METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, July 14, 1998

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Jon Kvistad (Chair), Don Morissette, Rod Monroe

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Ed Washington, Susan McLain (via telephone)

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

1.  PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS PHASE I REPORT

Mark Turpel, Senior Program Supervisor, related the substance of a letter from the Executive Officer updating the urban reserves. A copy of the letter is included in the agenda packet. He reported that Metro staff and local jurisdictions have reviewed the progress, and next phase will be a detailed analysis of approximately 12,000 acres. He briefly summarized a memo from Sumner Sharpe, dated July 10, 1998. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record. He said the colored map of the productivity analysis, included in the meeting record, reflects the changed detailed in Mr. Sharpe’s memo. Also included in the meeting record is an enlarged copy of Table 1: URAs Selected for Phase 2 Analysis, which is attached to Mr. Sharpe’s memo.

Councilor Morissette directed Mr. Turpel’s attention to Table 10 on page 16 of the July 3, 1998, memo from Terry Moore and Bob Parker, which is included in the agenda packet. He asked Mr. Turpel if the full need is actually 9,100 acres.

Mr. Turpel said the full need has not yet been determined. He said there may be further changes to the numbers in Table 10 as the phase 2 analysis progresses.

Councilor Morissette said with 10 units an acre, assuming that 40% will be unbuildable in most areas, the total is 9,100 acres. Mr. Turpel said if the numbers hold, that is correct.

Councilor Morissette asked if the numbers assume a 50 foot buffer, based on the ramifications of Title 3. Mr. Turpel said Table 10 assumes buffers based on Title 3 regulations, and if larger riparian buffers are considered, the numbers in Table 10 will have to be increased. He said Table 3 also shows the effects of 100 and 200 foot buffers.

Councilor Morissette asked if there will be an in depth analysis of the impact of highly partitioned land on the likelihood of accomplishing ten units per acre.

Mr. Turpel said Tables 4 and 5 begin to address Councilor Morissette’s concern. Mr. Turpel said town centers will help increase density, and over a span of twenty years, the housing makeup of areas may change. He said Metro Code language says an average density of 10 units per acre is required, and in areas with town centers or along transit corridors, the density could be higher.

Councilor Morissette said the difficulty in highly partitioned land with fairly substantial structures, such as most of Tier 1, is that the likelihood of higher-end development is small, even over 20 years. He said to meet the numbers, the land that does develop would have to be incredibly dense, or the matter will have to be revisited after time when it does not work.

Mr. Turpel said in looking at Table 5, using $100,000 as the cutoff point, 237 acres are between the size of one to five acres. He said the database allows the Council to determine where the make the cutoff. He said in phase 2 analysis, the consultants will look at this in more detail.

Councilor Morissette asked if phase 2 analysis will estimate the potential density of each urban reserve. Mr. Turpel said the consultants plan to look at the larger sites and divide them into three categories: 1) single family residential, 2) land that is flat and large enough to allow denser urban development, and 3) land in a town center that is flat and large enough to allow denser urban development. He said there are other considerations, such as Goal 14, that will have to be considered.

Councilor Morissette thanked Mr. Turpel and said his explanation will make it easier for the Council to make its decisions in September, because it will know the relative productivity estimates for each urban reserve. He said his only real concern is highly partitioned property, and it may be addressed during phase 2 analysis.

Chair Kvistad asked Mr. Turpel to explain the selection criteria for including urban reserves in phase 2 analysis. Mr. Turpel said there were two main criteria: 1) whether the site is within 1/2 mile of the existing UGB, and 2) its productivity. He said urban reserve #6 includes a portion adjacent to the UGB, but it is a very large piece of land, and staff was aiming for a total of 12,000 acres for analysis.

Councilor Monroe said site #70 in Forest Heights has an 85% productivity rating. He asked why it was removed from phase 2 analysis. Mr. Turpel said he did not know, but he would find out and return with an explanation. He said site #63 was not included because it is a very small piece of land and it drains in a different direction.

Chair Kvistad said there is a potential for a maximum need for up to 10,000 acres. Mr. Turpel agreed. Chair Kvistad asked Mr. Turpel to provide information on service provisions in the urban reserves.

Councilor Morissette said it is hard to develop completely new infrastructures in new areas with the funding available. He said staff should review site #63, as there is a master plan multi-family unit project for the site.

Chair Kvistad asked what it would mean for such a parcel to not be moved into the next phase of analysis. Mr. Turpel said it would be best to be able to present the Council with sufficient capacity to address the identified need of 32,000 dwelling units. He said Metro would be consistent with state law if it adds half the established need this year and asks for phase 2 analysis of additional parcels to meet the remaining need. He said it is still possible to add urban reserves to the UGB that have not been further analyzed; but the assumption is that the sites chosen for phase 2 analysis are likely candidates for expansion.

Chair Kvistad said he wants to discuss the very small parcels to be sure they are addressed consistently.

Councilor Morissette suggested adding the small parcels to the phase 2 analysis, as it would not add many acres to the total 12,000 acres. He said there is a master planned community for site #3. Councilor Morissette recommended adding sites #63, #70 and #3 to the phase 2 analysis, which would add 66 acres to the study. Mr. Turpel said he would check with the consultant.

Councilor Monroe said the only site that appears internally inconsistent with the data given to the committee is site #70. He said he would either like more information on why it was left out of phase 2 analysis, or he would like to include it. He said the exclusion of the other small sites seems consistent with the criteria. He expressed no interest in adding sites #63 and #3 to the phase 2 analysis, but said he would not disagree if the committee wants to include them.

