the property value, and on the other, the Council was finding a way to economically make the owner want to do the right things. Additionally, the Council needed to recognize that the owner would simply pay increased property taxes, which would go to Salem, not Metro. He said Metro needed to concentrate on creating mutually beneficial situations, because if Metro could willingly drag reticent property owners who could see the economic benefit of doing the right thing, then Metro would have a better chance of avoiding a LUBA appeal and creating a better product.

Chair McLain mentioned the two full-color maps included in the meeting record: Slopes 25% or Greater, and 1998-1999 Building Permits Issued to Lots with Steep Slopes. As Chair of the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC), Chair McLain asked if Susan Payne, Associate Regional Planner, had reviewed the maps. She asked how the maps related to Title 3 and Goal 5.

Mr. Turpel said the maps were produced by Carol Hall, Senior GIS Planner, and were consistent with the database Ms. Payne used.

Councilor Park asked if staff had overlaid the map of steep slopes with the openspace acquisitions, to see how much is actually developable on slopes greater than 25 percent. He said it appeared the areas with the most steep slopes included Forest Park and the Lava Buttes.

Ms. Wilkerson said the land on the map was the vacant, buildable land, and land already in parks ownership would not be on the map. She said the map of Slopes 25% or Greater showed privately owned land. Looking at historical rates of development, staff found an average development rate of 6.5 dwelling units for every five acres in those areas. She said in some cases, it was due to consolidated or multi-family housing as a result of the difficulty of building on such steep slopes. In other cases, they were large, scenic lots.

Councilor Park asked if all the areas marked as steep slopes were buildable.

Mr. Turpel said staff took the 25 percent slope plans, and then pulled out those covered by Title 3 to produce the map of 1998-1999 Building Permits Issues to Lots with Steep Slopes. He said staff did not feel comfortable giving the Council more details. He recommended that staff analysis it in more detail.

Ms. Wilkerson said the concentration of green and red dots in the northwest area of the building permits map was actually south of Forest Park, such as the Forest Heights neighborhood.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 4:05 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\06229gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 22, 1999

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