METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Wednesday, September 8, 1998

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Chair Kvistad called the meeting to order at 1:43 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, AND AUGUST 12, 1998, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

2.  PRESENTATION OF URBAN GROWTH REPORT ADDENDUM

Elaine Wilkerson, Growth Management Services Director, presented an introduction of the Urban Growth Report Addendum which augmented the 1997 report which used 1994 data. (A paper copy of the slides presented can be found with the permanent record of this meeting.) She explained the addendum focused on 3 areas: 1) an update and refinement of the vacant lands analysis which was more accurate and detailed than the previous report, and which had quite a bearing on the inventory of lands, 2) an inventory of actual redevelopment and infill in the last couple of years from which they derived a number, 25.4%, she felt was very dependable and represented the residential refill rate accurately. She proposed this number be used for future analysis instead of the 28.5% used in the last round from the 1997 report; and 3) the constrained land inventory methods. She said methods for evaluating constrained and unbuildable land were reviewed. She said Method 1 assumed a 200’ setback from the centerline of creeks and produced more land than the Title 3 assumptions. Method 2 (Title 3) assumed a setback variable of 15’ to 200’ from streams plus a 50’ setback from wetlands and resulted in deficits and surplus of units and employees that was quite different from Method 1. The difference in land was 5,000 acres gross, but with the normal net factor, it became 3,000 acres unavailable for building based on the analysis. She said that was a policy decision council would make with their advisory committees. She thought it was a very significant issue. Another significant issue they discussed was jobs and how to deal with the jobs/housing balance. She felt they would be in a position to assess the urban growth boundary lands in the next few months. She asked Dennis Yee to review the supply and demand factors of the presentation.

Chair Kvistad noted that the Executive Officer’s recommendations were based more on the modified Method 1 so they were generally on the same track.

Ms. Wilkerson said the Executive’s recommendation did lean toward Method 1, 32,307 units.

Councilor Morissette commented that the 1994 report assumed 55,000 vacant and the updated version said 47,670 acres for a 7,370 acre difference. He asked if that included acres that were developed.

Dennis Yee, Forecasting and Modeling, DRC Department, responded some of the acres had been developed, some went to streets, water and parks.

Councilor Morissette summarized that with development and other uses, the amount of acres less from the 1994 estimate model to 1997’s was 7,370 acres which included all forms of development and changes to the uses to property.

Mr. Yee said yes, that was correct. He said he would be talking about the two main parts of the Urban Growth Report Addendum, the supply calculations and the demand calculations. The supply calculations showed buildable land and how the land converted in terms of dwelling units and employment capacity. He explained the methods used for the calculations and explained the charts.

Councilor Morissette asked if the numbers used were the numbers the council had voted on or if they were factual numbers from records. He felt the underbuild numbers used in the presentation were low although he understood how they were derived.

Mr. Yee continued with the “re-fill” (his shorter term for “redevelopment and infill”) rate. He said the 25.4% rate was different from the 28.5% rate used previously.

Councilor Morissette asked if the 25.4% was taken as a straight line for the 20 years of the forecast on population.

Mr. Yee responded he did.

Councilor Morissette said that was a concern because opportunities were lost in the refill. New opportunities were found also, but that flat rate seemed optimistic to him. He believed the current rate of 25.4% was a good number but felt that to assume that same success over the next 20 years was a concern.

Ms. Wilkerson answered the report indicated their feeling that the in-fill would fall off and the redevelopment would increase so the relationship would gradually change over the 20 year period. She said it was a normal expectation that redevelopment would increase under those circumstances. She said they realized the infill supply would be depleted significantly.

Councilor Morissette said he did not feel the other opportunities would rise to the percentage and meet the needs of what people were looking for to not have a diminishing amount as a percentage in the future.

Mr. Yee said the second add noted was platted lots which was an accounting mechanism to subtract out the number of platted lots from the gross buildable acres. The number of dwelling units that would be built on these platted lots were added back in later, so it was a wash. He finished his presentation of the supply calculations with an explanation of the summary slides that showed the difference in the numbers between the two methods. He talked about the demand forecast, starting with the regional forecast which was the same as the one used before. He said the capture rate was unchanged. The difference was that 3 years of growth had occurred since the last report and the addendum used newer data. He summarized the demand calculation slide. He said, based on previous council decisions, there was a 70% capture rate for dwelling units and an 82% capture rate for jobs.