Chair Kvistad asked Mr. Turpel to look at sites #63, #70, and #3, and add them to phase 2 analysis if the aggregate total does not exceed 100 acres.

Councilor Morissette said does not recall a master plan for parcel #70, but Councilor Monroe’s argument for its inclusion is logical. He said he knows of master plans for sites #63 and #3, and he believes the sites meet the criteria.

Mr. Turpel said the consultant expects to complete phase 2 analysis by the first week in September.

2.  CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, updated the committee on the proposed amendments to the Metro Code and identified policy issues for the committee to consider. He distributed the Metro Code 3.01.020 Legislative Amendment Criteria, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. He said the Legislative Amendment Criteria are restatements of State Goals 2 and 14 which must be applied by the Council when it makes a legislative amendment or a major amendment. He said the criteria must be considered even for land currently designated
Tier 1. He said staff will do an alternatives analysis on Tier 1.

Mr. Cooper noted the two criteria added for exceptions: the governance issue and the other master plan criteria 4 through 13. He recommended that if the Council wishes to prevent land that has been added to the UGB from development until the governance issue is resolved or the other concept plans are completed, it could add a regulatory mechanism to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). He said one issue to consider is the status of urban reserves designation, which provides protection for land in urban reserves. He said under state law, these protections go away once the land is brought into the UGB. He said legal counsel is working on conforming amendments to the Regional Framework Plan relating to Tier 1 and concept planning.

Mr. Cooper gave a brief overview of policy issues that had been discussed, and the relationship of Goal 14 and Goal 2 criteria to the three areas identified for possible Code amendments. He said the Council will need to decide if it wishes to prioritize the criteria. He said the Tier 1 issue directly relates to the Goal 2 and Goal 14 alternatives analysis, which the Council will do regardless. He said whether the Council may consider Tier 1 a lower priority than other criteria directly relates to how the Council interprets and intends to apply the Goal 2 and Goal 14 analysis. He said the concept plan requirements in subsections 4 through 13 closely relate in some areas to the Goal 2 and Goal 14 requirement. Regarding the governance issue, he said it is important to identify areas currently in an urban reserve where more than one government is seeking to be the service provider. He noted the Council may wish to address these areas differently than urban reserves for which there is no government that wants to provide services.

Chair Kvistad clarified that there are master planning or concept plan requirements that control land brought into the UGB. Mr. Cooper said the current Code requirements go beyond the minimum set by state law. He said the larger units could be partially master planned before they are brought into the UGB, whereas smaller urban reserves or urban reserves that abut one another should potentially be master planned as a whole.

Chair Kvistad said there are county zoning and county overlays and state requirements, therefore simply making a land use decision does not necessarily mean that no master planning will be done or that there are not requirements on the land. Mr. Cooper said Metro’s Functional Plan authority could be used to guarantee there are requirements after the land is brought in to the UGB if the master plans have not already been completed.

Chair Kvistad clarified that making an urban reserve decision and then making a UGB decision does not open the door to unplanned growth; in fact, it allows the growth in those areas to be planned.

Councilor Morissette said one issue to debate is to what extend Metro will master plan local communities. He said local citizens and jurisdictions should have substantial impact on how their communities should develop. He said he hopes Metro will help communities in a general way with their master plans. Councilor Morissette said the true issue is to what level Metro does reasonable master planning to attain certain goals. He said although he lost the vote on affordable housing, he will be pushing for a rewrite of Metro Code 3.01.012(e)(6) that allows for affordable housing through market incentives rather than subsidizing 80% of the target. He said if the Council is truly committed is to Tier 1 land, some of the master planning requirements will have to be modified because most of the land being master planned is not in Tier 1. He expressed concerns about Metro Code 3.01.012(e)(9), wildlife habitat protection, and he hopes the requirements will be reasonable. He said a 20-year land supply is an important component of providing the region’s citizens with affordable housing.

Chair Kvistad clarified that the code revisions currently before the committee were brought forward by the Executive Officer. He said Councilor Morissette will propose additional Code revisions.

Councilor Morissette said his goal is not to eliminate Metro Code 3.01.012(e)(6), but to make it an attainable goal for Tier 1 property.

Mr. Cooper said Councilor Morissette is raising the issue of how to relate the Code amendments in terms of the Council’s priorities. He said the current conversation has related to leaving the criteria intact, but deferring satisfying them until a later time. He said the Council will need to make findings that the requirements are feasible and set a timeline for completion.

Councilor Morissette said the Functional Plan and state law are significantly different. He said he has heard from a majority of Councilors and some Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) partners that Tier 1 was the priority. He said some of the requirements may make it difficult to add primarily Tier 1 land to the UGB.

Councilor Monroe said he lives near Happy Valley and he is troubled to see that the city is still siting new homes on 1/2 acre and 3/4 acre lots. He said he does not know what action Metro could take, but in his opinion the lots are too large.

Chair Kvistad said the Executive Officer’s proposed amendments to the Metro Code have been presented to MPAC, and MPAC will return to Council with a recommendation. He said he will try to move as much of the discussion on the Code revision to the full Council as possible due to the tight timeline.

Councilor Morissette clarified that the committee has directed the consultant to include urban reserves #3, #63, and #70 in the phase 2 analysis. Councilor Monroe agreed.

Councilor Morissette said Clackamas County is concerned about Southeast 147th Avenue, which has been closed. Mr. Turpel said the road is in site #15 which is included in the phase 2 analysis.

3.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Kvistad adjourned the meeting at 2:40 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1998\grwthmgt\07148gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 14, 1998

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