Councilor Morissette said it was important to note that the numbers were not based on the enormous growth in Clark County.

Mr. Yee summarized the differences between the proposed methods.

Councilor Morissette commented that Mr. Yee did a great job of forecasting although he felt some of Metro’s assumptions were overly optimistic. He congratulated Mr. Yee on his forecasting accuracy.

Chair Kvistad said as a general guideline that they were sticking to methodology 1 less whatever environmental constraints came out. He asked if another update was anticipated.

Ms. Wilkerson said these were the numbers they anticipated using until next fall. There would be a peer group review next week to identify any adjustments that needed to be made. She was not anticipating any changes, however.

Councilor Monroe summarized the addendum used the numbers from 2 years ago because they had now used a more conservative percentage in terms of redevelopment and infill which caused the need to push the boundary out. Then the infill and redevelopment early on would be mostly from infill where there were tag lots, etc. , and later, as some of the existing small homes on big lots got old and were torn down, more dense development could happen, which would be the redevelopment activity she was talking about.

Ms. Wilkerson said they had identified a new form of development which had much higher value than current development. She said over a 20 year period you would see a significant amount of redevelopment in town centers and station areas. She said that was a significant amount of the development that would be experienced within the urban growth boundary but it started slowly because people liked to see examples of success before they took big risks. She felt this region was lucky to have so many people who had already taken those big risks trying to show the way. She thought there would be quite a shift seen over time as the housing and building stock aged.

Councilor Morissette interjected that, in his experience, infill and redevelopment was much more expensive than doing it other ways. He said it was hard to work around existing structures and people near them. He said there was a lot more to be done to appease the people where you were building. The additional burden of taking down the old structure could stifle the very development you wanted to have happen. He said that was one of the biggest impediments he could see. He cited the east side lightrail as another example of slow development due to the high expectation for unit density. He said that project went a lot of years with very little redevelopment and infill which would have been encouraged if the process had gradually built the redevelopment and reuse. He believed the affordable housing ordinance to be another problem besides the replacement ordinance which ran smack into the concern about taking the old homes down. He said it could work if it was flexible but his fear was that it wouldn’t be and ultimately those 25.4% numbers wouldn’t be reached and we would wonder why. He said the replacement ordinance would be a big reason why the numbers were down.

Councilor Monroe said he had done this type of redevelopment twice before and they would need everyone’s cooperation.

Ms. Wilkerson said they had yet to recognize Goal 5, the Fish and Wildlife Habitat work, which would potentially limit some lands also. Rather than just swing to the first step which was our Title 3, she thought the idea of going somewhere between the Title 3 and the 200’ assumptions would be a recognition that there would be more lands potentially constrained by future environmental policy decisions of the Metro Council and the different municipalities in the area. She felt that would more accurately represent the long term. She said they were trying to recognize what they were doing in the next couple of years would have impact over the next 20 years.

Chair Kvistad said they also had to keep in mind the federal stream setbacks for endangered species was up to 500’ so the 200’ they were talking about was a middle ground and would depend on what the federal listings and requirements were. He wanted to be clear that the proposal from the Executive was the floor, not the ceiling, of where they were going. He said they were trying to hit somewhere in that balance as best they could.

Councilor Morissette asked if the federal listing on steelhead had flexibility to find solutions.

Ms. Wilkerson said they had not yet identified the regulations they wanted to apply. She said they anticipated working on that over the next year. She said the 500’ the Chair was referring to had been stipulated in a couple of situations but they did not know what would be stipulated in an urban setting.

Councilor Morissette asked Ms. Wilkerson if she knew of any time where the feds had been prescriptive and said nothing could happen in a certain strip or did they usually allow some solutions.

Chair Kvistad said the Seattle area was spending about $2 billion on preliminary mitigation steps. The governor’s plan about stream corridor protection was recently rejected. He felt the council’s 2 biggest concerns were the listing of species above the dam, which looked like it would happen if it hadn’t already, and what would happen if the federal government did not recognize the local plan, how they could lay it out. He said he thought the Seattle plan had laid it out at 500’ but it had not yet been implemented. He said 500’ was different along the Willamette or Johnson Creek or Fanno Creek. He said they knew what was coming in terms of federal protections and to not build that into these calculations would be a mistake.

3.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Kvistad adjourned the meeting at 2:17 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Acting Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1998\grwthmgt\09088gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1998

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